Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

You reap what you sow......



Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) calls for gun-control legislation aimed at protecting lawmakers

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) plans to introduce legislation making it illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of lawmakers and some other government officials.



Gabrielle Giffords' Arizona shooting prompts resignations

A nasty battle between factions of Legislative District 20 Republicans and fears that it could turn violent in the wake of what happened in Tucson on Saturday prompted District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others to resign.

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.

 

 

1/12/2011 12:24 PM (edited)
What makes Peter King's sh*t smell nicer that he needs this law?  F him.
1/12/2011 12:09 PM
1/12/2011 4:52 PM
Posted by raucous on 1/12/2011 4:52:00 PM (view original):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/docs/Bernie.pdf

Never waste a good crisis!
It seems that the Tea Party agrees with that sentiment.


Tea Party Express raising money in aftermath of Arizona shooting

The Tea Party Express, a California-based conservative political action committee, sent out a letter to supporters Monday requesting donations in reaction to Saturday’s shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona that claimed six lives.


1/12/2011 4:58 PM
Wanna guess which one of those two stories FOX is throwing a fit about?
1/12/2011 5:14 PM
I have a feeling that tomorrow ABC will be throwing a fit about one of these stories too.
1/12/2011 9:34 PM
ABC was the first to report the Sanders email.  Actually, all of the corporate media outlets have reported on the Sanders email while ignoring the TP email.
1/12/2011 9:45 PM
ok.

TP....  makes me laugh.
1/12/2011 9:52 PM
Posted by creilmann on 1/12/2011 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by raucous on 1/12/2011 4:52:00 PM (view original):
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/all/files/docs/Bernie.pdf

Never waste a good crisis!
It seems that the Tea Party agrees with that sentiment.


Tea Party Express raising money in aftermath of Arizona shooting

The Tea Party Express, a California-based conservative political action committee, sent out a letter to supporters Monday requesting donations in reaction to Saturday’s shooting at a political event in Tucson, Arizona that claimed six lives.


Neither of them is really an issue. Anyone that says otherwise is selling something!
1/13/2011 12:23 AM
Posted by creilmann on 1/12/2011 10:00:00 AM (view original):
I never provided data, just facts about what the state has done to create today's suburban landscape.  There is no gap in the info I provided and my point.  I even summed it up quite nicely for you at the end.  I addressed your issue with intent earlier.  Others have read it and seem to understand my points, whether they agree or not is another story.  The also seem to agree that you have not been able to give any real counterpoints.  I understand that it must be frustrating for a guy who preaches against government intervention and regulation in the market so much, to have somebody show him how heavily subsidized his way of life is.  Or maybe it's like I said earlier, you already realize this but are a gigantic hypocrite who secretly doesn't mind one bit about government intervention in the market as long as it benefits him.

Regardless of the reason, your arguments are so feeble that it's just not worth carrying on with the conversation.
You are using a simple tactic. More irrelevant data. And by the way facts and data can be used interchangeably for this discussion. The fact that you needed to make a point about it proves you are trying to spread out a simple issue.

All you ever proved is that the government did things that helped people who may or may not be in the suburbs. You kept proving that over and over again.

Your original post claimed that the suburbs could not and would not exist if not for Government action. You claimed government action that caused a rush to the suburbs.

All of this was never proved by you.

The main points of people wanted to move to the suburbs and choose to use their tax breaks their was ignored.

You couldnt define suburbs.

You kept claiming a zoning issue, which fell apart from the simple logic of the people who were being zoned were picking the zoners.

You used roads as an issue. Roads always went every where. The Interstates always went through low desnity areas, that was kind of the point. And again the people setting up the local roads were elected by the people who were in the suburbs.

You tried to twist together a complex conspiracy and you dumped tons of "Facts" on the debate that were not relevant. You were trying to push an old left wing story that no one was buying.

I feel we will never acheive an understanding on this so we must agree to disagree. Again as always I enjoy debating you.
1/13/2011 12:54 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/13/2011 12:54:00 AM:
The main points of people wanted to move to the suburbs and choose to use their tax breaks their was ignored.

That's odd... you just said above that your "main point" was something completely different. It's almost like you didn't have a main point at all, and were just throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks. Huh.

Also, as you have been explicitly told repeatedly, your so-called "main points" were ignored because you offered absolutely no evidence to support them. You want someone to take your arguments the least bit seriously, actually make an argument rather than try to slip this weak-*** wannabe a priori bullshit past people.

1/13/2011 1:25 AM
Posted by antonsirius on 1/13/2011 1:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/13/2011 12:54:00 AM:
The main points of people wanted to move to the suburbs and choose to use their tax breaks their was ignored.

That's odd... you just said above that your "main point" was something completely different. It's almost like you didn't have a main point at all, and were just throwing **** against the wall to see what sticks. Huh.

Also, as you have been explicitly told repeatedly, your so-called "main points" were ignored because you offered absolutely no evidence to support them. You want someone to take your arguments the least bit seriously, actually make an argument rather than try to slip this weak-*** wannabe a priori bullshit past people.

And I realize you understand my main point but are using this subterfuge to discredit me. For my fans and casual observers I will explain.

The "Main Point" covered several point Creil raised. They are all covered by the idea that his "Facts" did not support his point that the suburbs would not exist if not for government action. That they all show government action that impacted the suburbs, but didnt create it or even help it to a great extent.

Since I provided examples across the spectrum of his points they were different for each area, but were based on a common theme.

And as for your last paragraph...Since it is impossibe for me to prove a negative in this case, wouldnt refuting the points of Creil be considered a win...

Game, set and Match!
1/13/2011 1:33 AM
Swamp wins.
1/13/2011 2:02 AM
And it is never an issue of me winning or losing.

It is allowing a variety of opinions from a wide spectrum of political beliefs to be heard.

Something Anton opposes with a passion!
1/13/2011 3:19 AM
Posted by rlahann on 1/13/2011 2:02:00 AM (view original):
Swamp wins.
What does he win?
1/13/2011 3:24 AM
◂ Prev 1...105|106|107|108|109...133 Next ▸
Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.