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.

 

New low for the Tea Party

page: 24
32
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by muse7
 


And?

Give me PROOF that this was written by a Tea Party member or someone that claims they are one! Till then I have my odds on You..........



4 to 1 odds.....


edit on 11-8-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


If he takes you up on it, I want in - I could use the money!

A new low, indeed! No proof, just a claim, and we are supposed to believe it.




posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 06:32 AM
link   
FWIW - the anger about the Tea Party association really isn't the fault of the OP - it's the fault of the person who wrote the article the OP is based upon. The OP used the same title - except he/she was polite enough to change it from "New Low for the Tea Baggers" to "New Low for the Tea Party".

Given that ATS, staff and members alike, tend to point out when threads are titled differently than their source material? I think a benefit of the doubt moment does exist here.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
ohhhh no the OP put the words (teeeeparrty ) in his original post that means your on obama irs list & will be contacted , thats y i didnt spell it correctly lol, anytime hetero middle class white people group up , every group see's them as a threat ,& they must be evil ,



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


This site and really this country could use more rationale such as yours, everything tends to fall into categories of grey rather than black or white. Didn't the Gestapo start as community police?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


I've not seen this, I don't think it's a governmental entity of any kind. This seems like an individual case by who knows what group of people. I agree though, it's just plain silly.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by crazyewok
 



And what about the vulnrable and ill?
Those are the only people we should be subsidizing. I don’t see anything wrong with cutting the rest off.

The system wasn’t designed to support hundreds of millions….it was designed to support 2-4% of citizens who can’t support themselves. As far as unemployment, there has to be a limit. I don’t live in DC; I live in the real world, so I understand there is no limitless supply of money. What Obama and his ilk are doing is unsustainable. We can make tough choices now or collapse later....that's what it comes down to.



Yes its gone from basic support like food to insuring a standard of living. And every time you turn around they are raising the poverty level......which now includes lack of cable tv and free phones.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



You should be happy with the current state of things then as jails are currently the first line of treatment for the mentally ill in the US.

Jail isn't the type of "institution" I was referring too. I was referring to a mental hospital. Historically that is where crazy people go. Jail is reserved for criminals.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Hefficide
 



You should be happy with the current state of things then as jails are currently the first line of treatment for the mentally ill in the US.

Jail isn't the type of "institution" I was referring too. I was referring to a mental hospital. Historically that is where crazy people go. Jail is reserved for criminals.


And I said if your going to take the freedom away from people who have done nothing wrong these insititutions better be places of absolute luxoury as compensation for loss of freedom.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by sonnny1
 


This site and really this country could use more rationale such as yours, everything tends to fall into categories of grey rather than black or white. Didn't the Gestapo start as community police?



Community organizers/community police what's the difference.


But really are you going to suggest that folks wanting some public accountability of where their tax money is going are closet Gestapo? That sort of classically desperate hyperbole coming from the core of a very powerful political party in this country is why I keep an eye on my 2nd amendment rights.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



If a crazy person as you so eloquently put it hasnt done anything wrong and has shown no disposition to violence then why should they have there freedom taken away?
I didn't coin the term, I repeated it. If a person is crazy, that means they are a danger to them self and others. That word is reserved for....well....crazy people.



If you are going to lock innocents up you better be willing to give them such amazing treatment it compensates there loss of freedom. Like top luxory treatment.
I don't want to go around locking up people for no reason.


Maybe you should go back and read the post I was responding to and put what I said in context.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



This site and really this country could use more rationale such as yours, everything tends to fall into categories of grey rather than black or white. Didn't the Gestapo start as community police?
While I don't disagree with you that sonnny1 is 'the man', I must point out that just because someone feels strongly about something doesn't mean they don't care or don't see the shades of grey. Some of us just aren't wishy-washy and have to draw a line in the sand for the country before feel-good liberal policies milk us dry.

I think I'm going to run for office. Can I count on your vote, Kali? Who is with me????


In 2016 it could be Ted Cruz/seabag. That's the dream team!!



edit on 13-8-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Well, even though the title had tea party it, it didn't stop the op from taking his stance that it could be. His position was to defend it outright. See page 1. He even added his tea party video. It was shown to him that many hate groups operate in this way.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Hefficide
 



You should be happy with the current state of things then as jails are currently the first line of treatment for the mentally ill in the US.

Jail isn't the type of "institution" I was referring too. I was referring to a mental hospital. Historically that is where crazy people go. Jail is reserved for criminals.


I do realize that you did not mean jail - but I did wish to point out that jail, currently is serving as our ad hoc mental hospital system... All said in the hope to bring this issue to light with conservatives and liberals alike.


Wrong is wrong - regardless of political persuasion or affiliation.

Now if we could just the jerks in Congress to debate as we do here? Maybe something good for all of us might actually end up happening.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
It is hard to believe that any intelligent person would still be defending the "Tea Party". Doesn't using the argument that "well that doesn't represent everyone in the Tea Party" over and over get kind of old? After you say that about multiple events, doesn't it at some point actually do start to represent the entire movement?

Also, don't people realize now that the Tea Party was just a ploy by the GOP as an anti-Obama movement and it is now dead? No one cares about the Tea Party anymore, the "Tea Party" candidates that got elected are looked at as some of the dumbest and worst politicians in our history and they didn't do well in the last election.

The Tea Party was an experiment, and yes it was a racist experiment, think of it as "The Southern Strategy 2.0", except this time it was national and not geographically specific. The experiment failed and it spells the doom for the GOP, a reboot of "The Southern Strategy" failed and that is why they are now attempting to court the latino vote.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
OK, I admit, I'd like to say something when I'm working the register at our little grocery store.

customer: "This is on Food Stamps."
me: "That's funny, I don't see any food."

We should be truthful and rename them Sugar Stamps



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by gentledissident
OK, I admit, I'd like to say something when I'm working the register at our little grocery store.

customer: "This is on Food Stamps."
me: "That's funny, I don't see any food."

We should be truthful and rename them Sugar Stamps


You are angry at the wrong set of people.

The fact is that it is cheaper to buy junk food than it is to buy healthy food. So if you are on a fixed budget and using food stamps, you may be forced to buy junk food to feed your family instead of buying healthy food.

Be angry at the food industry, not people trying to feed their kids on what little they have.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlienScience

Originally posted by gentledissident
OK, I admit, I'd like to say something when I'm working the register at our little grocery store.

customer: "This is on Food Stamps."
me: "That's funny, I don't see any food."

We should be truthful and rename them Sugar Stamps


You are angry at the wrong set of people.

The fact is that it is cheaper to buy junk food than it is to buy healthy food. So if you are on a fixed budget and using food stamps, you may be forced to buy junk food to feed your family instead of buying healthy food.

Be angry at the food industry, not people trying to feed their kids on what little they have.


I know the Snack Food lobby wants to keep junk food on the EBT list. It's not more expensive in my area to eat actual food. I'm sure the people on EBT know this. You would not believe the piles of candy and 2 liters I but in their bags. Many purchases consist of only candy and soda. They're not trying to save money. They're getting a sugar rush. I was also told online that candy can be traded for drugs and alcohol. I have no idea if that's true. Also, I'm not angry. I'd have a pretty miserable life if I weren't friends with all who will let me befriend them. I'm just saying that I'd like to point out to some that they're not buying food with their food stamps. However, it's obvious they already know.

I get the feeling that in other areas, people are really suffering. I also am starting to understand that in other areas, people don't know any better. Believe me, in my area, Food Stamps are heavily abused. My district manager told me that the prevailing attitude in the 60's was, "If you're not taking advantage of the government, you're a fool." It seems this has been going on for a while.
edit on 13-8-2013 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-8-2013 by gentledissident because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo

You assert at there is no proof the quote is attributed to Franklin. I assert that there is no evidence to prove that the quote is NOT attributable to Franklin. Stalemate!

Have a good evening.


And yet there is an Op Ed piece from the 1950's with an Oklahoma author stating the gist of the qoute...and absolutely no source attributing to Franklin or others.

Your argument boils down to in the scheme of history, it is technically possible that Franklin spoke the qoute...despite thier being no source or proof of the same.

I assert that there is no absolute proof that you do not privately lust after Nancy Pelosi...thus it is my claim that you have often fantasized of sexual encounters with Nancy Pelosi, and your far right leaning posts on ATS are your way of battling that unsated frustration. So that is my claim and you are unable to prove otherwise, because it is technically possible I am correct.

Good day.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 





posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by seabag
 


Obviously conservatives are just suppose to throw a bunch of money at the poor, and that automatically means they care no wait.

Conservative give more to charity than liberals do and they still get vilified.


No....Conservatives give more money to thier church...which can go to funding anything from improving the church, financing the clergy, sponsoring evangelical missions abroad to financing Ted Haggard's Meth-Amphetamine binges and male prostitutes.

Conversly...Liberals, Democrats et al. donate more to secular organizations...otherwise they don't ask the hungry children if they have accepted JC as thier personal savior before they feed them.

Study: Conservatives and liberals are equally charitable, but they give to different charities
www.washingtonpost.com... s/



edit on 13-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
extra DIV




top topics



 
32
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join