DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on February 04, 2013, 12:59:17 AM
-
Before the southern secession and the War Between the States, the first secession threat in American history actually came from the North.
Half a century before the southern states left the Union in 1860-1861, the people of the New England states plotted to break from the Union. This culminated in the Hartford Convention of 1814, in which delegates narrowly voted against secession.
New England resentment toward the federal government generally began when Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801. Although there were no political parties at the time, Jefferson led a faction called the “Democratic-Republicans” (or Republicans) that favored an economy based on agriculture, expansion, and weaker ties to Britain. This contrasted with the “Federalist” faction, which emphasized manufacturing over farming and stronger ties to Britain. Federalists were most prevalent in New England.
When Jefferson approved the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, New Englanders feared that America would be opened to “hordes of foreigners” that would threaten the nation’s ethnic purity. They also feared that the new territory would someday be carved into southern states that could politically diminish New England. By 1804, Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, a former adjutant general to George Washington in the War for Independence, urged his fellow New Englanders to consider seceding from the Union.
During much of Jefferson’s presidency, Britain and France were at war, and U.S. shipping suffered collateral damage as a result. Jefferson responded by signing the Embargo Act, which intended to deprive British and French markets of U.S. goods by prohibiting the U.S. from trading with either country.
U.S. markets suffered from the loss of two of their main trading partners. New Englanders were especially harmed by the Embargo Act because of their reliance on foreign trade, mostly with Britain. Many condemned Jefferson’s “damnbargo” and resorted to illegal smuggling while talk of secession intensified.
Jefferson was succeeded as president by James Madison, another southern Republican. Madison proved even more unpopular among New Englanders by approving the Non-Intercourse Act of 1809, which strengthened Jefferson’s trade embargo. New Englanders responded by issuing a “Treaty of Alliance and Confederation,” declaring that the central government was just an association of states and had no authority to impose such harsh measures.
Alienating New England further was Madison’s initiation of the War of 1812 against Britain. This war ended all legal trade with Britain, which was New England’s largest trading partner. New England Federalists feared that another war with Britain would destroy their commerce and tax them into poverty.
When Madison ordered the War Department to commandeer state militias for the war, the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut refused to furnish troops. The Connecticut legislature denounced Madison’s military draft plan as “barbarous and unconstitutional.” The Massachusetts legislature approved assembling a convention to air grievances against the federal government.
The Hartford Convention assembled at the Old State House in Connecticut’s state capital in December 1814. Attending were 26 delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont. The delegates considered several measures, including seizing the federal customs houses, impounding federal funds, declaring neutrality, and seceding from the Union.
Many delegates shied from secession because they feared that if they supported such a move, and New England remained in the Union, their political careers would be ruined. Moreover, New York refused to send representation, and most convention delegates believed that secession could not be sustained without New York. Therefore, a series of constitutional amendments were proposed as an alternate to secession. These were designed to limit federal power and protect New England interests:
Apportioning representatives and taxes according to the number of free people in each state. This would repeal the “three-fifths” clause in which each southern slave was counted as three-fifths of a person to increase southern population and decrease southern taxation, thus giving the South more representation in Congress with fewer taxes.
Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to admit a new state into the Union. This would minimize the potential creation of southern states within the Louisiana Purchase.
Limiting trade embargoes on U.S. ports to 60 days or less. This would reduce the adverse effects of future embargo laws on New England commerce.
Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to interfere with trade between any state and any foreign country. This would minimize federal control over New England’s trade with Britain.
Requiring a two-thirds congressional majority to declare war, except in cases of defense. This would prevent future unpopular conflicts such as the War of 1812.
Requiring senators and representatives to have been born in the U.S. This would prevent foreign influence on the federal government, mostly among pro-French Republicans.
Limiting presidents to one term and requiring a succeeding president to come from a different state than his predecessor. This would break Virginia’s presidential dynasty of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.
In addition, the delegates asserted their right to resist abusive government power. This was a right that was ironically endorsed by their political enemy, Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence. It was the same right invoked by the southern states when they seceded from the Union three generations later.
The delegates narrowly voted against seceding from the Union, and no official resolution to secede was adopted. Moreover, no official document asserted the right to secede, mainly because it was believed that the right was inherent and its assertion would be redundant. There was also no indication that any delegate believed that endorsing secession was treason.
Commissioners were designated to present the Hartford Convention demands to federal officials in Washington. However, the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812 before the commissioners reached the capital. With the war ended, the New England Federalists’ demands were perceived as irrelevant at best and subversive at worst.
Remembering New England’s refusal to participate in the war, Americans throughout the rest of the country turned against the region. The legality of secession was not questioned, but many viewed New Englanders as traitors for considering secession in a time of war. The anger was so pervasive that the Federalist faction dissolved within a decade.
New Englanders exercised what they believed to be their inherent right to oppose an overbearing, tyrannical federal government that favored southern interests ahead of their own. As time went on, southerners came to embrace the ideals of the Hartford Convention, making the same charge against Washington as did the New Englanders.
Had New Englanders voted to secede in 1814, the federal government most likely would not have stopped them. However, by the time the southern states seceded in 1860-1861, supporters of centralized government equated secession with treason, even though they were not one and the same according to the nation’s founders. This sectional dispute, which had originated in the North, led to the most terrible war in American history.
http://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-northern-secession/ (http://waltercoffey.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-northern-secession/)
-
Logically, if a state came into the Union voluntarily, it should also be able to leave voluntarily.
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and other future Canadian provinces refused to join the 13 American colonies. Quebec was less welcome, because it was mostly French-speaking and Catholic.
From a practical point of view, secession didn't work at least the economically dominant Northern industrialists did not think it would work: the mills of the North needed the cotton and other agricultural products of the South: the South needed the markets and the machinery of the North. New York commerce heavily involved the South,and there was a secessionist movement in NYC that wanted to simply be a part of neither the South or the North. It was clear that two smaller, weaker states would have less economic and physical clout than one unified state.
It was also illogical that the country could permit slavery in part of the country and ban it from another part. The Dred Scott decision basically meant that free black persons living in the North could be enslaved if they were accused of being escaped slaves.Of course, most had no papers.
Slavery was based on the concept that Blacks were natural slaves, and after all, they WERE becoming Christians and thirty or forty years of free labor was nothing compared with the salvation of their eternal souls.
Of course, slavery was a contradiction of the "self evident truth" that all men were equal before God and therefore all men deserved equal treatment.
Logically, the South could not really win the Civil War, but being as they thought their arrangement superior, they refused to accept this.
As usually happens, the issue was not decided on the basis of logic.
There was logic on both sides, and each side thought they hand the better case.
-
I guess logic favors the side with better artillery.
-
This intrigued me:
Apportioning representatives and taxes according to the number of free people in each state. This would repeal the “three-fifths” clause in which each southern slave was counted as three-fifths of a person to increase southern population and decrease southern taxation, thus giving the South more representation in Congress with fewer taxes.
-
The country began with slavery as a legal institution. That was a major error. The South, as you say, was given representation based on slaves, who had no choice about what to wear or what to have for dinner.
There were all sorts of contradictions and major amounts of illogic on both sides. But I think that the South's desire to impose slavery on the North after the Dred Scott decision and the South's seceding and firing on Ft Sumpter made the South most to blame.
-
The country began with slavery as a legal institution. That was a major error. The South, as you say, was given representation based on slaves, who had no choice about what to wear or what to have for dinner.
There were all sorts of contradictions and major amounts of illogic on both sides. But I think that the South's desire to impose slavery on the North after the Dred Scott decision and the South's seceding and firing on Ft Sumpter made the South most to blame.
That is probly true.
Would a peacefull divorce have been a better idea?
If ,as you point out , fireing on Fort Sumpter was a key event , then there was a time when General Beareaugard could have chosen to hold his fire and kept the matter in the courts.
-
The Confederate States of New England?
No, doesn't ring a bell.
BSB
-
The South bears most of the blame for the Civil War. and the motive was the desire of a minority of Southerners who had plantations to continue enslaving people was their motive.
The relationship of the Plantation owners to the poor whites was quite similar to the relationship of the Oligarchy to the teabaggers.
Just like Joe the Plumber aspired to buy out his boss and rake in over $250K a year in profits, the poor White Southerners aspired to get rich at mining, horsetrading, gambling or whatever and someday own a Plantation like Tara or Nine Oaks.
And like Joe the Plumber, this was very unlikely to happen. Note that Joe the Plumber has left the plumbing business and failed at politics.
-
The South bears most of the blame for the Civil War. and the motive was the desire of a minority of Southerners who had plantations to continue enslaving people was their motive.
The relationship of the Plantation owners to the poor whites was quite similar to the relationship of the Oligarchy to the teabaggers.
Just like Joe the Plumber aspired to buy out his boss and rake in over $250K a year in profits, the poor White Southerners aspired to get rich at mining, horsetrading, gambling or whatever and someday own a Plantation like Tara or Nine Oaks.
And like Joe the Plumber, this was very unlikely to happen. Note that Joe the Plumber has left the plumbing business and failed at politics.
Slavery had to go , it was largely the reason that there had to be a war, and the nature of the Souths loss , England could have split a rival and gained a market , but they couldn't loan money or make an allience for the sake of slavery.
So... you are right about that.
But why do you call business success unlikely?
Arn't most businesses arisen from humble starts?
-
But why do you call business success unlikely?
Arn't most businesses arisen from humble starts?
==========================================
Business successes of the sort that Joe the Plumber had in mind are not business starts at all. The guy was just daydreaming.
Although many successes may come from humble starts, most humble starts fail miserably in this country. Joe the Plumber was a guy without a clue dreaming of something that might happen someday, maybe after he hit the lottery.
-
The Lotto is less likely to make Joe wealthy than just becoming a first rate plumber would be.
If he attempts to start or take over a business he will be taking a risk in that eight of ten such startup businesses fail.
Of course of those that succeed most are a second or third try.
Don't belittle this process, it is jobs with small business that employ most of us , and if we hope for recovery we need a lot of Joes to be hopefull more than we need President Obama to do any of the things he has done or plans to do.
-
The Confederate States of New England?
No, doesn't ring a bell.
BSB
Perhaps they referred to it as the Alliance of New England States.
But they sure talked about and almost did it.
-
If he attempts to start or take over a business he will be taking a risk in that eight of ten such startup businesses fail.
Of course of those that succeed most are a second or third try.
===========================================================
Joe the Plumber did not even attempt to start or take over a business. He began by complaining about the taxes that he thought he might have to pay in some ideal future, after which he did nothing and took no action at all, other than to continue kvetching.
His odds at success were far worse than two out of ten.
Basically, he complained about a problem that he would never have, and McCain decided to use him as a poster child against an imaginary raise in taxes that candidate Obama mentioned, which still has not been implemented.
-
I don't know what you are talking about.
His starting a business isn't on a deadline as far as I know .
What do you know?
He didn't complain about a problem he doesn't have , Obama is Presently President Problem for us all now.
-
You could ask Joe the Plumber, but he seems to have given up on his plan to buy out his boss and become hugely wealthy. He first mentioned this during the campaign over four years ago.
I suppose that he has to die for you to admit that he was just daydreaming in the first place.
One thing is certain: NOTHING that President Obama has said or done has prevented Joe the Plumber from carrying out his plan. He is the only one responsible for whatever outcome there has been.
His last plan was to run for Congress. He ran as a tea partier and lost miserably.
-
You could ask Joe the Plumber, but he seems to have given up on his plan to buy out his boss and become hugely wealthy. He first mentioned this during the campaign over four years ago.
I suppose that he has to die for you to admit that he was just daydreaming in the first place.
Name for me a business of any size or type in the USA that did not start as just such a dream.
One thing is certain: NOTHING that President Obama has said or done has prevented Joe the Plumber from carrying out his plan. He is the only one responsible for whatever outcome there has been.
The President is in the middle of producing wrenching changes, no reason to think that any of these changes are good for business . The economy he has presided over so far has been halting and slow , if the housing market recovers plumbers will have more business.
His last plan was to run for Congress. He ran as a tea partier and lost miserably.
More than half of all canadates for Congress loose , I am somewhat sorry that Plumbers are not as well represented in Congress as lawyers are, perhaps few are willing to take the pay cut.
-
You should read the screeds that Joe thw Plumber has written since his fifteen minutes expired.
Even crazy old McCain has disowned him.
Joe gave up plumbing before President Obama was elected, by the way.
-
You should read the screeds that Joe thw Plumber has written since his fifteen minutes expired.
Even crazy old McCain has disowned him.
Joe gave up plumbing before President Obama was elected, by the way.
ok ,gota link?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber)
Joe lost the Congressional vote with under 30% of the vote.
He no longer plumbs.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber)
Joe lost the Congressional vote with under 30% of the vote.
He no longer plumbs.
I read the Wicipedia about him, he doesn't seem all that hatefull.
If the district he was running in chose diffrent representation, that is on them.
What about him is bothering you?
Other than understanding Canadate Obama much better than the advrage person.
-
I did not say that Joe the Plumber was hateful.
I said that he never bought out his boss, he never earned over $250,000 per year, and that he had apparently abandoned his plans to become a wealthy plumbing contractor.
Joe has the right to do whatever he wants. All I said was that I do not take him seriously, that's all.
-
His major claim to fame that I know of, he bravely spoke truth to power.
-
He spoke no truth whatever. He was never likely to pay that hideous 4% increase on profits above $250,000. His silly speech did not cause McCain to win or Obama to lose.
He spoke irrelevancy to everyone, and nearly everyone soon forgot what he said.
-
On the contrary both sides bring him up just to illistrate their point whenever they need the trope.
Did you bring him up or did I , I forget.
But what he said to President Obama was succinct and true , it will be remembered as long as Obama is because it sums him up.
-
No, it was NOT true, and as a political issue, it was rejected by the voters.
Again, 4% on income over $250K is NO BIG DEAL. To hear the 'baggers bitch about it, one would think that they were cannibalizing their first born alive. Not that one in a hundred of them would even pay a dime more in taxes.
Rejected in the polls and rejected at the ballot box.
Rejected twice at each place.
I brought him up as the best know of the teabagger doofi.
His 15 minutes of fame gone, he now fades away.
By the way, Joe the Ex Plumber never revealed whom he voted for, which ticked McCain off immensely.
-
What he said that made a diffrence was to put the "socialist" label accurately on Canadate Obama's shirt.
That is being perceptive.
Did he have goals he has not reached yet?
It is good that a mans reach exceed his grasp is it not?
What is fifteen minutes X eight years?
Joe will be remembered as long as Obama is,
-
I brought him up as the best know of the teabagger doofi.
Which is interesting because the tea party came about after election, closer to 2010 than 2008.
-
I brought him up as the best know of the teabagger doofi.
Which is interesting because the tea party came about after election, closer to 2010 than 2008.
Did Joe ever join up with a TEA faction?
-
I do not know. He got a lot of support from them, to the degree that under 29% is a lot of support.
-
Did Joe ever join up with a TEA faction?
Nothing i saw says he did.
I think baggers is the one size fits all lazy man's pejorative from the left for anyone they have been told to disagree with.
-
I have to suppose that the leftist attitude twards the TEA party is that they are too hated to talk to.
So they accept anything that is negative , no need to check.
-
The tea parties, of which there were several, did not sign up members, so other than the leaders, it is not really possible to determine who was and who was not a sympathizer.
TEA supposedly means Taxed Enough Already, and Joe the ex-plumber was complaining about taxes that he would never have paid even if President Obama had passed his tax plan, and that is why I identify him as a 'bagger type.
-
The beginning of the tea party:
Rick Santelli calls for Tea party on Floor of Chicago Board of Trade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcvSjKCU_Zo#)
-
So what?
Did he sign up members? What does the Chicago Board of trade have to do with this or Joe the ex plumber?
-
So what?
Did he sign up members? What does the Chicago Board of trade have to do with this or Joe the ex plumber?
I thought i would let you in on what started the tea party. That rant went viral and the rest is history.
-
There are a LOT of stupid old farts. The Tea Party is the Party of ignorant old farts, financed by rich old greedhead farts like the Koch Brothers.
I thought it all started with that ranting old lady at one of Rep. Castle's Town meeting, where she waved around her birth certificate and ranted about how she wanted her country back.
So far as I am concerned, it ended with poor old Clint debating the furniture.
-
There are a LOT of stupid old farts. The Tea Party is the Party of ignorant old farts, financed by rich old greedhead farts like the Koch Brothers.
I thought it all started with that ranting old lady at one of Rep. Castle's Town meeting, where she waved around her birth certificate and ranted about how she wanted her country back.
So far as I am concerned, it ended with poor old Clint debating the furniture.
You are grossly misinformed. you might check out any videos of tea party rallies to get a better understanding of the demographics.
The tea party has no leaders. Sure their are those who tapped into the movement but primarily the tea party is a philosophy. And that is you can't tax your way to sustainability you must cut back runaway spending and grow the deficit away.
Much like how you manage your own fiscal affairs.
-
That is what they say. What it really is is a movement financed by the Kochs to starve the government into reducing the taxes, especially of the mega rich.
President Obama saved this country from a really major depression by priming the pump. The experts agreed that this recession would take seven years to recover from,and it is going away faster than predicted.
Most of the problems of this county have been caused by runaway MILITARY spending. We have bases all over the place that are not needed. We get involved in wars that were caused by idiots at the CIA. Fools like the Dulles brothers, dolts like MacNamara and Westmoreland, doofuses like Reagan and Olebush and imbeciles like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Juniorbush. We spend more on "defense" than the rest of the countries on this planet COMBINED. And every time we have a war, there are veterans that are maimed and must be supported, widows and orphans, refugees and billions pissed away on weapons and munitions.
I have no use for the teabaggers. They are ignorant and proud of it. They are puppets and unaware that they are being manipulated. They are misguided lumpenproletarians.
-
My guess is they have little use for you as well.
But in politics I think it usual to identify an "other" and blames the worlds ills on them.
-
I do not blame the teabaggers for anything other than petrifying the government. They are too goddam STOOPID to do much other than constipate the government.
Again, I see the debate between the empty chair and Ol' Clint as their swan song. I am sure he is brighter than most of them. Which is not to say I think he should be running anything more complicated than his mouth. I do like his movies.
I have seen nothing at all to like about Tom DeLay or either Koch Brother. Why would a couple of old fools richer than God and older than the Brontosauri want to grab off even MORE money for their own greedy selves?
-
I don't think Clint is a Tea Party member. He is more libertarian, like the Koch Brothers, plus he was invited to speak by Romney, who also is not Tea Party.
What i am finding hard to believe is you are so far off on your interpretations of current events.
-
Like where?
The Tea Party wants to eliminate universal medical care, deport all the aliens, make everyone speak English, bust the unions and punish the teachers. They want prayer in the schools (it would be fun to watch them argue about an official prayer, though) and are in favor of guns everywhere.
-
Like where?
The Tea Party wants to eliminate universal medical care, deport all the aliens, make everyone speak English, bust the unions and punish the teachers. They want prayer in the schools (it would be fun to watch them argue about an official prayer, though) and are in favor of guns everywhere.
No they want to eliminate run away spending and balance the budget, so their grandkids aren't saddled with 100k in debt before they take their first breath.
The tea party folks are not anti immigration, english only, anti union unless the unions interfere with a balanced budget, or particularly active in school board elections. I haven't seen anything about prayer in school. They do support the constitution as written. The constitution as written did not support mandates which is why Roberts called it a tax.
Where do you get your info?
-
It is what I have heard alleged teapartiers say on TV and the radio.
I observe that when Cheney said "deficits don't matter", there was not one peep out of these clowns.
-
It is what I have heard alleged teapartiers say on TV and the radio.
I observe that when Cheney said "deficits don't matter", there was not one peep out of these clowns.
Cheney said that before the tea party was born. Tea party started from that Santelli rant in 2009. Cheney wasn't in office then.
See what i mean about misinformation? I personally don't mind if you find the tea party philosophy odoriferous. I do mind if your findings are based on disinformation.
-
Each and every member of every Tea Party was present when Cheney said that. The debt thing has been growing ever soince the days of Ross Perot, who was also a proto Tea Partier.
But, Cheney is White, so is Perot. The Tea Party is dogwhistle racism. "I want my country back" means "I want another old White guy in charge".
I have heard these schmucks, I have seen their signs, they are followers of Limbaugh and Beck and none too bright. Most are as dim as the unlamented Kramer: stupid screamers who like to annoy anyone with an education.
I do not give one damn about this Santelli creep. The whole movement has been financed by guys like the Kochs and Cato.
-
Each and every member of every Tea Party was present when Cheney said that.
They may have been alive but they weren't Tea Party when he made the statement?
The Tea Party is dogwhistle racism.
Oh please come up with something better than that. The Tea Party hasn't accused anyone of acting against the best interests of their race, many Democrats have. See Uncle Tom, see not an Authentic Negro tm
-
Nobody knows who is Tea Party and who is not. Other than the leaders of the various groups, there is no actual membership.
All those signs at 'bagger rallies, showing the President as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, the Obama whiteface joker signs that Kramer was so fond of, all the 'baggers clamoring for the birth certificate, it is all racism, obvious to anyone with a brain.
In other forums each and every person who claims some allegiance to the 'bagger movement also posts welfare queen cram, New Black Panther crap as well.
What difference does it make what I think of these nitwits to you, anyway?
-
Nobody knows who is Tea Party and who is not.
If that is the case why make generalized statements about them.
BTW those signs you saw were not carried by tea party people, they were carried by leftists out to discredit the tea party.
What difference does it make what I think of these nitwits to you, anyway?
None really other than a lie not debunked eventually becomes accepted truth.
-
Yeah, sure. ALL the signs were carried to discredit the 'bagger sockpuppets.
What I mean is that these fools say all sorts of nonsense and when they get called on it, then others say "well, HE is not a REAL Tea Party Patriot. He is not a REAL Tea Party Express member., and since no one is officially a member, no one is.
The Kochs and Cato have zip to do with the Tea Party, they just left several hundred thou laying around where someone found it. Tom DeLay is not a real Tea partier, except when he is.
Kramer sure ate it up, didn't he?
Go elsewhere with that crap. The interviewed these jerks as well, and they were applauded.
-
Yeah, sure. ALL the signs were carried to discredit the 'bagger sockpuppets.
I believe it quite possible that left in their fear of what they can't control would do anything in their power to discredit the movement, up to and including planting agents provocateur among their ranks.
For example:
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
RULE 11: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
RULE 13: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.
See anything in there that has been done to the Tea Party ?
-
I do not give a crap what has been done to this assemblege of mental defective racists.
I would never vote for them, they are hateful and obsolete, worse even in many ways to the odious Republican Party.
-
I doubt the Tea Party is courting your vote. But your credibility suffers when you make statements about them that simply are not true.
-
If I think that present Tax policy is a mess and that spending is too high.
I have to be a racist.....?
As I see it , the opposition of the TEA party accuse them of racism because they cannot defend the extremes of Taxation out loud.
-
They are mostly not about taxes at all.
They hate gays, they are against equal pay for women, they reject any sensible immigration reform, they mostly want an English-only environment, they support wars and more wars.
-
They are mostly not about taxes at all.
They hate gays,
no they are against equal pay for women,
no they reject any sensible immigration reform,
no, they mostly want an English-only environment,,
no they support wars and more wars.,
no
So they can name their movement "TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY" rally and talk about taxes all over the nation , talk about the Boston Tea Party (which was about tea tax) and talk talk talk about taxes. This indicates that they are not mostly about taxes.
No.
It indicates thair critics do not want to talk about taxes.
-
OUCH.....touche', Plane 8)
-
There is no touché.
I have heard these hicktown yokels speak. I know what they say.
Everybody talks about taxes.
The budget of this country cannot and never will be balanced by tax cuts and budget cuts alone. That is just stupid dreaming.
-
It's hard to overcome prejudice.
-
It is hardly prejudice to point out that the country's budgetary problems can never be solved by eliminating the services of government cutting taxes. Neither will it do any good to constipate the government or abolish the Dept.of Education.
-
It is prejudice when you claim the tea party philosophy is racist when you have been shown repeatedly it is not.
It is prejudice to say the tea party philosophy is antigay when you have shown repeatedly that it is not.
It is prejudice to claim that the tea party philosophy is against equal pay for equal work when you have been shown repeatedly it is not.
Prejudice ingrained and learned.
-
When, pray tell, have I ever been shown any of this?
The "Defense of marriage act" is certainly antigay and is part of the 'bagger creed.
All those racist signs at the first 'bagger rallies were NOT leftist plants, and you certainly cannot prove that they were.
-
The "Defense of marriage act" is certainly antigay and is part of the 'bagger creed.
DOMA was signed by Clinton. You have serious problems with timelines. Whether DOMA is anti gay is debatable. What it is is pro traditional marriage.
-
BTW don't take my word about the posters. See Mother Jones take on it:
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/wash-post-quotes-bogus-tea-party-leader (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/wash-post-quotes-bogus-tea-party-leader)
-
Ouch!!
-
That is just ONE GUY. There were multitudes of racist posters
-
That is just ONE GUY. There were multitudes of racist posters
Oh you mean these guys?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/tea-party-crashers-plan-t_n_537352.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/tea-party-crashers-plan-t_n_537352.html)
-
Again, this is just a discussion of what someone PLANNED long after the first racist signs appeared at 'bagger rallies.
-
That is just ONE GUY. There were multitudes of racist posters
Multitudes?
Or a bunch well placed for the co-operative camera.