I also posted one about allegations that McCain was a traitor who sold out his country. And I seriously doubt you think I believe McCain was aa traitor who got other Americans killed. But I raised it for discussion. I've done that on many subjects I disagree with, or at least am skeptical about.
You mostly questioned in the McCain one and ended it by mentioning you'd never heard something as beyond the pale as the allegation. There is a big difference between that and saying the other thing is incoherent, rusty knife driving piece that makes you think about Obama's other allegiances and how Democrats would vote for him despite flaming 666s on his forehead. Please don't try to play like those are equal comparisons.
Old stats. How about something that hasn't been on the shelf for over two years. How about stats on how most view them unfavorably? How about recent ones that show one out of every two tea partiers you meet will be an evangelical? How about newer polls and studies showing the Tea Party shifting to being older, more male, and more white? Your case starts to fall apart when you look at where the tea party is trending.
I've never heard the term "SocioCon" whatever the hell that means.
And I doubt many, if any, Tea Partiers have heard the term you label them under either. Every Tea party person I've spoken to has only raised federal debt and tax issues. None have ever mentioned abortion or gay rights or whatever with me.
However... I consisently hear rabid liberal Promod-type slanderers try to ALLEGE that these issues are of equal importance to Tea Party members. Tea Party members are largely conservative. Some conservatives are more concerned about social issues (gay rights, abortion, stem cell research). There is inevitably some crossover. SOME social-issue advocates will inevitably be Tea Party activists too. But that is not the same as the entire movement being enslaved to an abortion agenda or litmus-test.
Sociocon or SoCon is short-hand for social conservative, duh. You find that type of stuff outside of the SoCon fold. As for the Tea Party, the group is trending whiter and evangelical. Fact. Just the other week there were several "God and Country" Tea Party celebrations across the country. Many are openly accepting the rebranding as "Teavangelicals". Tea Party groups across that nation held "God and Country" celebrations just a week or so ago.
It may have once been overlap but it is looking more and more like a takeover.
It's not paranoia when you really are a partisan tool, pretending to be something you're not.
The "petty insults" guy engaging in petty insults. That's hilaritas!!
Way to shrink the tent, numbnuts.
Why?
Why dodge the true issue? You claim to be conservative, but mock "God and Country". Just like Pro. Just like Whomod.
Must I sign a "God and Country" pledge to be a conservative? If so, fuck it. And, fuck you guys getting people like me on board so you can win fucking elections.
Introspection is recognizing the true enemy from within. Alinsky teaches to infiltrate the system, put on a suit and tie, pretend to be "the man" and collapse the system from within. In the news media, in education, in college academia (which you coincidentalkly work in), in movies, television and entertainment) that infiltration is precisely what's happened over the last 45 years or so.
And Obama in particular and Hillary Clinton, are the embodiment of that deceit. All that is the fruit of Saul Alinsky, in whom both are clearly and unapologetically indoctrinated.
The edge of the cliff Obama has brought us to is the wet-dream of Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Cloward and Piven strategy, William Ayers, Jeff Jones (who WROTE the Stimulus and Obamacare bills!), Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones.
Obama has brought us to the edge of economic, financial and military collapse. Destruction of the nation. What could possibly be more important and "introspective" to discuss?!?
A movement that has become a caricature of itself while wallowing in the hypocrisy of engaging in similar partisan tactics to those they decry the president and his cronies of doing is worth pointing out. Both sides have acted like petulant children for--at least--the past two years. I don't see one side having control of the government in the coming four which means at some point both sides need to quit acting like kids, sit at the fucking table, and work out a god damned compromise that makes them both eat their fucking veggies. Both sides lose, not one or the other, and America wins.
"Bagger."
Again with the empty insults characteristic of the far-left, of a Promod.
You don't have to be a left-winger to find the Tea Party leaving a bad taste in your mouth. My experience in various TP groups has done that. So, yeah, I call 'em baggers. So. fucking. what?
As for how it relates to Paul, unfortunately there are people with that mindset that are part of the Revolution and self-described Tea Partiers.
It was Dinesh D'Souza's ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE that finally convinced me that there was a more refined explanation than Obama being a muslim or conventional marxist to explain his actions as president. Obama a "choom-gang" dope-smoking hippie. He is an ultra-liberal on many issues, such as gay rights and abortion, that many muslims would oppose. I would more readily believe him a marxist than a Manchurian muslim. As D'Souza details, it is a hostility toward Western culture and a shared anti-Colonialism Obama shares with muslim conservatives, not their core beliefs.
But in any case, Obama relies on deceit to advance a decidedly un-American agenda.
Obama doesn't have a goal of a North American califate, but he does clearly advocate wealth redistribution, class warfare, and (consistent with his indoctrination in liberation theology) wants to diminish U.S./western global power to raise the power of non-european peoples, domestically and worldwide.
That is not "bagger" ignorance or paranoia, that is often verbatim what Obama has said, and done as president, and in speeches prior.
D'Souza's quackpot movie is no truer now that it is on dvd than it was when it was in theaters. He may read from Obama's book but the crazy interpretation is all his own creation. Maybe, this is why he and his wife have separated and he is now involved in a bit of a scandal.
I watched Steve Hayes before the 2nd debate last night, saying it's ridiculous to say Romney has not been specific. That while he could be more specific, he has already been far more specific in what he would do as president than Obama has in either 2008 or the current campaign.
So, now it is okay for Republicans because "Obama did it first." Oy vey!
Democrats will never acknowledge anything Romney offers as valid, no matter how specific. They will just slice it into misrepresentative pieces and throw them back at Romney in smear ads.
"Oh noes!!! Democrats won't play nice with it so we just won't show it to anybody!!!"
Gary Johnson 2012
And by the way, what SPECIFIC plans has Ron Paul laid down that he would do as president?
Abolish the education system?
Abolish the IRS? (Without a specific plan to replace it.)
Abolish the Federal Reserve?
Those are nice sweeping little rabble-rousers to get the Ron Paul crowds cheering, but I don't hear much in the way of specifics of how these would be done without further wrecking the country. Romney addresses many of these issues in a more careful and lucid way, for which you demonize him, despite that he offers more specifics than Paul.
Thirty years of consistent thought in speeches, books, and pamphlets are there to answer any questions you may have. You can even get some for free in pdf format over at the Mises Institute library (cheap plug win!!!).
What's a guy to think, when you never have anything good to say about Republicans or Fox, and never seem to have any criticism of the Democrats and the media, despite the are deceitfully bringing destruction on us like has never been seen.
I think there are three types of people not voting for Obama in this election: the loud Obama haters, the Romney's the best we can do so let's shut up and get it over with types, and the why trade one tool for another vote third party crowd. I fall into the latter of those, of course.
So far, I have no Democrats on my slate of votes for Nov 6. They are all either Republicans or libertarians. If Mitt doesn't get elected, I don't think it will be the end of the world. Moodys is saying 12 million (that's Mitt's number) new jobs are forecast regardless of the 2012 outcome. All others point to a slightly smaller but similarly great increase in jobs over the next four years. Considering those are the forecasts, Mitt's "Get America Working Again" is just empty rhetoric unless he means that his 12 million are on top of that 12 million which would mean 48 months of continuous job growth of 500,000 jobs a month (see also, when pigs fly).
Everything else he has said is heard it before and not falling for it again.
So sue me when I don't rave about the bank funded, crony, vulture capitalist being vaunted as the solution to the bank funded, crony capitalist community organizer.
But, just to let you know, I would sign the dotted line for an entire Senate full of guys like Coburn, DeMint, and Paul if they promised to check their social values at the door and focus on only the debt and the economy. There are many of us out here who feel this way. Tell 'em to come a-courtin' anytime they're willing to deal. And, get used to it because it is going to be the new face of the GOP electorate if they don't confine themselves to irrelevance.
