Life Under the Tea Party

I would agree that the devil is in the details. So given that they cannot be refuted because they're general principles, why do idiots like Spike call them out as if they're radical?

Fair question. My answer is that he does it for the same reason we all accuse the other point of view to be wrong: we feel their push is in the wrong direction.
 
Fair question. My answer is that he does it for the same reason we all accuse the other point of view to be wrong: we feel their push is in the wrong direction.

My view is he does it because he's ignorant and inexperienced.

Instead of poking at something simply because we feel it "pushes in the wrong direction" focus on specifics and go after those if they ruffle feathers.
 
My view is he does it because he's ignorant and inexperienced.

Instead of poking at something simply because we feel it "pushes in the wrong direction" focus on specifics and go after those if they ruffle feathers.

You're an idiot.
you feel free to poke , but you become all emotional when others do the same.Why didn't you point that out to Scat when he said this ?



Scataphagos:
America is down for the count, and Odumbo is doing all he thinks he can get away with to hasten our demise.
 
You're an idiot.
you feel free to poke , but you become all emotional when others do the same.Why didn't you point that out to Scat when he said this ?



Scataphagos:
America is down for the count, and Odumbo is doing all he thinks he can get away with to hasten our demise.

Because I don't find fault in what Scat said. The only part I disagree with is that Obama is willfully trying to hasten the demise of America. I just believe the guy is a moron - like you, actually.

You call out Lucrum's belief in the Tea Party principles, and dodge when I ask you what you find issue with in those.

You also ignored my question: If you don't actually find fault in those principles, does that mean you support them?
 
I don't find any fault in those principles,
I find fault in the tea party's ability to accomplish them. In fact , a small part of me actually wants the tea party to become the government.
 
I don't find any fault in those principles,
I find fault in the tea party's ability to accomplish them. In fact , a small part of me actually wants the tea party to become the government.

Lol, I know what you mean. Along the lines of the Kansas experiment (and sadly, now N. Carolina if they're not careful). Let us keep that a small part, that much human suffering is not worth making an ideological point. : )
 
Lol, I know what you mean. Along the lines of the Kansas experiment (and sadly, now N. Carolina if they're not careful). Let us keep that a small part, that much human suffering is not worth making an ideological point. : )

Or, as you suggested, define them. They are so amorphous -- with the possible exceptions of 2 and 3 -- that agreeing with them requires a certain degree of brain death.
 
I don't find any fault in those principles,
I find fault in the tea party's ability to accomplish them. In fact , a small part of me actually wants the tea party to become the government.

Leaving out the small part silliness, I am going to assume that - if you are not against or find fault with any of those principles, then you support all of them. Is this correct?
 
Or, as you suggested, define them. They are so amorphous -- with the possible exceptions of 2 and 3 -- that agreeing with them requires a certain degree of brain death.

So, promoting civil responsibility, for example, requires a certain degree of brain death? How about Abiding By The Constitution? You have to be partially brain dead to agree with that one?
 
Back
Top