Author Topic: 'New American Tea Party' (Read 24433 times)

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #75 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:41:08 AM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 17, 2009, 10:20:50 AM

When the new bums are pure, unabashed socialists, I'd have to disagree with you.

As opposed to what?

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #76 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:45:13 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on March 17, 2009, 10:41:08 AM

As opposed to what?

The previous bums weren't socialists, they were theocrats (lite).

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #77 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:46:39 AM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 17, 2009, 10:45:13 AM

The previous bums weren't socialists, they were theocrats (lite).

Really? Go look at the scale of non-defense expenditures under Bush. And the increases he put into 'social' programs.

makattak · « **Reply #78 on:** March 17, 2009, 10:51:35 AM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 17, 2009, 10:45:13 AM

The previous bums weren't socialists, they were theocrats (lite).

:rolleyes:

Yeah, that's what they were.

What with all the new laws forcing women to dress properly and people to attend church and anti-swearing laws, it was hard to get anything done like prescription drugs for the elderly and massive increases to the education budget.

Whew, those crazy theocrats.

Balog · « **Reply #79 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:41:05 AM »

I've never understood the attitude that a politician who's serious about their religion must be a theocrat. Do you even understand what that word means?

Theocracy is rule by God ie rule by a religious organization. Show me one thing the fed.gov did that gave political power to religious orgs. Come on, what've you got? Prayer in schools? Ten Commandments on the wall? Really? Do you feel oppressed by our evil theocratic currency, which says we trust God right on there!?!?!

Bush was an abortion on a lot of things (illegals, Medicare etc) but he was no more a theocrat than Obama is a Nazi.

Quote from: MicroBalrog on March 17, 2009, 09:22:13 AM

A revolution is not a mere replacement of the bums.

It was a revolution alright, just not one you like. More French or Bolshevik, less American.

makattak · « **Reply #80 on:** March 17, 2009, 11:50:26 AM »

Quote from: Balog on March 17, 2009, 11:41:05 AM

It was a revolution alright, just not one you like. More French or Bolshevik, less American.

In fact, as far as my knowledge of history goes, there has been ONE revolution of whose end results I approve.

Have there been any other good revolutions than the American one?

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #81 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:28:02 PM »

Retracted.
What they did do was use their religion to create wedge issues to divide voters and push the voters further away and willing to vote for pure socialisim.

K Frame · « **Reply #82 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:38:57 PM »

The Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The Industrial Revolution.

Prince and the Revolution.

makattak · « **Reply #83 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:39:40 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on March 17, 2009, 12:38:57 PM

The Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The Industrial Revolution.

Prince and the Revolution.

I most CERTAINLY do not approve of the results of Prince and the Revolution!

longeyes · « **Reply #84 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:40:21 PM »

What Bush really did was to further institutionalize "compassion," something he learned from his father (who gave us the ADA, among other things). "Compassion" can be used to justify just about anything once it becomes the province of an activist Government, and it is why he could never Just Say No.

Balog · « **Reply #85 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:40:40 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 17, 2009, 12:28:02 PM

Retracted.
What they did do was use their religion to create wedge issues to divide voters and push the voters further away and willing to vote for pure socialisim.

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."
Alexis de Tocqueville

Religion had nothing to do with it. These days, freedom is a wedge issue.

K Frame · « **Reply #86 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:42:04 PM »

"I most CERTAINLY do not approve of the results of Prince and the Revolution!"

Suck it up and deal, Princess, or the squiggly icogngraphic character formerly named Prince will stop by your house and try to get you to conver to Jehova's Witness.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #87 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:43:46 PM »

Quote from: longeyes on March 17, 2009, 12:40:21 PM

What Bush really did was to further institutionalize "compassion," something he learned from his father (who gave us the ADA, among other things). "Compassion" can be used to justify just about anything once it becomes the province of an activist Government, and it is why he could never Just Say No.

Birth of the NeoCon movement. I cringe everytime I hear that Compassionate Conservatvie crapola.

Balog · « **Reply #88 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:47:38 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on March 17, 2009, 12:42:04 PM

"I most CERTAINLY do not approve of the results of Prince and the Revolution!"

Suck it up and deal, Princess, or the squiggly icogngraphic character formerly named Prince will stop by your house and try to get you to conver to Jehova's Witness.

http://tinyurl.com/cpa7os

makattak · « **Reply #89 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:50:14 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 17, 2009, 12:43:46 PM

Birth of the NeoCon movement. I cringe everytime I hear that Compassionate Conservatvie crapola.

It bothers me, too.

I am a compassionate conservative. (Not capitalized) I give of my time and money to charity. (My conservative wife is FAR more compassionate than I am, though).

I am NOT compassionate with other people's money.

In fact, I don't find that the least bit compassionate. It's shameless self-aggrandizement that seeks to make the "givers" feel better about themselves without really costing them much. Woo, how compassionate.

K Frame · « **Reply #90 on:** March 17, 2009, 12:56:14 PM »

"I am NOT compassionate with other people's money."

Sure you are. According to the Democrats, that's money that you, an over privileged white male robbed from more deserving innercity crack mommas.

You're an evil man.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #91 on:** March 17, 2009, 01:07:52 PM »

Quote

It was a revolution alright, just not one you like. More French or Bolshevik, less American.

How was it a revolution? Sure, Obama will be spending and loaning more money. But how is it different from Bush spending and loaning hundreds of billions of dollars? The difference is one only of scale, not of principle.

roo_ster · « **Reply #92 on:** March 17, 2009, 05:49:07 PM »

Revolution
Gotta side with MB on this one.

What we had was an election and constitutional change of government. Were it in any way like the French or Bolshevik revolutions, there would have been thousands of GWB supporters slaughtered and the apparatus of the state or the Dem party used to terrorize the rest of the population.

Theocracy
There is a thread on this or a sister board detailing the activities of a political block in Israel that enforces is religious edicts with the threat of violence. Even so, Israel is not a theocracy.

I think a little perspective could be used before accusing any of the mainstream party folks of theocratic tendencies. Or just tune down the religiophbia a notch or ten.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #93 on:** March 17, 2009, 05:51:46 PM »

Israel has elements of a theocracy. It's still not a full-blown one like Iran. But yeah, gotta agree with JFRuser.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #94 on:** March 17, 2009, 06:14:05 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on March 17, 2009, 12:28:02 PM

What they did do was use their religion to create wedge issues to divide voters.

I'm fairly certain that any examples you would provide would be issues broached by the other side. At least most of them.

Shucks. I was going to post a picture of the New American magazine, just as a joke, but my Googler isn't turning up any good images.

longeyes · « **Reply #95 on:** March 18, 2009, 02:55:09 PM »

The great religious war in the United States was already fought--and the Left won. What are we seeing if not the full flowering of all the quasi-religious ideas of the Left in the 20th century, including such shibboleths as "multiculturalism" and "diversity?" The old religion was grounded in individual rights and freedom of thought and action. The last election was just the next step in a cultural transformation that began decades ago.

News:

Author Topic: 'New American Tea Party' (Read 24433 times)