Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What?
Other than the typos, what I said was quite clear.
Tea Partyers are against the continued increase in government spending and are by no means just conservatives.
If you are not aware of this, then you are not paying attention.
I ignored the typos..
I was shocked at your claim that Tea Partiers are "by no means just conservatives"
As to their being against government spending.......they are against government spending on programs they do not benefit from. Look at cutting spendings on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits and they are up in arms.
What?
Other than the typos, what I said was quite clear.
Tea Partyers are against the continued increase in government spending and are by no means just conservatives.
If you are not aware of this, then you are not paying attention.
I ignored the typos..
I was shocked at your claim that Tea Partiers are "by no means just conservatives"
As to their being against government spending.......they are against government spending on programs they do not benefit from. Look at cutting spendings on Social Security, Medicare, Veterans benefits and they are up in arms.
The 5 most disastrous Supreme Court nominees - The Week
"My Little Crony"
Who: Harriet Miers, nominated by George W. Bush in 2005
Why was she a disaster? The nomination of Miers, a close friend of the Bush family, prompted charges of cronyism from Democrats and Republicans alike. She had never acted as a judge, and Senators said she gave "incomplete to insulting" written answers to their questions about her Constitutional views. The negative perceptions of Miers crystallized in a widely circulated cartoon portraying her as Bush's wide-eyed toy a "my little crony."
What happened next: After three weeks, Bush withdrew his nomination. Miers resigned as White House counsel in 2007.
How old are you?
Seriously. I doubt very seriously you are even 18. It shows in your inability to even try and be objective.
First you fall for the idea Republicans support slavery and now this?
You have to stop reading these laughable propaganda blogs and start opening your mind. You will get laughed at a lot less.
First off Harriet Miers wasn't confirmed.
The fact that Republicans played cheerleader for Bush their GOP leader at the time? Gee, what a surprise!
That isn't the point.
The point is in POINTING OUT HOW SIMILAR HARRIET MIERS IS TO KAGAN, you defeat your OWN POSITION.
The fact is Miers and Kagan ARE SIMILIAR in experience.
But look at the difference between CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS.
Conservatives rose up (because they are not mindless robots who follow what the GOP says) and made it clear they did NOT want Miers confirmed. The party finally caved into the constant calls from conservatives against Miers.
But what do liberals do????????
Same kind of candidate and they just line up like lemmings behind Obama fighting out who gets to kiss his butt first.
Conservatives act upon principle and liberals act on what liberals leaders tell them to do.
Remember when liberal idiots were trying to tell us in the 90s that oral sex wasn't sex?That's because liberals told them to say that and they did! It didn't matter if they looked like idiots. They did it.
Same thing is going on here.
And Rachel Maddow as a source??????? BWAHAHAAA!
Thank you for pointing out conservatives do not follow some pied piper in the GOP while liberals do with the Dems.
It makes abundantly clear who really are the mind numbed robots.
Yes, another:
I'm not a huge fan of Hagan, but this is just blatant hypocrisy. As Rachel Maddow said tonight, "do they ever think about just googling themselves?"Soon after President Obama announced that he had nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, Republican Sens. Mitch McConnell (KY) and Jim DeMint (SC) attacked his choice because Kagan has never served as a judge:
MCCONNELL: Shes the least qualified in terms of judicial experience in 38 years. Now some would argue that maybe we need to have people who dont have judicial experience. I saw a survey indicating that about 70 percent of the American people think that judicial experience is a good idea for somebody who is going to be on the Supreme Court.
DEMINT: Im concerned that she has no judicial experience to give Americans confidence that she will be impartial in her decisions.
Yet back in 2005, both DeMint and McConnell praised Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court before she withdrew. Like Kagan, Miers had no previous judicial experience, yet both GOP senators expressed admiration for Miers, specifically citing her experience:
MCCONNELL: Ms. Miers has an exemplary record of service to our country. She will bring to the Court a lifetime of experience in various levels of government, and at the highest levels of the legal profession. She is a woman of tremendous ability and very sound judgment. Ms. Miers has great experience in government as well, at the local, state, and federal levels. She is well qualified to join the nations highest court. She will make a fine addition to the Supreme Court, and I look forward to her confirmation.
DEMINT: Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience to the Supreme Court. I expect she will show that she has the intelligence, fairness, and open-mindedness needed to serve on the Court.
How old are you?
Seriously. I doubt very seriously you are even 18. It shows in your inability to even try and be objective.
First you fall for the idea Republicans support slavery and now this?
You have to stop reading these laughable propaganda blogs and start opening your mind. You will get laughed at a lot less.
First off Harriet Miers wasn't confirmed.
The fact that Republicans played cheerleader for Bush their GOP leader at the time? Gee, what a surprise!
That isn't the point.
The point is in POINTING OUT HOW SIMILAR HARRIET MIERS IS TO KAGAN, you defeat your OWN POSITION.
The fact is Miers and Kagan ARE SIMILIAR in experience.
But look at the difference between CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS.
Conservatives rose up (because they are not mindless robots who follow what the GOP says) and made it clear they did NOT want Miers confirmed. The party finally caved into the constant calls from conservatives against Miers.
But what do liberals do????????
Same kind of candidate and they just line up like lemmings behind Obama fighting out who gets to kiss his butt first.
Conservatives act upon principle and liberals act on what liberals leaders tell them to do.
Remember when liberal idiots were trying to tell us in the 90s that oral sex wasn't sex?
Same thing is going on here.
And Rachel Maddow as a source??????? BWAHAHAAA!
Thank you for pointing out conservatives do not follow some pied piper in the GOP while liberals do with the Dems.
It makes abundantly clear who really are the mind numbed robots.
Here, TPS, follow this Purdue OWL
and then try again. Your comments are laughable at this point.
Jarhead, looking at the outstanding online writing site on the internet negates TPS's "knowledge of history, reasoning skills and intelligence"? I suggest that you, also, check the site out. My, my.
What?
Other than the typos, what I said was quite clear.
Tea Partyers are against the continued increase in government spending and are by no means just conservatives.
If you are not aware of this, then you are not paying attention.
Dream all you want VERY few are anything but right wing republicans
Other than the typos, what I said was quite clear.
Tea Partyers are against the continued increase in government spending and are by no means just conservatives.
If you are not aware of this, then you are not paying attention.
Dream all you want VERY few are anything but right wing republicans
What a bunch of BS TM.
I've been to a few of our local Tea Parties. I've spoken with Dems, Reps and Indis.
Jarhead is correct. Everyone of the folks I spoke with is against big Govt and the massive spending thats going on. People belonging to all parties.
Mayby you should attend a Tea Party. You might be pleasantly surprised. I sure as hell was.
You just might learn something. Jeeze.
Sure do.....
There are no liberal republicans today. When I grew up we had Rockefeller, Nixon was quite liberal on many issues, Ford would cross over, Romney.
Today, any republican who is slightly moderate gets labeled a liberal and RINO and gets driven from the party. Will be interesting in the next two elections
Don't forget the neocon JFK. I would call him a liberal repugnant-can if he were alive today.
Thats the problem with conservatives today. They have no concept of context. You are liberal for your time and for the issues of your time. Just because conservatives are finally accepting these positions 40 years after they were liberal causes does not turn those liberals into conservatives
Don't forget the neocon JFK. I would call him a liberal repugnant-can if he were alive today.
Thats the problem with conservatives today. They have no concept of context. You are liberal for your time and for the issues of your time. Just because conservatives are finally accepting these positions 40 years after they were liberal causes does not turn those liberals into conservatives
You can't have it both ways.
JFK's policies were what you would call neocon. Period.
You want to hold him up as some bastion of liberal thinking as if he was his fuck up of a little brother (Teddy) but those two had little in common policy wise.
In fact he was much closer to Gw Bush's philosophy than yours.
If he was president today, you'd not be in his corner.
Facts like these are not necessarily contingent on the date.
And I didn't say JFK was a conservative did I? I merely pointed out that you would call him a neocon today but for some reason the neocon you would not support today you worship in the past.
Thats the problem with conservatives today. They have no concept of context. You are liberal for your time and for the issues of your time. Just because conservatives are finally accepting these positions 40 years after they were liberal causes does not turn those liberals into conservatives
You can't have it both ways.
JFK's policies were what you would call neocon. Period.
You want to hold him up as some bastion of liberal thinking as if he was his fuck up of a little brother (Teddy) but those two had little in common policy wise.
In fact he was much closer to Gw Bush's philosophy than yours.
If he was president today, you'd not be in his corner.
Facts like these are not necessarily contingent on the date.
And I didn't say JFK was a conservative did I? I merely pointed out that you would call him a neocon today but for some reason the neocon you would not support today you worship in the past.
You are still moving the goalposts. By 1960s standards he was very liberal. The fact that conservatives of today are finally acknowledging the liberal philosophies of the early 60s does not make JFK a conservative or a neocon
Dream all you want VERY few are anything but right wing republicans
What a bunch of BS TM.
I've been to a few of our local Tea Parties. I've spoken with Dems, Reps and Indis.
Jarhead is correct. Everyone of the folks I spoke with is against big Govt and the massive spending thats going on. People belonging to all parties.
Mayby you should attend a Tea Party. You might be pleasantly surprised. I sure as hell was.
You just might learn something. Jeeze.
Do you read what Truthmatters writes?
She DOES learn something. What she reads on left wing blogs. She regurgitates every left wing blog talking point. States them as fact and then suppoorts them with links that have nothing to do with what she says as she is embarrassed to show where she gets her information.
Thats the problem with conservatives today. They have no concept of context. You are liberal for your time and for the issues of your time. Just because conservatives are finally accepting these positions 40 years after they were liberal causes does not turn those liberals into conservatives
You can't have it both ways.
JFK's policies were what you would call neocon. Period.
You want to hold him up as some bastion of liberal thinking as if he was his fuck up of a little brother (Teddy) but those two had little in common policy wise.
In fact he was much closer to Gw Bush's philosophy than yours.
If he was president today, you'd not be in his corner.
Facts like these are not necessarily contingent on the date.
And I didn't say JFK was a conservative did I? I merely pointed out that you would call him a neocon today but for some reason the neocon you would not support today you worship in the past.
You are still moving the goalposts. By 1960s standards he was very liberal. The fact that conservatives of today are finally acknowledging the liberal philosophies of the early 60s does not make JFK a conservative or a neocon
Like Kennedy, most liberals of that era rejected appeasement. Yet Kennedy went further, striking right at the jugular of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. Having criticized FDR's people for handing Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta in 1945, he joined Republicans in blasting the Truman administration and the State Department for their culpability in China's collapse before the Communists four years later. Speaking from the House floor, he said, "The responsibility for [this] failure...rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State."
Kennedy also confronted communist subversion at home. As a House labor committee member, he helped convict a communist union official. While in the Senate, he backed Senator Joseph McCarthy's investigations. In January 1955, after McCarthy had fallen from power, JFK walked out on a banquet speech by McCarthy-hating journalist Edward R. Murrow. Three years later, at a Harvard dinner, when a speaker compared McCarthy with convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss, JFK exclaimed, "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!," and stormed out of the building.
JFK refused to deny the obvious: the high-level Communist penetration of FDR's State Department in the 1930s and 1940s. For this courage he almost paid dearly. In 1960, Eleanor Roosevelt tried mightily to deny him the Democratic presidential nomination, and New York's Liberal Party almost withheld its endorsement of him as well.
Today's liberal historians equate JFK's tax cut proposals with a demand-side stimulus, but that's not what JFK said while arguing for them. Here's what he said: "The present rates ranging up to 91% not only check consumption but discourage investment and encourage...the avoidance of taxes [rather] than the production of goods." He went on: "Our present tax system...reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking."
What a bunch of BS TM.
I've been to a few of our local Tea Parties. I've spoken with Dems, Reps and Indis.
Jarhead is correct. Everyone of the folks I spoke with is against big Govt and the massive spending thats going on. People belonging to all parties.
Mayby you should attend a Tea Party. You might be pleasantly surprised. I sure as hell was.
You just might learn something. Jeeze.
Do you read what Truthmatters writes?
She DOES learn something. What she reads on left wing blogs. She regurgitates every left wing blog talking point. States them as fact and then suppoorts them with links that have nothing to do with what she says as she is embarrassed to show where she gets her information.
People you are full of shit and saying "well I went to a tea party" is not evidence.
Give us some hard evidence of what you claim.
There are VERY few people who self identify as tea party people and democrats.
The tea party is right fringe and that is the facts
Dream all you want VERY few are anything but right wing republicans
What a bunch of BS TM.
I've been to a few of our local Tea Parties. I've spoken with Dems, Reps and Indis.
Jarhead is correct. Everyone of the folks I spoke with is against big Govt and the massive spending thats going on. People belonging to all parties.
Mayby you should attend a Tea Party. You might be pleasantly surprised. I sure as hell was.
You just might learn something. Jeeze.
Do you read what Truthmatters writes?
She DOES learn something. What she reads on left wing blogs. She regurgitates every left wing blog talking point. States them as fact and then suppoorts them with links that have nothing to do with what she says as she is embarrassed to show where she gets her information.
Do you read what Truthmatters writes?
She DOES learn something. What she reads on left wing blogs. She regurgitates every left wing blog talking point. States them as fact and then suppoorts them with links that have nothing to do with what she says as she is embarrassed to show where she gets her information.
People you are full of shit and saying "well I went to a tea party" is not evidence.
Give us some hard evidence of what you claim.
There are VERY few people who self identify as tea party people and democrats.
The tea party is right fringe and that is the facts
BS again TM.
The people I spoke with were from all parties. Just as many Dems there as anyone else.
You have obviously never been to a TP so you really shouldn't run your mouth until you DO attend one.
I went expecting Reps and Indi's. Was pleasantly surprised to find just as many Dems as any other party there.
Folks are just plain fed up with the way DC spends our hardearned money. Period. Doesn't matter a rats ass which party they support.
Got get educated TM. Jeeze.
