It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tea Party Exposed

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN
The TEA party and 9/12 movements were all started as a Grassroot effort to take back the Republic. I fell off the waggon when the establishment republicans came in a took it over.

My plan it to Vote and encourage others to vote anti-incumbant and get all new people elected.

No more politicians we need public servants.


Well it isn't really working since O'donnel got elective for the right for the November election. She has tried for the past 5 years!




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Ignorance_Defier
 

All I can say is, don't run for office. You just might get a rude awakening as I feel the average plumber will be able to see through the doublespeak.
Yes, I am one of those that do not want your "progressive" ideas to further ruin my life. If that is limiting your "liberty", then so be it. Like all of the other T.E.A. Party people that vote, I will use my "liberty" to restrict your "liberty" to impose your progressive beliefs on me. Of course, you may retain them, just as Palin may retain hers.
The voters will decide which belief system is "scarier", as fear seems to be the entree served up by the entrenched parties, and by yourself I might add.




The biggest public fear-monger right now is probably Glenn Beck... and he essentially orchestrates the larger tea-party protests. So who's the one peddling fear? The propaganda spewing from Beck is currently more dangerous than either of the entrenched parties, because he's misusing language, rewriting history, LYING and combining it all with little nuggets of truth and strong emotional triggers in people. His agenda is laughable to anybody who knows the facts... but the fact that it's convincing people of some terrible left-wing commie conspiracy is dangerous. THERE IS NO LEFT-WING COMMIE CONSPIRACY... there are very few actual Communists and they're not well received by most left-wingers.

Your loathing of "progressive" ideas is counter-productive to what you should want. Progressive ideas have historically provided the most benefits/protections/rights to the most people, namely underdogs, the oppressed, the underclass, workers, the middle class, minorities, women, children, seniors, you name it... except maybe for the wealthy plutocrats, but they've already got plenty of pals in the government, especially on the Republican side. Oh and just so you know- those wealthy plutocrats hijacked the tea-party movement very early on, probably before you even got involved, so just keep your wits about you if you get involved.

videocafe.crooksandliars.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Ignorance_Defier
 



Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier

“In what specific ways do you see these people as being anti-liberty and anti-freedom? “

liberty |ˈlibərtē|
noun ( pl. -ties)
1 the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views :

The Tea Party people want to use oppressive restrictions upon us, think about Palin when she says "this nation needs christian morals".


Was that definition for me or a visual aide to help you try to retain focus on a matter about which you seem woefully uneducated?

So, then, do you not think that passing a law that requires people to purchase insurance is not an “oppressive restriction imposed by authority on one’s way of life or behavior?” If so, then you would equally not mind the government mandating that you must, say, buy a GM vehicle, correct?

How do you define “Christian morals?” Do you think the phrase means that there are people out there who are going to demand that you attend Christian religious services? I read of and hear many speak out against “Christian morals,” yet they do not or cannot define exactly what it is they object to.

I would say you’re missing the point of Palin’s intent with that statement (and, no, I am not a Palin supporter, either). Back when the majority of the citizens of this Country observed what are referred to as “Christian morals,” whether they were practicing Christians or not, we had less crime, less divorce, less juvenile delinquency, less unwed mothers (hence less fatherless children), etc. I believe Palin’s intent with that phrase was that Americans need to return to the higher moral standards we once had for ourselves and one another. It might interest you to know that Islam also has high moral standards, as does Judaism, Buddhism, etc. At the end of the day, when speaking of high moral standards, you will find little difference in any of the major religions. You will also find that Americans, taken as a whole, have very low moral standards. People around the world are laughing at us because of that … or were you not aware of that, either?


Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
They are anti-freedom because they want us not to be free to make this country more progressive.


So, to you “progressive” means “freedom?” Marxism was and is considered very “progressive.” So was/is communism. Do you have any historical evidence that either of those result in MORE freedom?

Governmental regulation always, ALWAYS, results in less individual freedom. That has been historically proven over and over again. The TEA Party wants LESS government interference in private lives. Less government interference in private lives equates to MORE individual freedom.

The passing of the Health Care Bill, for example, was a very “progressive” event. Does it give you more freedom? Absolutely not. It will give you an opportunity to be fined if you don’t do as the new law says. It will provide an opportunity to tax you above and beyond what you are already taxed if you do not comply with that new law. Do you find to be more freedom?

The federal government does NOT have the right or authority to force every American to buy a good or service. To pass that bill into law was an expansion of governmental power that was unprecedented and, rather than it creating more of the freedom of which you speak, it TOOK freedom away from citizens.

Let’s look again at your statement of “…they want us not to be free to make this country more progressive.” What does that mean? It means this: You want THEIR movement stopped because it would limit YOUR freedom to make this Country more progressive. It matters not to you that stopping their movement limits THEIR freedom. Are you familiar with Newton’s Three Laws of Motion? Check out the third one.


Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
“Do you have a link to a reputable source that explains your comments that they want to ban alcohol? I've not heard anything about that.” Yes Sharron Angle has said this in her campaigns.


Your statement of “Yes, Sharron Angle has said this in her campaigns” is neither a link nor a reputable source. THIS is a link: web.archive.org... Specifically it is a link to the archived article from whence your (and Harry’s Reid’s website) took a quote and utterly twisted it. In that article, Angle is quoted as saying:

“I would tell you that I have the same feelings about legalizing marijuana, not medical marijuana, but just legalizing marijuana,” Angle offered. “I feel the same about legalizing alcohol.

“The effect on society is so great that I’m just not a real proponent of legalizing any drug or encouraging any drug abuse,” she continued. “I’m elected by the people to protect, and I think that law should protect.”

Now, personally, I am FOR the legalization of marijuana. That’s neither here nor there, but I say that for the purpose of also telling you that there is nothing in what Angle said that even remotely so much as hints at banning alcohol. Any rational-minded, thinking individual would probably pick up on the salient fact that no one running for office in Nevada is going to want to ban alcohol. Where, exactly, would that leave the casinos?

Angle made a statement of her personal beliefs (and if you read the article you will see that). That is all. In other words, it if were ALL left up to her (and it isn’t) and had she been around at the time (and she wasn’t) she would not have voted to legalize alcohol. Prohibition has been tried. It did not work. The chances of prohibition being tried again are somewhere right in between ridiculous and ludicrous.


Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
“Who are you saying wants to eliminate the middle class?” They do they want to give tax cuts to the top 2%(those who make over 250,000k per year and not give tax cuts to anyone else.


Okay, your utter ignorance on that one is nearly more than one can take in. No. At this time, members of the TEA Party, most members of the GOP, over 80% of American citizens, and as of a few days ago, many, many elected Democrats want NONE of the tax cuts to expire.

But let’s look at your “top 2%.” How many poor people do you know who provide jobs for others? Think about it carefully so that you do not accidentally overlook anyone. How many people do you know with an income of say, $60,000/yr are able to provide a job to someone else? Going on: how many people do you know with an income bracket of $100,000 - $200,000 who provide jobs to others?

Our (as in the U.S.) employers are already incredibly burdened with an avalanche of new taxes and expenses imposed upon them by the government thanks to the Health Care law ~ those are new taxes above and beyond the burdensome taxes they already labored under. Do a little research to see how many major companies have had to lay off large numbers of people in order to comply with those new laws, many of which impacted them immediately. Now, how many more will they have to lay off if the tax cuts are allowed to expire?

Businesses are not just random acts of companies forming out of fog. There are individuals behind ALL of them ~ individuals who pay taxes. The more taxes they have to pay, the less operating money they have. The less operating money they have, the fewer people they are able to employ. The fewer people who have jobs, the worse our Depression is going to get.

So, come to think of it, though it is NOT what the TEA Party proposes (as you erroneously believe/state), it actually WOULD make more sense to allow those in the lower tax brackets to have their tax cuts expire because they do not employ anyone, cannot offer a job to anyone, etc.

As of April 15, 2009, over 43% of Americans pay NO taxes or, worse, they “get back” tax money that they never paid in at all. www.cbsnews.com... (that’s another link, by the way)

The wealthy (and, believe me, I am NOT one of them) pay the vast majority of taxes already. You would have them pay more? Why? Wouldn’t you rather them be allowed to use their money to give people jobs?

By the way, it is the current state of governing that is destroying/eliminating the middle class. It is over taxation that will eliminate the middle class. It is mandated purchasing that will eliminate the middle class. Limited government has NEVER eliminated the middle class. There is a very good opinion piece at www.2theadvocate.com... wherein the writer states “I reject the current definition of classes in this country and redefine them as the producing class, the nonproducing class and the plundering class.” I recommend you read the entirety of that article. Read it carefully and more than once.


Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
“Who do you think owns the Federal Reserve?” A private company.


Do you know just HOW private it is? Who is responsible for it? By what means does it “create” money? What backs the money it creates? How does it tie to taxpayer funds? Who profits from it? Under which portion of the Checks & Balances does it operate? What is fiat currency?


Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
“What do you mean by "2nd amendment remedies for those in congress?" This was stated by Sharron Angle in an interview when she said that there are domestic enemies in congress and if they don't win in november this is what they result to.


I did not ask you who said it; I asked you what YOU meant by it. You’re the one who brought it up; I wanted your opinion/take/interpretation of it. Given your inability to provide a link, much less any original thought or credible information, I had to go looking for it myself.

While I don’t know much at all about Ms. Angle, I would say that she is correct in her assessment that there are, indeed, domestic enemies currently in Congress.

Her remark to which you made reference can be found here: voices.washingtonpost.com... (that’s yet another link; you should be able to recognize them by now). From the article:
“Asked by the host, Lars Larson of Portland, Oregon, where she stands on Second Amendment issues, Angle replied:
“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.”
“I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”
“Larson says Angle was floating the possibility of armed insurrection if Congress keeps it up under Reid et al.”
Notice that last part. “LARSON SAYS.” Angle said nothing about if they didn’t win. “LARSON says Angle was floating the possibility of an armed insurrection.” It was not Angle who implied insurrection. It was LARSON.

ANGLE said the Second Amendment was there for the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. She is correct. She is also correct about what Jefferson said. NOTICE she said she hopes that is NOT where we are going.

YOU are spreading disinformation. Tsk, tsk, tsk.


Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
I encourage you to do some of your own research on this. These people want to ruin this country!


Indeed, there are people who want to ruin this Country.

I encourage you to do some of your own research on this.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

Your post is just the same tired left vs. right crap that fills people's minds with, well, crap. The old duality in politics that doesn't work for anyone but the power brokers, even the ones the progressives claim to be helping are seeing through the lies.
The progressives have created dependency on the government, which in my mind is completely backwards from where we should be. Gradually the poor will realize they are getting nothing but poorer. They have been sold a lie. Both parties are pillaging the wealth of our nation, while we bicker.
Left VERSUS right, the key word of course is versus. How about the people VERSUS the corrupt criminals?
You can stay in your left vs. right paradigm and pretend that I am clueless, or your enemy, or both. You can claim that I am a Glenn Beck fan because you are supposed to believe that, not because of anything I have posted. You are playing the game quite well.
Rather than play games, I am more interested in getting the criminals out of office.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

Your post is just the same tired left vs. right crap that fills people's minds with, well, crap. The old duality in politics that doesn't work for anyone but the power brokers, even the ones the progressives claim to be helping are seeing through the lies.
The progressives have created dependency on the government, which in my mind is completely backwards from where we should be. Gradually the poor will realize they are getting nothing but poorer. They have been sold a lie. Both parties are pillaging the wealth of our nation, while we bicker.
Left VERSUS right, the key word of course is versus. How about the people VERSUS the corrupt criminals?
You can stay in your left vs. right paradigm and pretend that I am clueless, or your enemy, or both. You can claim that I am a Glenn Beck fan because you are supposed to believe that, not because of anything I have posted. You are playing the game quite well.
Rather than play games, I am more interested in getting the criminals out of office.




I was railing against the left-right paradigm before it became a popular talking point, so I don't need an education on the failings of the right-versus-left game. HOWEVER, just because the game is regrettable does NOT mean that it doesn't still exist, nor does it mean that people still dont identify with it or shut their minds off because of it. That's what I see in the Tea Party... most of the people are merely being lead down paths without much critical thinking. They BELIEVE they're thinking critically, hearing the facts, and fighting the man, but in many ways the opposite is true. The LEGITIMATE anger of the right-wing populace is being hijacked as it has always been hijacked by wealthy banking/business interests. Of course they've cloaked the movement in conspiracy-paranoia and disguised the movement as fighting TPTB, and it wasn't very hard to do this. Even when you POINT OUT that many Tea Party events, beliefs and backers are spawned by the worst elites, people still stick their heads in the sand and call you a commie... so THAT is why I'm playing the left-versus-right game, not because I want to but because so many self-identified right-wingers DO NOT WANT to unite, they want to be ANTI-everything that the Left is... which is NOT an intelligent, enlightened, or scientific way to think. Personally I'd love if right and left wing activist/resistance movements united and found common ground... but as of yet, there is lock-step resistance to this and mostly on the right.

What is your grand solution for all those poor, underclass workers out there who get f*cked over by both government and business? Do you SERIOUSLY think that de-regualtion and corporate rights is going to help them out? We already know what happens in heavily de-regulated economies- businesses/markets become tyrannies against the populace. Same story, different powers. This is why I'm an Anarchist... and this is why Tea Partiers are woefully naive to think that modern Capitalist markets will just figure everything out for us and that social programs are somehow magically holding people back (instead of giving them a leg-up). So long as governments and large-scale/centralized economies exist, we need government regulations or AT LEAST the removal of laws that prevent the populace from violently opposing businesses/property. If Monsanto is poisoning citizens and the government grants Monsanto immunity from regulations while at the same time granting them corporate rights/personhood (which is a serious evil that right-wing industry think tanks are pushing for) and on top of THAT the government will prosecute/arrest citizens if they try to put a stop to the poisoning, whether violently or not, then how can this be just? How is that about freedom? It's not. We must either have total/intelligent dismantling of hierarchies in BOTH markets and governments, or we must increase the checks and balances between them, which currently is WAY more in favor of big business than it should be. THAT is why lobbyists have taken over our Congress, THAT is why the people have a weak voice in our own representative government- because private sector lobbying (i.e. legalized bribery) is allowed/unregulated/powerful and has taken over our government.... which leads to further de-regulation so that these same businesses can do whatever they want without consequences. We don't need LESS regulation on big business, that's f*cking INSANE! We need MORE regulation on big business and LESS on individual citizens.

So who exactly are the "criminals" you want to vote out of government and how do you know you won't elect a whole new breed of em? How do you know it wont be business as usual?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Q. What is the Tea-Party ?

A. It is a citizen movement to reestablish good government according to the Constitution of the United States.

Q. What are it's main goals

A. a. Lower taxes for all citizens
b. Representation of the people by those elected
c. No corruption, no earmarks, no favors, no political free bees.
d. Free market principles, the right to earn what ever you can and keep what you work for.
e. no cap & trade
f. Strong national defense, American exceptionalism
g. NO COMMUNISM, no socialism.
H. Secure borders, no amnesty for illegals, enforcement of US immigration laws.


You will notice there is no witchcraft there, or points on masturbation. Since it is a movement and not a party, no one person can claim ownership of it. It includes republicans, democrats, independents alike. Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

The question we need to ask this November, is, do you want to run your life, or have the government do it for you.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


Direct and to the Point ,..........Well said .










posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

I am not going to pretend that I have a grand solution that will solve the problems of the underclass, or even the middle class. The only people that can do that are politicians and con artists, or is that being redundant?
We, you and I and everyone else that is not born into privilege and groomed to "lead", are victims of the collective wisdom of our fellow man, long before we are victims of the government. If the majority of our fellow men are uneducated, and easily led, then the educated and NOT so easily led become the minority of the GOVERNED, allowing the worst elements in society to rise to the top in politics and oppress us all.

The greatest challenge, and the first (and maybe ONLY) objective for anyone in politics is to win the hearts and minds of the voter. If we can educate the voter, they are less likely to be a victim of con artists.

Whether you are an individualist that merely wants equal opportunity and very limited government, or a collectivist that believes that the wealth of a nation should be divided equally among all by the force of a popular government, an anarchist that believes in the raw will of the ungoverned, or more commonly, a CORPORATIST that will say anything to get elected while being funded by international mega corporations,

you should be HONEST about your intentions when running for office.

Honesty and integrity trumps ideology because we simply have almost NO honesty and integrity at this point. Let's get THAT back first.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 

I am not going to pretend that I have a grand solution that will solve the problems of the underclass, or even the middle class. The only people that can do that are politicians and con artists, or is that being redundant?
We, you and I and everyone else that is not born into privilege and groomed to "lead", are victims of the collective wisdom of our fellow man, long before we are victims of the government. If the majority of our fellow men are uneducated, and easily led, then the educated and NOT so easily led become the minority of the GOVERNED, allowing the worst elements in society to rise to the top in politics and oppress us all.

The greatest challenge, and the first (and maybe ONLY) objective for anyone in politics is to win the hearts and minds of the voter. If we can educate the voter, they are less likely to be a victim of con artists.

Whether you are an individualist that merely wants equal opportunity and very limited government, or a collectivist that believes that the wealth of a nation should be divided equally among all by the force of a popular government, an anarchist that believes in the raw will of the ungoverned, or more commonly, a CORPORATIST that will say anything to get elected while being funded by international mega corporations,

you should be HONEST about your intentions when running for office.

Honesty and integrity trumps ideology because we simply have almost NO honesty and integrity at this point. Let's get THAT back first.



I can agree with a lot of what you said.

As an Anarchist, however, I'm not sure that honesty/integrity is ultimately possible/sustainable in large centralized governments and economies. Such hierarchies are too prone at their roots to bureaucracy, complexity, corruption, mismanagement, selfishness, and lies to be simply tweaked or reformed to some good ol' day or some bright new future. Ultimately I believe we need to dismantle governments/economies/hierarchies in the most intelligent/peaceful/sustainable ways possible. However, so long as these power/wealth structures exists, I will support or resist reforms/elements/policies which I find to be acceptable or unacceptable.

To restore ANY semblance of honesty/integrity to our government, we DESPERATELY NEED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. We need to take lobbyists (especially corporate) OUT of our government and outlaw legalized bribery. We also need much more transparent elections and government in general. We need stronger pushes towards sustainable self-sufficiency, balanced budgets, and a balancing of power/wealth amongst the populace. I'm not saying everybody should necessarily make the SAME amount of money, but we must also realize that our system isn't necessarily logical, fair, or just in how wealth is distributed anyway, so we must work to balance that out in a way that provides the most benefit to the most people. A lot of serious crime/suffering would be eliminated if people didn't have to worry so much about food to eat, paying bills, and general financial security. We must eliminate corporate personhood (as I stated/linked previously). We must also vastly increase the percentage of the populace that votes.

Regardless though... I don't believe our entire civilization is very sustainable, humane, or free. So... at the end of the day the whole struggle to improve our current society seems fairly circular/idiotic/insane, especially when we dont adopt radical changes and only minor band-aids/reforms/programs that do nothing to solve our systemic problems. The way I see it, we're heading off a cliff... and probably within this century, so all of our current political squabbles might be rendered meaningless in the relatively near future.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
What do you mean you make the argument first since you posted it. And who did I vote for in 2008?? Who?!?!?
Okay ready: Cynthia McKinney.

Was that your guess?!?


You need to change your name after voting that way and then telling people you did.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Tea Partiers are Republicans who had to adopt a new name after their they were exposed for what they are, and what their party did when they had power.

Tea Partiers are pawns and walking parrots with signs and are talking points for FOX "News".

Tea Partiers are worried about this communist party or that socialist party, and are too damn ignorant to know how many laws there are, let alone what they are, and are too distracted by their own ideologies to truly assess the current situation for themselves.

Tea Partiers regurgitate what they are brainwashed braindirtied into believing and subserviant to their wildest fears.

Tea Partier,
How many laws are there, specifically?
What do all those laws mean when held in context with eachother simultaneously?

Tea Partiers are labellers of this type of government or that type of government and are essentially ignorant of what the laws are and what is going on. period.

I wish Tea Partiers would leave America if they don't like it. Go back you ya'll came from you GOP recycled name calling dependency provoking proponents of catch phrases and key point spouting FOX news' missionaries.

peace,
et


Tea Party



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Oh for heavens sake, another one? Do the tea parties really scare you people that much?


Frankly, the absence of any real ideas for the economy and such is bad enough, but now they want to ban alcohol and masturbation? Who wants to live a life like that... They certainly lost my vote



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove
A. a. Lower taxes for all citizens


Then stop supporting spending on Globalist agendas. Stop being proponents of a system that does not account for billions of dollars that were lost in the last decade.



b. Representation of the people by those elected

What Representation? Why are Tea Partiers wanting to pay taxes to pay the salaries of law makers when NO Tea Partier born today will live long enough to learn the laws that already exist? Sounds insane to me.



c. No corruption, no earmarks, no favors, no political free bees.

Define corruption, and re-assess the current situation.


g. NO COMMUNISM, no socialism.


What are the specific number of laws, and how do they equate to freedom?



H. Secure borders, no amnesty for illegals, enforcement of US immigration laws.


Tea Partiers ARE Communists!!

Mr Gorbachev tear down this wall!!!



Reagan at Brandenburg Gate - "tear down this wall"






edit on 22-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Esoteric Teacher
 

It's a bunch of BS. They made russia comunist, the very people talking. The zionists, communism blaming communism, it's funny. The notion of communism was imported from the west to the east to have an enemy. Ironical as this may sound it's the other way around. The notion of mother land , MU or lemuria was the very notion of the east until they came and twisted it. The west is the communist side, the assimilator into the colective, what we see today. It's all from zion and zion is full with snakes. You can imagine how many lies these people promote, who knows what else they hide behind closed doors.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

That's funny that you posted this comment.
I just posted this link on another thread,

aztlan.net...

The Protocols of Zion. Pretty much a blueprint for what you are talking about.



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Frankly, the absence of any real ideas for the economy and such is bad enough, but now they want to ban alcohol and masturbation? Who wants to live a life like that... They certainly lost my vote


Do you have links to articles and/or vids proving the TEA Party wants to ban alcohol and masturbation?

Or are you just twisting information (again) and spreading that skewed information (again)?

We both know the answer to that last question. What i don't understand is why you work so hard to spread untruthful information and what i am genuinely curious to know is: In what way does it benefit you or anyone else to spread misinformation?



posted on Sep, 22 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeesFar
Do you have links to articles and/or vids proving the TEA Party wants to ban alcohol and masturbation?

Or are you just twisting information (again) and spreading that skewed information (again)?


No, I'm posting the truth. Here:

Make alcohol illegal, and ban spouses from having jobs simultaneously


Angle gave to Liberty Watch magazine in February 2010, in which she suggested support for making alcohol consumption illegal
...
Angle suggested pretty clearly that it is unacceptable and wrong for both parents to actually hold jobs simultaneously.


What a fruitcake.

As to O'Donnell anti-masturbation crusade and her work for a body that seeks to instill "biblical principles in all aspects of public policy", do yourself a favor and learn how to Google.

I'm sorry that your idols look and act like wingnuts.



edit on 22-9-2010 by buddhasystem because: typo



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Thanks for the post! I forgot about this thread for a while. Yes, it goes back to my original point; many tea party(ers) are misinformed on their own "movement", most of the candidates are radical fundamentalist. I am starting to think it is going ruin any chance for the righties in 2012.

The tea party should run as the tea party not the republican party.



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Ignorance_Defier
What do you mean you make the argument first since you posted it. And who did I vote for in 2008?? Who?!?!?
Okay ready: Cynthia McKinney.

Was that your guess?!?


You need to change your name after voting that way and then telling people you did.


Why is that so? Change my name, I am not afraid of myself. I am proud of who I vote for as I think they represent me best. As should anyone, including those who vote for people like Sharon Angle and Christina O'Donnel.

Even though Angle wants to ban alcohol & O'Donnel thinks Tzars are an obama thing (when they were first appointed by Reagan) and that the constitution declaring that the USA can't appoint nobility is the same as the Tzars. Goes back to one of my points that most Tea Party people don't understand the constitution.

Also they don't know geography, $arah Palin once said that Africa was a country!



posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by pepsi78
 

That's funny that you posted this comment.
I just posted this link on another thread,

aztlan.net...

The Protocols of Zion. Pretty much a blueprint for what you are talking about.




The protocols of zion? really? You know how many times those have been debunked? That is anti-Semitic propaganda.

Are you pro-con or neutral on the tea party?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join