The Republicans took the house.

[Scar My Machine]

In all honesty, I thought Phee was talking about the extremists.

[phee]

Sure. though I would have prefered "I'm sorry I worded it so poorly." or "I'm sorry I used a blanket statement."

so, let me rephrase....

I'm sorry I was offended by your blanket insult to all Tea party members when I should have been able to read your mind and know you meant only the fringe elements of the Tea party.

There just is no compromising with you sir. I can see why you fit the party so well.

[prick]

you know what gets me? if people really want change, they should stop voting for either democrats OR republicans. one or the other has been in power since the 35th congress in 1857.

vote third party or independent, but stop putting the same assholes back in power all the time! they'll never get along, they'll never agree on anything, so "fire" them all!

Amen brotha!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

In all honesty, I thought Phee was talking about the extremists.

I just don't see where that distinction was made. "the tea party and other extremists" seems to be calling all members of the Tea Party extremists.

and yes, I do fit in with the Tea Party pretty well. We read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Federalist papers. We read whats on the paper and not imaginary stuff between the lines. and we tend to hold people accountalbe for what they say/write/do rather than what we think they might have said/wrote/done.

Well, I'm done kicking that dead horse.

Anyone else watch Obama's press conferance today? I'm not holding my breath for bi-partizen anything... He still seems to think that cooperation is achieved by sticking to your guns and blaming everyone else for the problems around you.

[phee]

Anyone else watch Obama's press conferance today? I'm not holding my breath for bi-partizen anything... He still seems to think that cooperation is achieved by sticking to your guns and blaming everyone else for the problems around you.

He is still a politician yeppers.

[Scar My Machine]

I just don't see where that distinction was made. "the tea party and other extremists" seems to be calling all members of the Tea Party extremists.

I took that "other extremists" to mean republican and democrat. But I didn't see it as painting with a broad brush. I took it to mean that there are extremists in all parties be they political or religious.

There are extremists in all walks of life. If someone said "rich snooty people from the burbs" I wouldn't be offended because I'm neither rich nor a snob, I just happen to have grown up in the burbs. Also, I would half agree with the remark that there are those types in the burbs.

But I separate myself from those kind of people so if someone were to make a broad generalization about something I tend to give people the benefit of doubt. Unless they came right out and said they meant everyone. Then I just wouldn't put forth the effort to argue with them because they have already made up their mind.

[KatRN05]

Personally, when I read the statement, I too felt that Phee was referring to the Tea Party as extremists. Saying "Tea Party and other extremists" can give the distinction that the Tea Party is an extremist group.

Edited November 3, 2010 by KatRN05

[phee]

I do find a lot of the activists in the tea party as pretty extreme... yes

[KatRN05]

I do find a lot of the activists in the tea party as pretty extreme... yes

There are a few. I was actually a member of their FB page and I had to "unlike" it because I saw way too many people touting about how conservative they were and then spewing racist and anti-any religion other than Christianity.....mainly anti-Muslim remarks.

Edited November 3, 2010 by KatRN05

[Scar My Machine]

I do find a lot of the activists in the tea party as pretty extreme... yes

[Scar My Machine]

Unfortunately, so do I. I was actually a member of their FB page and I had to "unlike" it because I saw way too many people touting about how conservative they were and then spewing racist and anti-any religion other than Christianity.....mainly anti-Muslim remarks.

I believe that there was content of that nature on their FB page but one has to wonder just how legit some posts are. It's my belief that lots of teens/college students get a kick from posting b.s. on any given site just for laughs. But don't take my statement to mean that there isn't the very real possibility they were all or mostly all real feelings from real members.

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where a few assholes turn good things into horrible things for the rest of us.

[KatRN05]

I believe that there was content of that nature on their FB page but one has to wonder just how legit some posts are. It's my belief that lots of teens/college students get a kick from posting b.s. on any given site just for laughs. But don't take my statement to mean that there isn't the very real possibility they were all or mostly all real feelings from real members.

It's unfortunate that we live in a world where a few assholes turn good things into horrible things for the rest of us.

I think when it was originally thought out and started, the Tea Party had and still has the right ideas. But I think there are a few people who claim to be "Tea Partiers" that are making it into something it shouldn't be, an anti-Muslim and racist organization. I don't mean to paint the organization as being racist. But yeah, I think your last statement is very true of the Tea Party.

Edited November 3, 2010 by KatRN05

[phee]

I think when it was originally thought out and started, the Tea Party had and still has the right ideas. But I think there are a few people who claim to be "Tea Partiers" that are making it into something it shouldn't be, an anti-Muslim and racist organization. I don't mean to paint the organization as being racist. But yeah, I think your last statement is very true of the Tea Party.

This sounds like a reasonable statement.

[KatRN05]

This sounds like a reasonable statement.

I try.

[Destroit]

IN OTHER OTHER WORDS: CONSERVATIVES, PLEASE BE MORE LIKE DGN'S CHERNOBYL (you can be a fiscal conservative, without being a homophobic, racist, bible-thumping douche.)

I'm Chernobyl and I approve this message.

I'm Chernobyl and I approve this message.

[the eternal]

Um, first of all, it's downright painful sometimes to read the dynamic duo of conservatives, because you both take yourself so seriously in the political forum, you completely miss satire.

Please, for the love of g-d, don't ever EVER read the Onion.

Your heads will explode.

Those earlier signs were funny because they were poking fun at some of the far right signs held up at tea party rallies, NOT promoting the same thing.

Now, in fairness, you used to see signs like those FROM the far left.

HERE'S THE DIFFERENCE

Those lefties, mostly anarchists and socialists, were and always will be marginalized and distanced from by the mainstream left and Democratic Party. The wacko fringe OF the tea party are NOT dismissed. In fact some were running this year!

The GOP is smart though. Always has been. They waited for the tea party to grow. Energize people. They realized that most tea partiers are normal folk. Then, when it got big enough, they funneled tons of money into the movement, and then let about a third of them, the slicker more mainstream ones, get elected while taking out the other 2/3.

Without the tea party, the GOP wouldn't have the enthusiasm it does. They were a very good thing.

But the American people don't share all the same values with them.

Which is why there'll need to be compromise, which is COMPLETELY anathema to the whole movement.

The American people on the one hand, are frustrated that

---they never understood what was happening with the health care overhaul (If any of you call it Obamacare, which is wrong on so many levels, I encourage everyone on this board to bring back the term "teabagger") and

---they feel Obama dropped the ball on job creation

Tea Party +1

BUT, the Americans ALSO love their social security and their Medicare (BIG GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, BABY)

and feel that Wall Street should be regulated so corporations can't get away with murder.

(sorry invisible hand of the marketplace, you've been jacking yourself off one too many times at the expense of your citizens)

Dems +1

There is a middle ground but I don't think for a second, the new Congress will take it.

COTN--It's tough to read your posts, because they contradict your personality.

You're a pretty understanding moderate guy, but if I close my eyes I would swear your posts are coming straight from Glenn Becks mouth.

The idea that Pelosi is the devil, and that Obama is evil, and that all Democrats want to do is

tax and punish Americans is the kind of rhetoric that is the problem in political discourse.

It has squelched compromise and communication.

Can't we imagine for ONE FUCKING SECOND that just maybe we have two differing schools of thought and both come from a pure place, and that BOTH

Boehner AND Pelosi,

the Dems AND the GOP

want whats best for this country but have different paths to get us there.

Compromise is dead and the next two years will be nothing but gridlock and fingerpointing.

This is the best thing that could have happened to Obama. Now he'll have someone to blame when nothing happens.

As for the Constitution, just because you hold it up while dressing like you're attending the country's oldest Halloween party, doesn't mean you are the #1 authority on the constitution.

One of your golden girls, former witch and anti-masturbation activist Christine ODonnell hasn't even read the 1st amendment.

This is the unofficial end of my post but, if any of you are bored, here's a Newsweek article on the new constitutional "scholars".

America’s Holy Writ

Tea Party evangelists claim the Constitution as their sacred text. Why that’s wrong.

by Andrew RomanoOctober 17, 2010

Win McNamee / Getty Images

Tea Partiers hold up the Constitution on Tax Day in Washington.

Since winning the Republican senate primary in Delaware last month, Christine O’Donnell has not had trouble getting noticed. When the Tea Party icon admitted to “dabbl[ing] into witchcraft” as a youngster, the press went wild. When she revealed that she was “not a witch” after all, the response was rabid. O’Donnell has fudged her academic credentials, defaulted on her mortgage, sued a former employer, and campaigned against masturbation, and her efforts have been rewarded with round-the-clock coverage. Yet few observers seem to have given her views on the United States Constitution the same level of consideration. Which is too bad, because O’Donnell’s Tea Party take on our founding text is as unusual as her stance on autoeroticism. Except that it could actually have consequences.

Win McNamee / Getty Images

Inside the Tea Party

Inside the Tea Party Last month, the candidate spoke to 2,000 right-wing activists at the annual Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. She wore a black suit and pearls, and swept on stage to the sound of Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin’.” Most of the speech was unremarkable: a laundry list of conservative platitudes. But near the end she veered into stranger—and more revealing—territory. O’Donnell once told voters that her “No. 1” qualification for the Senate is an eight-day course she took at a conservative think tank in 2002. Now she was revisiting its subject: the Constitution.

The Founders’ masterpiece, O’Donnell said, isn’t just a legal document; it’s a “covenant” based on “divine principles.” For decades, she continued, the agents of “anti-Americanism” who dominate “the D.C. cocktail crowd” have disrespected the hallowed document. But now, finally, in the “darker days” of the Obama administration, “the Constitution is making a comeback.” Like the “chosen people of Israel,” who “cycle[d] through periods of blessing and suffering,” the Tea Party has rediscovered America’s version of “the Hebrew Scriptures” and led the country into “a season of constitutional repentance.” Going forward, O’Donnell declared, Republicans must champion the “American values” enshrined in our sacred text. “There are more of us than there are of them,” she concluded.

By now, O’Donnell’s rhetoric should sound familiar. In part that’s because her fellow Tea Party patriots—Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the guy at the rally in the tricorn hat—also refer to the Constitution as if it were a holy instruction manual that was lost, but now, thanks to them, is found. And yet the reverberations go further back than Beck. The last time America elected a new Democratic president, in 1992, the Republican Party’s then-dominant insurgent group used identical language to describe the altogether different document that defined their cause and divided them from the heretics in charge: the Bible. The echoes of the religious right in O’Donnell’s speech—the Christian framework, the resurrection narrative, the “us vs. them” motif, the fixation on “values”—aren’t coincidental.

From a legal perspective, there’s a case to be made that O’Donnell’s argument is inaccurate. The Constitution is a relentlessly secular document that never once mentions God or Jesus. And nothing in recent jurisprudence suggests that the past few decades of governing have been any less constitutional than the decades that preceded them. But the Tea Party’s language isn’t legal, and neither is its logic. It’s moral: right vs. wrong. What O’Donnell & Co. are really talking about is culture war.

When Barack Obama took office, experts rushed to declare an end to the old battles over race, religion, and reproductive rights—whether because of Obama’s alleged healing powers, or the Great Recession, or both. But these analyses ignored an important reality: at heart, the culture wars were really never about anything as specific as abortion or gay marriage. Instead, as James Davison Hunter wrote in Culture Wars, the book that popularized the term, the conflicts of the 1990s represented something bigger: “a struggle over…who we have been...who we are now, and...who we, as a nation, will aspire” to be. Such conflicts, Hunter explained, pit “orthodox” Americans, who like the way things were, against their more “progressive” peers, who are comfortable with the way things are becoming.

Shane Bevel / AP

PHOTOS: A History of America's Conservative Movements

A History of American Conservative Movements For the forces of orthodoxy, the election of a black, urban, liberal Democrat with a Muslim name wasn’t a panacea at all; it was a provocation. So when the recession hit, and new economic anxieties displaced the lingering social concerns of the Clinton era, political fundamentalists sought refuge in a more relevant scripture—one that could still be made to accommodate the simpler, surer past they longed for but happened to dwell on taxes and government instead of sinning and being saved.

The Constitution was waiting. Today, Tea Party activists gather to recite the entire document to each other. They demand that a wayward America return to its Constitutional roots. They even travel to Colonial Williamsburg and ask the actor playing George Washington how to topple a tyrannical government. In short, they take their Constitution worship very, very seriously. The question now is whether the rest of us should as well.

Contemporary Constitution worshipers claim that they’ve distilled their entire political platform—lower taxes, less regulation, minimal federal government—directly from the original text of the founding document. Any overlap with mainstream conservatism is incidental, they say; they’re simply following the Framers’ precise instructions. If this were true, it would be quite the political coup: oppose us, the Tea Party could claim, and you’re opposing James Madison. But the reality is that Tea Partiers engage with the Constitution in such a selective manner, and for such nakedly political purposes, that they’re clearly relying on it more as an instrument of self-affirmation and cultural division than a source of policy inspiration.

In legal circles, constitutional fundamentalism is nothing new. For decades, scholars and judges have debated how the founding document should factor into contemporary legal proceedings. Some experts believe in a so-called living Constitution—a set of principles that, while admirable and enduring, must be interpreted in light of present-day social developments in order to be properly upheld. Others adhere to originalism, which is the idea that the ratifiers’ original meaning is fixed, knowable, and clearly articulated in the text of the Constitution itself.

While conservatives generally prefer the second approach, many disagree over how it should be implemented—including the Supreme Court’s most committed originalists, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thomas sympathizes with a radical version of originalism known as the Constitution in Exile. In his view, the Supreme Court of the 1930s unwisely discarded the 19th-century’s strict judicial limits on Federal power, and the only way to resurrect the “original” Constitution—and regain our unalienable rights—is by rolling back the welfare state, repealing regulations, and perhaps even putting an end to progressive taxation. In contrast, Scalia is willing to respect precedent—even though it sometimes departs from his understanding of the Constitution’s original meaning. His caution reflects a simple reality: that upending post-1937 case law and reversing settled principles would prove extremely disruptive, both in the courts and society at large. As Cass Sunstein, a centrist legal scholar at the University of Chicago who now serves in the Obama administration, has explained, “many decisions of the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and possibly the National Labor Relations Board would be [ruled] unconstitutional” if Thomas got his way. Social Security could be eliminated. Same goes for the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve. Individual states might be allowed to establish official religions. Even minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws would be jeopardized.

Tea Partiers tend to sound more like Thomas than Scalia. Every weekday on Fox News, Glenn Beck—“the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters,” according to a recent poll—takes to his schoolroom chalkboard to rail against progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. “They knew they had to separate us from our history,” he says, “to be able to separate us from our Constitution and God.” In Beck’s view, progressives forsook the faithful Christian Founders and forced the country to adopt a slew of unconstitutional measures that triggered our long decline into Obama-era totalitarianism: the Federal Reserve System, Social Security, the graduated federal income tax. True patriots, according to Beck, favor a pre-progressive vision of the United States. When Nevada Senate nominee Sharron Angle says we need to “phase out” Social Security and Medicare; when Alaska Senate nominee Joe Miller asserts that unemployment benefits are “unconstitutional”; when West Virginia Senate nominee John Raese declares that the minimum wage should “absolutely” be abolished; when Kentucky Senate nominee Rand Paul questions the legality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; when Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann claims that Obama’s new health-insurance law violates the Constitution; and when various Tea Party candidates say they want to repeal the amendments that triggered the federal income tax and the direct election of senators—this is the vision they’re promoting. At times, the Tea Party can seem like a popularized, politicized offshoot of the Constitution in Exile movement.

Over the years critics have lodged dozens of objections to originalism—the disagreements among the Founders; the preservation of slavery in the final product; the inclusion of an amendment process—and they apply to the Tea Party’s interpretation of the Constitution, too. But at least originalism is a rational, consistent philosophy. The real problem with the Tea Party’s brand of Constitution worship isn’t that it’s too dogmatic. It’s that it isn’t dogmatic enough. In recent months, Tea Party candidates have behaved in ways that belie their public commitment to combating progressivism. They’ve backed measures that blatantly contradict their originalist mission. And they’ve frequently misunderstood or misrepresented the Constitution itself. In May, for example, Paul told a Russian television station that America “should stop” automatically granting citizenship to the native-born children of illegal immigrants. Turns out his suggestion would be unconstitutional, at least according to the 14th Amendment (1868) and a pair of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. A few weeks later, Paul said he’d like to prevent federal contractors from lobbying Congress—a likely violation of their First Amendment right to redress. In July, Alaska’s Miller told ABC News that unemployment benefits are not “constitutionally authorized.” Reports later revealed that his wife claimed unemployment in 2002.

The list goes on. Most Tea Partiers claim that the 10th Amendment, which says “the powers not delegated” to the federal government are “reserved to the states,” is proof that the Framers would’ve balked at today’s bureaucracy. What they don’t mention is that James Madison refused a motion to add the word “expressly” before “delegated” because “there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication.” In last week’s Delaware Senate debate, O’Donnell was asked to name a recent Supreme Court case she disagreed with. “Oh, gosh,” she stammered, unable to cite a single piece of evidence to support her Constitution in Exile talking points. “I know that there are a lot, but, uh, I’ll put it up on my Web site, I promise you.” Angle has said that “government isn’t what our Founding Fathers put into the Constitution”—even though establishing a federal government with the “Power To lay and collect Taxes” to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare” is one of the main reasons the Founders created a Constitution to replace the weak, decentralized Articles of Confederation. In 2008 Palin told Katie Couric that the Constitution does, in fact, guarantee “an inherent right to privacy,” à la Roe v. Wade, but added that “individual states…can handle an issue like that.” Unfortunately, Palin’s hypothesis would only be viable in a world without the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave Washington sole responsibility for safeguarding all constitutional rights. Then there are the proposed amendments. In the current Congress, conservatives like Michele Bachmann have suggested more than 40 additions to the Constitution: a flag-desecration amendment; a balanced-budget amendment; a “parental rights” amendment; a supermajority-to-raise-taxes amendment; anti-abortion amendment; an anti-gay-marriage amendment; and so on. None of these revisions has anything to do with the document’s original meaning.

The truth is that for all their talk of purity, politicians like Palin, Angle, and Miller don’t seem to be particularly concerned with matching their actual positions to the Constitution they profess to worship. For them, the sacred text serves a higher purpose—and in the end, that purpose isn’t hard to pinpoint.

Since the earliest days of the republic, Americans have, like the Tea Partiers, spoken of the Constitution in religious terms. In 1792, Madison wrote that “common reverence…should guarantee, with a holy zeal, these political scriptures from every attempt to add to or diminish from them.” George Washington’s Farewell Address included a plea that the Constitution “be sacredly maintained.” In his Lyceum speech of 1838, Abraham Lincoln cited the document as the source of “the political religion of the nation” and demanded that its laws be “religiously observed.” In 1968, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black called the Constitution his “legal bible,” and a few years later, during Richard Nixon’s impeachment hearings, Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan testified that her “faith in the Constitution is whole.” But the similarity between these figures and the Tea Partiers ends at the level of language. For leaders like Lincoln and Jordan, the Constitution is a symbol “that suppl[ies] an overarching sense of unity even in a society otherwise riddled with conflict,” as sociologist Robin Williams once wrote. It is an integrative force—the cornerstone of our civil religion.

The Tea Partiers belong to a different tradition—a tradition of divisive fundamentalism. Like other fundamentalists, they seek refuge from the complexity and confusion of modern life in the comforting embrace of an authoritarian scripture and the imagined past it supposedly represents. Like other fundamentalists, they see in their good book only what they want to see: confirmation of their preexisting beliefs. Like other fundamentalists, they don’t sweat the details, and they ignore all ambiguities. And like other fundamentalists, they make enemies or evildoers of those who disagree with their doctrine. In the 1930s, the American Liberty League opposed FDR’s New Deal by flogging its version of the Constitution with what historian Frederick Rudolph once described as “a worshipful intensity.” In the 1960s, the John Birch Society imagined a vast communist conspiracy in similar terms. In 1992 conservative activists formed what came to be known as the Constitution Party—Sharron Angle was once a member—in order to “restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.” Today, Angle asserts that “separation of church and state is an unconstitutional doctrine,” and Palin claims that “the Constitution…essentially acknowledg[es] that our unalienable rights…come from God.” The point is always the same: to suggest that the Constitution, like the Bible, decrees what’s right and wrong (rather than what’s legal and illegal), and to insist that only the fundamentalists and their ilk can access its truths. We are moral, you are not; we represent America, you do not. Theirs is the rallying cry of culture war.

The Tea Partiers are right to revere the Constitution. It’s a remarkable, even miraculous document. But there are many Constitutions: the Constitution of 1789, of 1864, of 1925, of 1936, of 1970, of today. Where O’Donnell & Co. go wrong is in insisting that their idealized document is the country’s one true Constitution, and that dissenters are somehow un-American. By putting the Constitution front and center, the Tea Party has reinvigorated a long-simmering argument over who we are and who we want to be. That’s great. But to truly honor the Founders’ spirit, they have to make room for actual debate. As usual, Thomas Jefferson put it best. In a letter to a friend in 1816, he mocked “men [who] look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched”; “who ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.” “Let us follow no such examples, nor weakly believe that one generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself, and of ordering its own affairs,” he concluded. “Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before.” Amen.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Your video link doesn't work. Is that the video of her saying that Seperation of Church and State is not in the Constitution? I am going to assume it is because that seems to be the thing I remember people laughing about and calling her ignorant about. What I find so funny about that, is that serperation of church and state is NOT in the constitution. Not expressed in that way at least. It wasn't until 1947 that the Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment clause and the Free Exorcise clause amount to that seperation.

[creatureofthenyte]

Dynamic duo ? LOL now That is satire.

Eternal,

When I see a sign that wishes death upon someone else, I take that Very seriously.

Yes, my viewpoint is Conservative, so yes, when I saw that sign I took offense to it.

That sign was NOT satire, that sign was Hate speech.

You're trying to say, "oh relax, it was just satire."

If someone was holding up a sign wishing death upon Left wing democrats, Or more notably, a sign that said Death to You,

Would you take That seriously ?

or would you believe the person if they said "oh I'm just being satirical" lol I was just kidding ?

The Republicans are going to stop President Obama from screwing up this country any further, and there's nothing that either one of us can do about that.

We are going to be polar opposites when it comes to our political viewpoints, probably forever Eternal, I have no problem with that.

I am happy with the Election results, I'm happy that the Republicans took the house. I am a registered Independant, so if the Republicans drop the ball, they'll get fired Again.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

OK, I have some more numbers... according to NBC... 113 Tea Party canidates won thier elections and are going to Washington to serve in the House starting next year.

wanted to add... I'm pretty sure that number is a combination of the state and federal elections.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Gaf The Horse With Tears

[Rev.Reverence]

Gaf... even when people are trying to get along with you, you feel persecuted.

What I am seeing is you crafting a sentance that used blanket statements that insulted me and rather than apoligize for a porely crafted opening statement you are trying to pretend that you wrote a completly different sentance and I am the one being difficult.

...just like the reps, & dems...it makes NO DIFFERENCE, if you pick on every word the other says...you're both wrong...& do often seem to ditch your maturity in these situations...

HERE...a bit of musical therapy for everyone...

[Rev.Reverence]

And notice I said "politicians" ------ that means all parties, Left Right and Center.

If things keep going around in circles because of bigotry and hatred and negative feelings for others we are gonna find out what it really means to lose it all.

There should be an amendment to the constitution that says members of the house, senate and congress lose benefits and salary (each side equally) every couple of weeks that they don't solve our nations problems. So even if one party wants to be assholes and not work with the other party they both lose money (seems money is the only thing they understand, well, getting it in their pockets anyway).

Maybe that would light a fire under their asses.

YOU...you, are pretty cool.

[Rev.Reverence]

OH...& as REV has said before...

LEFT WING

RIGHT WING

IT'S ALL THE SAME FUCKING BIRD!~

^{(Love it or leave it, Biatchez!)}

[TheGimp]

and it starts... cant derail me phee... you started this thread with hate and bigotry... just own up to it and we can move on.

phee a bigot? phee hate? this is news to me....not once have i gathered from any of his posts and while i have only met the man once or twice in person i can say i have never got a bigot or hate filled vibe from him....my on view of him however

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

So.. if anyone want a good laugh... go check out DAilyKos... they are flipping out.

[phenom]

you can be a fiscal conservative, without being a homophobic, racist, bible-thumping douche.)

Does not agreeing with homosexuality make someone homophobic? Can people not like/agree with something anymore without a title? And what makes someone racist? Because someone does not agree with an Obama policy, they are labeled a racist? Because the man is black?

These conservatives you speak of are not homophobic for not liking homosexuality, they, and the majority of Americans that are not even affiliated with a political party, think it is wrong. So that makes them homophobes? Because they don't like the idea? That is retarded.

And people are racist simply because they don't like what the president is doing to the country? Whatever happened to Dr. King's words?

'content of character and not the color of skin' ... why ASSume someone is racist simply for not agreeing with an Obama policy? Again, retarded.

I don't like how it is cool to call anyone that does not agree with the liberal agenda some sort of derogatory word. Don't like homosexuality? LABEL. Don't agree with a policy? LABEL. Don't agree with giving away your hard-earned money to those that refuse to work? LABEL.

Childish does not come close to the definition I am looking for.