quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


[...]
Hmmm... I seem to remember a few of those topics popping up around here. First, that was the first national convention of Tea Partiers, not the first meeting of them. Second, the whole thing with Palin reading off of her hand was during the speech and not during an interview. Third, there definitely was a remark by one of the speakers suggesting that voters should be required to take and pass a civics (class) test. Finally, the irony of it all, is that your information about and the generalization of the folks that attended the thing as racists makes you just as guilty as those same ignorant, uninformed, angry folks I keep reading about around these parts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The real issue is the budget deficits which even Obama admits is the primary issue for the Tea Partiers and a legitimate issue for the "broader circle" of Tea Partiers.

The racism lie is a red herring that the left keeps trying to use to change the subject, but the problem with that card is they've been playing it nonstop since before Obama was even nominated by the Democrats. Its getting old, its getting tired, and fortunately most people are seeing right through it now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

Oh but I am. I really, really am, but I'll let others be the judge of whether I'm addressing issues or just talking shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The CNN video that was being discussed was embedded in the Newsbusters report, along with a direct link to the Politico news article which established that the CNN video was untruthful.

So what part of the actual assertion would you like to try to deny... because attacking the messenger when the proof of the assertion is irrefutable isn't a terribly bright move on your part.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Yes, because some far-right radical website called Newsbusters is far more credible than a national news network that has received numerous awards for its journalism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Why don't you list for us some of the racist things Tancredo said in that speech, because there wasn't anything racist reported in the CBS article that was linked to up above. If you are you trying to suggest that his reference to the "Liberal Cult Of Multiculturalism" had anything to do with a racist remark then you don't know what he was really discussing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: subtee

Do you really believe this? Most people are resting on their asses waiting for entitlements?

Only you and a few others are working, striving, against the tide, etc.?

Merc belongs to the victimized class, slaving for the entitled [8D] .

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy

President Obama was elected because ``we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country. . . . This is our country. Let's take it back.'' (Former U.S. representative Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., speaking at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville in February.)

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/02/18/1487226/tancredos-remarks-about-voters.html#ixzz0jicmUXFH

Tancredo just like sanity is a douche. They don't get it, they never will and you only get dumber by engaging them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Thank you for the visual

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

One where the first resort people look to solve their personal issues isn't the government.
One where the government doesn't employ and have union contracts 30% of the workforce
One where personal accountability and consequences for decisions reside with the individual.
One where failure is allowed to happen and isn't funded with the efforts and product of the successful.
One where where charity is not a government function.
One where personal choice isn't a one issue slogan.
One where contracts replace laws prohibiting, or allowing individuals to live, love, and partner with whomever and as many they choose.
One where the religion industry is taxed like any other industry.
One where taxes are based on what you spend and not what you earn.
One where equality isn't attempted by implementing laws which, by definition, make some people 'more equal' than others.

Many people see 'America' fading because they see their ability to make personal decisions fading, replaced by government dictates. They want government off their backs, but at the same time they have become comfortable with their personal entitlements and have great difficulty combining those two concepts. Too much indoctrination and political correctness in the last two generations of students may have eliminated fundamental personal accountability from the thought process from many 'Americans'; but that's my opinion only.

No - my 'America' doesn't exist and maybe never has - but that's the place I seek to live, and will stipulate to never finding.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

When the only ignorance that one recognizes is that of the poor immigrants and people of color, then I call that racism. If Tancredo would have acknowledged that many of the white, heartland of America, Palin supportin, Bible thumpin, gun totin, govt protestin, salt of the earth participants of the Tea Party were also in need of a little education before being allowed to vote, then I would have agreed with him 100% in all regards.

quote:



Debt dangers


When Warren Buffett looks safer than Uncle Sam


For many decades, U.S. government securities have been the epitome of safe, dull investments. If you wanted to be absolutely positive you'd get your money back and then some, Treasury bills were the way to go. Right now, lots of Americans who put their money into big mortgages or stocks a decade ago wish they had gone the more mundane route.

But it's mundane no more. With federal budget deficits running wild, investors are growing uneasy at the idea of lending money to an institution that seems unable to stop spending beyond its means. Last month, something extraordinary happened: Two-year bonds offered by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. commanded lower yields than those offered by the U.S. government. As Bloomberg.com put it, "The bond market is saying that it's safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama."

That may sound common-sensical — Buffett has experience at meeting payrolls, while Obama does not — but it's actually a surprising perception. Berkshire Hathaway, after all, conceivably could make so many mistakes that it runs out of money and closes down. But the U.S. government is not about to run out of money, even if it keeps overspending.

Why not? First, it can appropriate more of its citizens' earnings through the tax system. Second, and more important, it can print money to pay its bills. Warren Buffett doesn't have those options.

So it's hard to see why investors would be leery. Well, actually, it's not so hard: The federal government is digging itself deeper into debt every month and intends to keep doing so indefinitely.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offers a prognosis: "Under the president's budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020." Interest payments would quadruple.

The long-term problem here is not that the government eventually would default on its obligations. The danger is that it would create money to make those debts payable, a course that would lead to much higher inflation. Then, yields on even impeccable corporate bonds would climb with those of T-bills.

The economy would also suffer as businesses and households scrambled to cope with the disruptive effects of soaring prices. It would suffer again if and when the government decided to curb inflation by driving up interest rates — a step that virtually guarantees a sharp downturn.

Frightened investors may be wrong to think they're less likely to get their money back from the government than from Buffett's Berkshire.

But they're not wrong to be frightened.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-buffett-20100329,0,7563220.story

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

One where the first resort people look to solve their personal issues isn't the government.
Personally, I have never looked to "The Government" to solve any of my personal problems.  I can't say that I know anyone who does but then, I might choose my friends well.  But even with good friends I see that the majority of people are cruel and selfish and would happily watch people die because they were not smart, savvy, or able to succeed based on a purely monetary definition of success.

One where the government doesn't employ and have union contracts 30% of the workforce
Smaller governement would have a smaller workforce.  I don't disagree with this.  Other employers have massive layoffs.  Government could as well.  But did this all happen in the past year-1/2?  Why didn't the Republicans shrink this number when they were in power?  What bills are they introducing now to solve this problem?

One where personal accountability and consequences for decisions reside with the individual.
But of course you are talking about individuals who are capable.  The children, mentally retarded, and mentally diminished should have a 'safety net' right?

One where failure is allowed to happen and isn't funded with the efforts and product of the successful.
I agree with this!!  We should have never ever ever given money to bail out industry.  But the Republicans did this, so how do they not want it?  What are they doing now to repeal this and get our money back?  What bills are they proposing to make sure bailouts are never allowed in the future?

One where where charity is not a government function.
I would agree with this.  What are the Republicans doing to repeal the Faith-Based initiative?  Why are taxpayers funding churches?  Why did Bush give out all that money to 9/11 victim families?  I think we should take that money back. It would seem Republicans have done a lot to make charity a government function.  What are they proposing or what bills are on the floor to change this?

One where personal choice isn't a one issue slogan.

One where contracts replace laws prohibiting, or allowing individuals to live, love, and partner with whomever and as many they choose.
I'm assuming you are speaking of legal adults here.  NAMBLA would otherwise agree with you.

One where the religion industry is taxed like any other industry.
Are we working on how to define when religion is an industry and not a gathering of believers?

One where taxes are based on what you spend and not what you earn.
Again, what bills are being introduced by Republicans or called for by Tea-Partiers to revise our tax laws?

One where equality isn't attempted by implementing laws which, by definition, make some people 'more equal' than others.
But looking at the above.... eqaul would be defined by how much one earns.  There will always be some people who are 'more equal' and the stupid like me would be personally responsible for having less.  You can never make people 'equal'  they just aren't.

Many people see 'America' fading because they see their ability to make personal decisions fading, replaced by government dictates. They want government off their backs, but at the same time they have become comfortable with their personal entitlements and have great difficulty combining those two concepts. Too much indoctrination and political correctness in the last two generations of students may have eliminated fundamental personal accountability from the thought process from many 'Americans'; but that's my opinion only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

What they want is an America that's the leader in innovation,  manufactures the best affordable products in the world, a strong working middle class, baseball, hot dogs, & apple pie.
What have the Republicans done under two Bushes to accomplish this goal?  What has Obama done in the past year that has prohibited this?

They want city, county, state & federal government to stop trying to regulate and tax to death what they buy, eat, smoke, or drink.
What have the Republicans done under two Bushes to accomplish this goal?  What has Obama done in the past year that has prohibited this?

Basically they want 1948-1965 back.
Back then we had strong banking and energy-industry regulations that kept Enron from happening and from Wall-Street from having legal ponzi schemes and pyramids.  What are the Republicans and Tea-Partiers doing to put those back in place?  Are they also working on getting segregation back? 

Everything else you've read in this thread so far is bullshit, with Merc being the exception.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
No actually its your post that is bullshit...tell us Subrob,what happened in 1965...what changed?

Kennedy increased Green Beret activity in Vietnam

In 1965? Really?