HEARTLESS wrote: chickaree, look up "hate speech." It says race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or other characteristic. Where is the hate speech? Do you consider wanting smaller and more efficient government hate speech? When I speak of the US, its our country, not "my" country. When I speak against someone its because of their twisted ideals. When I realized what BS the Left spewed, I found the truth in the Libertarian Party and their principles. Two things always kept liberals from following the Libertarian principles, they are responsibiilty and accountability. The Left wants no part of either of those things.
The hate speech you use disparages everyone to the left of you.
HEARTLESS wrote: I'll make it clear. If I found an injured Lefty in the street, I would use my ass as smelling salts by rubbing it on their face. I would never even consider dragging my bag on their face.
This is hate speech. Either own it, or stop it. Pretending this kind of discourse is anything other than destructive shows nothing but ignorance.
HEARTLESS wrote: chickaree, look up "hate speech." It says race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or other characteristic. Where is the hate speech? Do you consider wanting smaller and more efficient government hate speech? When I speak of the US, its our country, not "my" country. When I speak against someone its because of their twisted ideals. When I realized what BS the Left spewed, I found the truth in the Libertarian Party and their principles. Two things always kept liberals from following the Libertarian principles, they are responsibiilty and accountability. The Left wants no part of either of those things.
The hate speech you use disparages everyone to the left of you.
HEARTLESS wrote: I'll make it clear. If I found an injured Lefty in the street, I would use my ass as smelling salts by rubbing it on their face. I would never even consider dragging my bag on their face.
This is hate speech. Either own it, or stop it. Pretending this kind of discourse is anything other than destructive shows nothing but ignorance.
Yeah, that was ugly.
And I thought when Neptune made his comment that is what he meant - distancing himself from this ugliness.
MsMAM wrote: And I thought when Neptune made his comment that is what he meant - distancing himself from this ugliness.
I thought so too.
.....if there is ugliness within the tea party, as there is ugliness in some fringe lefty groups (though no lefty fringe group has made it to the big time like the tea party has) then it's up to those who want to keep the tea party on track to root out the ugliness and hate speech and call it what it is.
There is much to admire in many of the tea party's goals, but they get over shadowed by some of the rhetoric that instantly turns off liberals and many independents.
which brings up the idea that if the Tea Party really wants to be a force in this country, if they think they have the right answers (no pun intended), then maybe it's time they went off on their own instead of trying to reform the GOP into something it isn't.
archer wrote: which brings up the idea that if the Tea Party really wants to be a force in this country, if they think they have the right answers (no pun intended), then maybe it's time they went off on their own instead of trying to reform the GOP into something it isn't.
MsMAM wrote: And I thought when Neptune made his comment that is what he meant - distancing himself from this ugliness.
I thought so too.
.....if there is ugliness within the tea party, as there is ugliness in some fringe lefty groups (though no lefty fringe group has made it to the big time like the tea party has) then it's up to those who want to keep the tea party on track to root out the ugliness and hate speech and call it what it is.
There is much to admire in many of the tea party's goals, but they get over shadowed by some of the rhetoric that instantly turns off liberals and many independents.
This is why I think it is so important for all true conservatives to speak out against those who have hijacked and devalued our party. I don't want to be lumped in with them. I don't value ignorance, exclusion and hatred. I want a nation that is great again- a leader in science, education and commerce.
archer wrote: which brings up the idea that if the Tea Party really wants to be a force in this country, if they think they have the right answers (no pun intended), then maybe it's time they went off on their own instead of trying to reform the GOP into something it isn't.
No, that is what happened in '92.
Then give up? The founding fathers did not like the party system (or at least some of them). You can't reform some of these folks. They are just mean. And as long as you are part of the republican party - then you will get no support from me and a lot of folks.
I mean - look at the rhetoric above from heartless. You want to lump yourself in with THAT, Bob?
archer wrote: which brings up the idea that if the Tea Party really wants to be a force in this country, if they think they have the right answers (no pun intended), then maybe it's time they went off on their own instead of trying to reform the GOP into something it isn't.
No, that is what happened in '92.
I don't see it that way at all....Perot was a one man show....and he took his shot at it and lost. He had no real grass roots organization beyond those supporting him for president. The tea party is already a large grass roots organization, and they have some muscle, but no candidate, yet. Their alliance with the Republicans seems to be hurting both of their agendas......Republicans being "primaried" because they aren't "tea party" enough.....the tea party getting bad press because they are in constant conflict with the Republican old guard. I wonder if the tea party wouldn't get more support from the other side if they stuck to economic issues and left the Republicans to deal with the religious and social issues. There are a lot of liberals who are fiscal conservatives but balk at the social agenda of the Republican party......or is that the anti-social agenda?
MsMAM wrote: [Then give up? The founding fathers did not like the party system (or at least some of them). You can't reform some of these folks. They are just mean. And as long as you are part of the republican party - then you will get no support from me and a lot of folks.
I mean - look at the rhetoric above from heartless. You want to lump yourself in with THAT, Bob?
Crap, a serious discussion and I am out of beer.
Parties evolve, sometimes they turn upside down. A libertarian vote is just pisisng in the wind. I hope we are at a cusp when the r's can be slam dunked into the 21'st century.
I think that is a better bet than thinking that the d's will wake up and smell the fiscal roses.
I would never even consider dragging my bag on their face.
