Tea partiers not smart enough...

[asterism]

Let's don't. Where the hell do you get off trying to impose YOUR boundaries on how decisions can and can't be made onto others? If I want to make economic decisions based on "I have no right to other people's money, and only an immoral dirtbag steals from others" rather than "You have it and I don't, so I'm gonna take yours", who the fuck are you to tell me that my standards are not the correct ones and that I have to use yours?

Wow!

Hyperbole much? Say what you want, nobody is stopping you. I'll refrain from giving my input to you from now on. Good luck.

If your input involves "let's define the debate THIS way", feel free to refrain from giving it, and spare me the butt-chapped sniveling. Butch up, buttercup, or go join the knitting club.

You've got a warped view of strength.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow!

Hyperbole much? Say what you want, nobody is stopping you. I'll refrain from giving my input to you from now on. Good luck.

If your input involves "let's define the debate THIS way", feel free to refrain from giving it, and spare me the butt-chapped sniveling. Butch up, buttercup, or go join the knitting club.

You've got a warped view of strength.

They would have to invent new technology to measure my indifference to the "view of strength" possessed by a whining crybaby who pitches a hissy fit over being criticized on the Internet.

Bottom line, pussycat: if you're going to get your panties in a ruffle and whimper when you're told to go fuck yourself, don't try to tell people how they can and can't define a debate.

 

[asterism]

If your input involves "let's define the debate THIS way", feel free to refrain from giving it, and spare me the butt-chapped sniveling. Butch up, buttercup, or go join the knitting club.

You've got a warped view of strength.

They would have to invent new technology to measure my indifference to the "view of strength" possessed by a whining crybaby who pitches a hissy fit over being criticized on the Internet.

Please point out the hissyfit.

Bottom line, pussycat: if you're going to get your panties in a ruffle and whimper when you're told to go fuck yourself, don't try to tell people how they can and can't define a debate.

Talking tough and throwing invectives doesn't make you strong and declaring that I shall not give you input is not anywhere close to getting panties in a ruffle. You sound just like the little kid who throws rocks at an adult and then yells "pussy!" when he simply chuckles and walks away.

Your responses certainly sum up the substance of your thought processes. I'm actually laughing now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You've got a warped view of strength.

They would have to invent new technology to measure my indifference to the "view of strength" possessed by a whining crybaby who pitches a hissy fit over being criticized on the Internet.

Please point out the hissyfit.

Bottom line, pussycat: if you're going to get your panties in a ruffle and whimper when you're told to go fuck yourself, don't try to tell people how they can and can't define a debate.

Talking tough and throwing invectives doesn't make you strong and declaring that I shall not give you input is not anywhere close to getting panties in a ruffle. You sound just like the little kid who throws rocks at an adult and then yells "pussy!" when he simply chuckles and walks away.

Your responses certainly sum up the substance of your thought processes. I'm actually laughing now.

Bottom line, pussycat:

This phrase means we're done, shitforbrains. It doesn't mean "Please continue whining". Move along.

 

[asterism]

They would have to invent new technology to measure my indifference to the "view of strength" possessed by a whining crybaby who pitches a hissy fit over being criticized on the Internet.

Please point out the hissyfit.

Bottom line, pussycat: if you're going to get your panties in a ruffle and whimper when you're told to go fuck yourself, don't try to tell people how they can and can't define a debate.

Talking tough and throwing invectives doesn't make you strong and declaring that I shall not give you input is not anywhere close to getting panties in a ruffle. You sound just like the little kid who throws rocks at an adult and then yells "pussy!" when he simply chuckles and walks away.

Your responses certainly sum up the substance of your thought processes. I'm actually laughing now.

Bottom line, pussycat:

This phrase means we're done, shitforbrains. It doesn't mean "Please continue whining". Move along.

This is fun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhEp72u3Sfo]YouTube - bolz spinning top[/ame]

I think I'll give it a couple more cranks:

Who are you to dictate what I do?

 

[HUGGY]

Please point out the hissyfit.



Talking tough and throwing invectives doesn't make you strong and declaring that I shall not give you input is not anywhere close to getting panties in a ruffle. You sound just like the little kid who throws rocks at an adult and then yells "pussy!" when he simply chuckles and walks away.

Your responses certainly sum up the substance of your thought processes. I'm actually laughing now.

Bottom line, pussycat:

This phrase means we're done, shitforbrains. It doesn't mean "Please continue whining". Move along.

This is fun.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhEp72u3Sfo]YouTube - bolz spinning top[/ame]

I think I'll give it a couple more cranks:

Who are you to dictate what I do?

You get the USMB award for the day by keeping the fuckwit AKA CC1200 busy while the adults have been enjoying themselves.

Thank you! NO!..seriously you have performed a valuaqble service and at least for a short time we are in your debt!

 

[Big Fitz]

I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive. Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".

The only thing I can equate to, if it is a true 'directive' from the journolist type asshats agreeing on the meme of the week for the causeheads they call their fans and constituents, in an effort to sabotage the anti-incumbent sentiment by planting the seed of "if you vote them out you will get hurt economically." Now if this is the case, it's a bowl of horseshit and it reeks to high heaven.

On the other hand, the stupidity of the statement is based on two things, economic ignorance and an ethical lapse.

First, the ethical lapse: "It is right to steal from those richer than you." If you think that the government giving you goodies is not theft by force of government, you're lying to yourself. Taxation should be banned from charitable giving. No exceptions. It's what the founding fathers did, for good reason. You cannot say no to taxes, and programs of charity based on taxes steal by force of imprisonment or weapon from those who have. It is only several layers removed from going up to your neighbor's house, sticking a gun in his face and demanding cash. Ultimately there is no difference. That is the ethical lapse that you are entitled to the fruit of your neighbor's work against his will. If it was of his will, he would have given you cash or help when he saw you down on your luck. Of course, now the government has extra cash, he doesn't have it to give... and he gave less to the government than he may have given to you individually. So, you fuck yourself as you fuck your neighbor believing you are entitled. Not to mention, someone is sticking a gun in YOUR faces as well for your money to pay for what they are entitled to of your labor. Fun, isn't it?

The economic ignorance is in the idea that you are improving your lot in life and voting FOR your self interest by using taxes to pay for your entitlements (need not withstanding). Government taxes are incredibly inefficient at doing a good thing. There are so many parties that skim off a share before it reaches you. Makes a corrupt charity look like a saint in comparision. Not only that, it is rife with corrupt uses of the money, diversions of money away from it's intent to fund pet projects never agreed to by you, and generally, reduces the available money in private sector for investment and growth. How, is this economically smart to vote for more money to be removed from the market and be slowed or stuck or removed completely from the market (shipping it overseas)?

This may seem like a short term good because for now, you get your entitlements you believe you are owed. On the other hand, it is unsustainable in the long run. Over time, more and more people have 'good ideas to make society better' that need funding. And they grow, and grow and include more and need more and eat more and more and more tax money. Now mind you, this is already an inefficient system where possibly HUNDREDS of people are getting a bit off each dollar that passes through them leaving only crumbs that reach the real goal and placate a few. Of course those few clammor for more... and vote to get more. The never-ending parasitic cycle goes until the host dies or kills the parasites.

Short term, it seems like a good idea. The parasites are happy, the host is still healthy-ish. But as the parasites grow, they eventually kill the host. Economically, the host is staggering as a population explosion has occurred thanks to congress from 2006 till now and P-BO. No one is reaching for the flea/tick bath or even discussing the hard choices of killing the parasites. They're just keeping up with the blood transfusions and hoping to stay ahead of the game. It's a losing battle and in the long term, when the host dies, everyone dies. This is the economic stupidity we are in.

 

[asterism]

I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive. Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".

The only thing I can equate to, if it is a true 'directive' from the journolist type asshats agreeing on the meme of the week for the causeheads they call their fans and constituents, in an effort to sabotage the anti-incumbent sentiment by planting the seed of "if you vote them out you will get hurt economically." Now if this is the case, it's a bowl of horseshit and it reeks to high heaven.

On the other hand, the stupidity of the statement is based on two things, economic ignorance and an ethical lapse.

First, the ethical lapse: "It is right to steal from those richer than you." If you think that the government giving you goodies is not theft by force of government, you're lying to yourself. Taxation should be banned from charitable giving. No exceptions. It's what the founding fathers did, for good reason. You cannot say no to taxes, and programs of charity based on taxes steal by force of imprisonment or weapon from those who have. It is only several layers removed from going up to your neighbor's house, sticking a gun in his face and demanding cash. Ultimately there is no difference. That is the ethical lapse that you are entitled to the fruit of your neighbor's work against his will. If it was of his will, he would have given you cash or help when he saw you down on your luck. Of course, now the government has extra cash, he doesn't have it to give... and he gave less to the government than he may have given to you individually. So, you fuck yourself as you fuck your neighbor believing you are entitled. Not to mention, someone is sticking a gun in YOUR faces as well for your money to pay for what they are entitled to of your labor. Fun, isn't it?

The economic ignorance is in the idea that you are improving your lot in life and voting FOR your self interest by using taxes to pay for your entitlements (need not withstanding). Government taxes are incredibly inefficient at doing a good thing. There are so many parties that skim off a share before it reaches you. Makes a corrupt charity look like a saint in comparision. Not only that, it is rife with corrupt uses of the money, diversions of money away from it's intent to fund pet projects never agreed to by you, and generally, reduces the available money in private sector for investment and growth. How, is this economically smart to vote for more money to be removed from the market and be slowed or stuck or removed completely from the market (shipping it overseas)?

This may seem like a short term good because for now, you get your entitlements you believe you are owed. On the other hand, it is unsustainable in the long run. Over time, more and more people have 'good ideas to make society better' that need funding. And they grow, and grow and include more and need more and eat more and more and more tax money. Now mind you, this is already an inefficient system where possibly HUNDREDS of people are getting a bit off each dollar that passes through them leaving only crumbs that reach the real goal and placate a few. Of course those few clammor for more... and vote to get more. The never-ending parasitic cycle goes until the host dies or kills the parasites.

Short term, it seems like a good idea. The parasites are happy, the host is still healthy-ish. But as the parasites grow, they eventually kill the host. Economically, the host is staggering as a population explosion has occurred thanks to congress from 2006 till now and P-BO. No one is reaching for the flea/tick bath or even discussing the hard choices of killing the parasites. They're just keeping up with the blood transfusions and hoping to stay ahead of the game. It's a losing battle and in the long term, when the host dies, everyone dies. This is the economic stupidity we are in.

I agree, but I am a tad more zen in my thoughts on this. After all, Adam Smith (not a producer by the way) did correctly explain the concept of the Invisible Hand. That is, the benefit of everyone is greater if individuals are looking out for their own best interests.

What Adam Smith did not predict nor consider, was a government that was a full participant in the economy with the people "in need" voting en masse against those that are being forced to provide the resources to pay for those needs. He never even imagined a scenario where more than 50% of the voters were not material participants in funding the level of government resources.

So now we have a situation where 51 wolves and 49 cows get to vote on what's for dinner. When is the last time you grilled up a good slab of dog? I see beef, chicken, pork and fish when I go to the grocery store. I don't see dog. It's like that for a reason, dog isn't particularly productive. Prevalent, but not productive in this context.

It's a new normal folks. Time for the cows to realize that they actually can take out the wolves just by stomping on them. Don't allow them to rest on the fringe in groups. See them out individually and stomp them with your hooves and superior mass.

As it pertains to politics, don't let them pull the pack mentality to defeat you. Go after their flawed logic individually. Destroy their collective by not letting them gain ground.

 

[Big Fitz]

What Adam Smith did not predict nor consider, was a government that was a full participant in the economy with the people "in need" voting en masse against those that are being forced to provide the resources to pay for those needs. He never even imagined a scenario where more than 50% of the voters were not material participants in funding the level of government resources.

That is true because no such government existed at the time where such parameters could exist. Voters were generally only male landowners or free men who met certain conditions. When the vote was expanded, people who had almost no investiture in the function of government or society (industry or agricultural owners) the power shifted as there are always more poor people than rich, and they had less to lose from bad choices.

The second issue was that nobody back then... and I mean NOBODY could have ever envisioned a "kleptocracy" like we have today. We have men of such LOW moral standard, and others who are blithering idiots "handled" into power, and even more who are just representatives of special interests devoted to looting the public coffers! I mean even at the worst days of Parliament when all you got was Fat Torrie Landowners who were mindless bigoted old fools and made MP when they reached a certain weight, surviving on rotten boroughs and gerrymandering, they still could not get away with it because the house of lords stood in their way. Today, we don't have this protection. Both houses are corrupt and doing the same thing for their own people. That's where we sit.

Even the former Russian communists are impressed by our corruption and ability to delude ourselves at the depths of our thievery. To some of them, we're the stuff of legend.

It's a new normal folks. Time for the cows to realize that they actually can take out the wolves just by stomping on them. Don't allow them to rest on the fringe in groups. See them out individually and stomp them with your hooves and superior mass.

That is coming. I think the elitists and their supporters know it too. That's why we see the threads and attacks and propaganda coming out of Washington we do now. That's why people like Glenn Beck is become a modern day Paul Revere and William Penn rolled into one. Sounding the warning and calling people back to God as the rock hard foundation of this nation, so all may be able to stand for the founding morals and ideals of this great nation and stand against her enemies. That is why the hatred for him is reaching homicidal pitch.

2010 is the bell weather. What happens this November may save or sink this nation. For what is to come, we must be careful not to close off the peaceful avenues of change or dam up the desire for change. For if all peaceful routes are closed, and all the desire is blocked off... it will build and build till the pressure breaks through and the only routes left are those of violence. This is what I fear may happen, but I still have hope.

So people need to consider this in their idle or pointed mockery of those who go to tea parties. They are not professional protesters or wild eyed one issue nutters that we are used to. They are your neighbors and your friends. They will not soon forget the slights you have chosen to heap upon them. So when they do come to power, it is best to not have given them good reason to retaliate in kind when you are weak.

 

[HUGGY]

What Adam Smith did not predict nor consider, was a government that was a full participant in the economy with the people "in need" voting en masse against those that are being forced to provide the resources to pay for those needs. He never even imagined a scenario where more than 50% of the voters were not material participants in funding the level of government resources.

That is true because no such government existed at the time where such parameters could exist. Voters were generally only male landowners or free men who met certain conditions. When the vote was expanded, people who had almost no investiture in the function of government or society (industry or agricultural owners) the power shifted as there are always more poor people than rich, and they had less to lose from bad choices.

The second issue was that nobody back then... and I mean NOBODY could have ever envisioned a "kleptocracy" like we have today. We have men of such LOW moral standard, and others who are blithering idiots "handled" into power, and even more who are just representatives of special interests devoted to looting the public coffers! I mean even at the worst days of Parliament when all you got was Fat Torrie Landowners who were mindless bigoted old fools and made MP when they reached a certain weight, surviving on rotten boroughs and gerrymandering, they still could not get away with it because the house of lords stood in their way. Today, we don't have this protection. Both houses are corrupt and doing the same thing for their own people. That's where we sit.

Even the former Russian communists are impressed by our corruption and ability to delude ourselves at the depths of our thievery. To some of them, we're the stuff of legend.

It's a new normal folks. Time for the cows to realize that they actually can take out the wolves just by stomping on them. Don't allow them to rest on the fringe in groups. See them out individually and stomp them with your hooves and superior mass.

That is coming. I think the elitists and their supporters know it too. That's why we see the threads and attacks and propaganda coming out of Washington we do now. That's why people like Glenn Beck is become a modern day Paul Revere and William Penn rolled into one. Sounding the warning and calling people back to God as the rock hard foundation of this nation, so all may be able to stand for the founding morals and ideals of this great nation and stand against her enemies. That is why the hatred for him is reaching homicidal pitch.

2010 is the bell weather. What happens this November may save or sink this nation. For what is to come, we must be careful not to close off the peaceful avenues of change or dam up the desire for change. For if all peaceful routes are closed, and all the desire is blocked off... it will build and build till the pressure breaks through and the only routes left are those of violence. This is what I fear may happen, but I still have hope.

So people need to consider this in their idle or pointed mockery of those who go to tea parties. They are not professional protesters or wild eyed one issue nutters that we are used to. They are your neighbors and your friends. They will not soon forget the slights you have chosen to heap upon them. So when they do come to power, it is best to not have given them good reason to retaliate in kind when you are weak.

Wow! You really had me listening right up to the point where you defer to Glenn Beck=Roger Ailes=Rupert Murdoch=Saudi Prince. WTFRU blabbering about?

 

[daveman]

I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive. Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".

D'jever notice that when a liberal defines someone's best interest, it's always "whatever keeps liberals in power"?

 

[Big Fitz]

I've noticed that there seems to have been another memo gone out or the groupthink system spit out another directive. Since seeing this thread I have run into about 5 other conversations of "conservatives/tea partiers vote against their self interest".

D'jever notice that when a liberal defines someone's best interest, it's always "whatever keeps liberals in power"?

Absolutely.