quote Originally posted by tbone42: That's not the proper definition of what the act of "teabagging" means. Both men and women can be teabagged (so it is not necessarily a homoosexual act) but the teabagging can only be done by a man. With "naughty bits" clothed usually, but not necessarily always. Usually, the "tea" stays in the bag. I won't actually describe the action, if you really want to know, I recommend watching the movie "Pecker" (which is actually a great movie, IMHO) Thats where i first heard about it and found out what it was. Lets's just say it happens all the time when male strippers dance, and it does not usually involve the removal of their bottoms, so no sucking on "c"s can be involved. And I have to say, if the Tea Party did not want to be identified with a description of such an act, they should have chosen something better to name themselves. They made it only too easy to make fun of their name, much like the I-Pad.. I mean, cmon. Didn't anyone actually think things through or AT LEAST ask a couple of younger people before going full steam ahead with that name? I also see the tea party intentionally taking on the offense as much as anyone who gives it.. in a way, I believe they enjoy the "persecution" and use it to try and generate sympathy. What's next, a bunch of old guys playing in a brass band at a tea party event under the name "rusty trombones"?

In all fairness, I'm not sure the name was something the group adopted for themselves. I believe it was a name attached to them as a result of their emulating a rebellion against the actions of a domineering government. Unless I'm mistaken, the name "tea party" or "tea partier" was endowed upon the group sarcastically by others who for whatever reason found their protest to be deserving of such disrespect. Then of course the evolution of the name is obvious.

I think what is really telling is the Tea Party protests were formed within a month of the new year that Obama took office and no policy had not really even been crafted yet. Where was the outrage by middle aged "patriots" concerned about the future of their grandchildren inheriting the debt their very generation benefitted from and racked up? Where were they when Bush was spending money like no tomorrow? Where were the tricorn hats and protests in lawnchairs? Nowhere, until Bush was out of office.

quote On January 24, 2009, Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty in New York State organized a "Tea Party" protest in response to "obesity taxes" proposed by New York Governor David Paterson, and out-of-control spending. Several of the protesters wore Native American headdresses similar to the band of 18th century colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes

-Wikipedia

Yet, within the span of under 4 DAYS(!) of his first year in office, here come the protests. Obama had critics piling up in protest of "out of control spending". I wonder why they waited if it was such a concern that OBVIOUSLY was a problem long before even the 2008 campaign started?

Thats my BIGGEST problem with the Tea Party.. they were late to the party. Someone should have been protesting during Bush's blank check administration, where he did not even veto a single bill that was presented to him by a supermajority congress of Republicans.

I am all for fiscal conservation, but I am also for consistency as well. Thats something NOBODY in politics has right now, in my opinion.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I think what is really telling is the Tea Party was formed within a month and a half after Obama took office and no policy had not really even been crafted yet. Where was the outrage by middle aged "patriots" concerned about the future of their grandchildren inheriting the debt their very generation benefitted from and racked up? Where were they when Bush was spending money like no tomorrow? Where were the tricorn hats and protests in lawnchairs? Nowhere, until Bush was out of office. Yet, within the span of under 20% of his first year in office, Obama had critics piling up in protest of "out of control spending". I wonder why they waited if it was such a concern that OBVIOUSLY was a problem long before even the 2008 campaign started?

Wrong. It was partly Obama and the Democrats playing class warfare, and demonizing the successful. The Tea Party got rolling around tax day, 2009, well after Obama's election. It was his shoving down our throats of Obamacare that was the last straw.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: If I could expand on what taiji said, the Tea Party is a loose-knit group of *individuals*. We don't all agree on everything, but we agree on certain core principles. We don't agree on who we want our Presidential candidate to be, but we have a basic idea of who and what that person should be about. I haven't made any choices, because it is early in the process, and I want to hear more debates and get more information. I will make my decision when I have sufficient information. I suspect other Tea Party folks will do the same.

I don't see the rallies like they used to have. I also don't hear much around the water cooler or on facebook. I'm not saying it still isn't around, but I bet the venues are smaller and a lot of empty chairs at meetings now.

Some Tea Party factions you have to be Christian and pro-life, others accept everybody so long as you were just fed up with the National Debt.

Some consider themselves to be true-constitutionalists, while others are just anti-tax and spend, some use it to spread an evangelical christian message of founding fathers and christian-patriotism

I agree with Tailguy that it is nothing more than a social movement, like the Haught-Ashberry Hippies to the Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority that help get Reagan elected but it is fading quite rapidly.

There for a time the Koch brothers were the target as the fingers were pointing their way as the ones funding the Tea Party, but the Koch's are by far no where near the so called "Conservative Republican" Rush Limbaugh and Right-Wing types. They don't even associate with those at all. They are hyper-libertarians.

Ron Paul's 2008 Revolution Presidential run was a start of the moment I'm guessing.

quote Originally posted by Wichita: I don't see the rallies like they used to have. I also don't hear much around the water cooler or on facebook. I'm not saying it still isn't around, but I bet the venues are smaller and a lot of empty chairs at meetings now.

Because we've understood that there is a time to put down the protest signs, and get involved. We go to city and county council meetings, we write letters, emails and faxes to our representatives, we still show up at town hall meetings and speak our minds. Just because you don't see rallies with signs, it doesn't mean we aren't active.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Wrong. It was partly Obama and the Democrats playing class warfare, and demonizing the successful. The Tea Party got rolling around tax day, 2009, well after Obama's election. It was his shoving down our throats of Obamacare that was the last straw.

No, YOU are wrong.

quote On January 24, 2009, Trevor Leach, chairman of the Young Americans for Liberty in New York State organized a "Tea Party" protest in response to "obesity taxes" proposed by New York Governor David Paterson, and out-of-control spending. Several of the protesters wore Native American headdresses similar to the band of 18th century colonists who dumped tea in Boston Harbor to express outrage about British taxes

Thats 4 days after he took office when the first "Tea Party Protest" happened...

By the way, even if it was by Tax Day, thats a whopping 3 months in office before they were "fed up"? But no protests before that with Bush and out of control spending? Give me a break.

By that reasoning, we should be fed up with the 2010 Tea Party electees.. They have had 8 months to fix things, so they must have failed if everyone expected Obama's magic wand to do the job within 3 months.

Time to oust those bums too, right?

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Thats 4 days after he took office when the first "Tea Party Protest" happened... By the way, even if it was by Tax Day, thats a whopping 3 months in office before they were "fed up"? But no protests before that with Bush and out of control spending? Give me a break.

I'm in the Tea Party, you aren't, but you tell me I'm wrong. Whatever.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I think what is really telling is the Tea Party was formed within a month and a half after Obama took office and no policy had not really even been crafted yet. Where was the outrage by middle aged "patriots" concerned about the future of their grandchildren inheriting the debt their very generation benefitted from and racked up? Where were they when Bush was spending money like no tomorrow? Where were the tricorn hats and protests in lawnchairs? Nowhere, until Bush was out of office. Yet, within the span of under 20% of his first year in office, Obama had critics piling up in protest of "out of control spending". I wonder why they waited if it was such a concern that OBVIOUSLY was a problem long before even the 2008 campaign started?

That's not really true. Ron Paul had his hat in the ring for the 2008 elections but was completely ignored by the media, and wasn't invited to most of the debates. He was pushing his ideas and concepts long before Obama took office. I can only speculate as to why the appearance is that they only started protesting after Obama took office. It could be that many were frustrated that they couldn't seem to get any representation during the 2008 elections, or it cold have been Obama;s announcements of what he intended to do in terms of bailing out the auto industry and banks, etc. That and his aggressiveness in passing the health care plan and all the concerns around that. It could just as easily be that it was just Around that time when the whole movement began to gain traction. Your guess is as good as mine. But I can tell you that the argument of "where were these people" is pretty lame and just a deflection in my opinion. It seems a bit short sighted to me to assume that just because a group suddenly gains attention, that they didn't exist before that attention. We aren't talking about the latest American Idol contestant here, were talking about political activists. I've had a hard on for the government's encroaching on my liberties and wealth for years. No one cared or knew about me, do you think I just suddenly existed once Obama took office?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: I'm in the Tea Party, you aren't, but you tell me I'm wrong. Whatever.

I that really your response?

I am merely conveying the dates and circumstances of the history of what happened, by data I found on the internet. If it was 4 days or 3 months, that still is awful convenient it happened so fast, but no organized tea party protests occurred with Bush in office.

But I guess "whatever" is the only legitimate answer you have?

I'm disappointed.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: In all fairness, I'm not sure the name was something the group adopted for themselves. I believe it was a name attached to them as a result of their emulating a rebellion against the actions of a domineering government. Unless I'm mistaken, the name "tea party" or "tea partier" was endowed upon the group sarcastically by others who for whatever reason found their protest to be deserving of such disrespect. Then of course the evolution of the name is obvious.

Think it was the guy on the market floor, when thing looked very bleak, who said it was time for another "Tea Party".

You topic sounds like something from the liberal media. Just more lies from the supreme ass hole in the white house.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I that really your response? I am merely conveying the dates and circumstances of the history of what happened, by data I found on the internet. If it was 4 days or 3 months, that still is awful convenient it happened so fast, but no organized tea party protests occurred with Bush in office. But I guess "whatever" is the only legitimate answer you have? I'm disappointed.

No, it isn't all I have. But I keep trying to have a decent conversation with you, and you don't seem to accept ANYTHING I offer you in explanation. Why the hell should I continue? Would anything I say change your mind?

Only 3 days or 3 months after Obama's election? Were you not paying attention during the campaign? Did you NOT listen to his speeches? He TOLD us who and what he was - a far left socialist, the furthest left president since FDR or Woodrow Wilson.

What were we doing when Bush was president? Oh, nothing. Unimportant s*** like working, running businesses, raising families...useless crap. We weren't paid activists like the left has, and nobody paid us to get involved. But we knew we had to. Obama is pushing this country too far to the left. All his proposals involved taxing the hell out of the people who were the most productive, and proposing HUGE spending - like the stimulus package. That was signed on February 17, 2009. That was a big factor in the push to the left. The tax day protests started in April.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Thats 4 days after he took office when the first "Tea Party Protest" happened... By the way, even if it was by Tax Day, thats a whopping 3 months in office before they were "fed up"? But no protests before that with Bush and out of control spending? Give me a break.

# January 24, 2009 to protest a proposed 18% tax on non-diet soft drinks by former Governor of New York, David Paterson;[1]
# February 27, 2009 to protest the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailout bill signed by President George W. Bush in October 2008 and the ARRA stimulus bill signed by President Barack Obama ten days prior to the protest;[2]
# April 15, 2009 to coincide with the annual U.S. deadline for submitting tax returns, known as Tax Day;

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Oh I speculated immediately the "whys" of it... maybe it had something to do with people shouting "Terrorist" at McCain rallies. Maybe it was the politics of Anger ruling the day. Maybe because he has a funny name and so many have a hard on against everything even remotely resembling Islam in this country. Does Obama deserve the flack he is getting for fiscal irresponsibilty? Absolutely... the writing was on the wall. But long before he got there, and like I said, I would have less trouble with the motives of the Tea Party protestors had they got the ball rolling sometime in the 8 years of runaway spending BEFORE Obama took office.

That's cool. I already gave my opinion, I'm not going to try and change your mind about anything, but I disagree with what appears to be a pretty one-dimensional explanation.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: No, it isn't all I have. But I keep trying to have a decent conversation with you, and you don't seem to accept ANYTHING I offer you in explanation. Why the hell should I continue? Would anything I say change your mind? Only 3 days or 3 months after Obama's election? Were you not paying attention during the campaign? Did you NOT listen to his speeches? He TOLD us who and what he was - a far left socialist, the furthest left president since FDR or Woodrow Wilson. What were we doing when Bush was president? Oh, nothing. Unimportant s*** like working, running businesses, raising families...useless crap. We weren't paid activists like the left has, and nobody paid us to get involved. But we knew we had to. Obama is pushing this country too far to the left. All his proposals involved taxing the hell out of the people who were the most productive, and proposing HUGE spending - like the stimulus package. That was signed on February 17, 2009. That was a big factor in the push to the left. The tax day protests started in April.

So they just "missed" the stck market crash and TARP?? I should say better late than never I suppose.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That's cool. I already gave my opinion, I'm not going to try and change your mind about anything, but I disagree with what appears to be a pretty one-dimensional explanation.

With respect, I supposed at least 3 dimensions in my argument.. politics of hate, fear of anything that looks like Islam, and their "boy" (bush) would never catch any flack while he was in.

Its just Republicans supporting "their guy" when he's in office, and now doing ANYTHING to smear the pres since he's not a Republican. Standard Operating Procedure... same thing was happening when Clinton was in office.. Newt Gingrich was slamming the president for his infidelity and pushed for his impeachment, based on a BJ and clinton not wanting his wife to find out. And surprise! We find out years later he was screwing around on his wife at the same time. But, anything to make the other guys look bad.

You COULD change my mind, but you would have to make one damn fine argument with facts, links, videos and much more to convince me. Nobody walks away from their ideas and convictions on the basis of one paragraph. Nobody.

It is absolutely nothing personal against you, FieroBear, or anyone who identifies themselves as Tea Party. I have said previously, right here, that I am all for fiscal responsibility and paying down the defecit. The current president is just as complicit in out of control spending as his predecessors. What I do question, and always will, is where were you guys when it would have been EASIER to deal with the financial issues? Thats when we needed you. Now it just looks like sour grapes over the presidential election to me.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: With respect, I supposed at least 3 dimensions in my argument.. politics of hate, fear of anything that looks like Islam, and their "boy" (bush) would never catch any flack while he was in. Its just Republicans supporting "their guy" when he's in office, and now doing ANYTHING to smear the pres since he's not a Republican. Standard Operating Procedure... same thing was happening when Clinton was in office.. Newt Gingrich was slamming the president for his infidelity and pushed for his impeachment, based on a BJ and clinton not wanting his wife to find out. And surprise! We find out years later he was screwing around on his wife at the same time. But, anything to make the other guys look bad. You COULD change my mind, but you would have to make one damn fine argument with facts, links, videos and much more to convince me. Nobody walks away from their ideas and convictions on the basis of one paragraph. Nobody.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game." Its politics, pure and simple.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: "Don't hate the player, hate the game." Its politics, pure and simple.

You crack me up, I was actually going to quote you from another thread saying something very similar.
'+1' positive to the ratings bar for you. I admire your consistency and humor.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: With respect, I supposed at least 3 dimensions in my argument.. politics of hate, fear of anything that looks like Islam, and their "boy" (bush) would never catch any flack while he was in. Its just Republicans supporting "their guy" when he's in office, and now doing ANYTHING to smear the pres since he's not a Republican. Standard Operating Procedure... same thing was happening when Clinton was in office.. Newt Gingrich was slamming the president for his infidelity and pushed for his impeachment, based on a BJ and clinton not wanting his wife to find out. And surprise! We find out years later he was screwing around on his wife at the same time. But, anything to make the other guys look bad. You COULD change my mind, but you would have to make one damn fine argument with facts, links, videos and much more to convince me. Nobody walks away from their ideas and convictions on the basis of one paragraph. Nobody. It is absolutely nothing personal against you, FieroBear, or anyone who identifies themselves as Tea Party. I have said previously, right here, that I am all for fiscal responsibility and paying down the defecit. The current president is just as complicit in out of control spending as his predecessors. What I do question, and always will, is where were you guys when it would have been EASIER to deal with the financial issues? Thats when we needed you. Now it just looks like sour grapes over the presidential election to me.

Why the hell didn't just SAY that, before I spent time trying to give you explanations. I really hate wasting time, and I feel I just wasted time giving you explanations.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: With respect, I supposed at least 3 dimensions in my argument.. politics of hate, fear of anything that looks like Islam, and their "boy" (bush) would never catch any flack while he was in. Its just Republicans supporting "their guy" when he's in office, and now doing ANYTHING to smear the pres since he's not a Republican. Standard Operating Procedure... same thing was happening when Clinton was in office.. Newt Gingrich was slamming the president for his infidelity and pushed for his impeachment, based on a BJ and clinton not wanting his wife to find out. And surprise! We find out years later he was screwing around on his wife at the same time. But, anything to make the other guys look bad. You COULD change my mind, but you would have to make one damn fine argument with facts, links, videos and much more to convince me. Nobody walks away from their ideas and convictions on the basis of one paragraph. Nobody.

That's the difference between us, I don't have enough proof of anything to even HAVE a "conviction". And I certainly don't commit to convictions based on assumption. What's more, with all due respect, I don't really care that much what your opinion is. I'm not saying that in a sarcastic or disrespectful way, it's just that I don't need for you to agree with me or validate me by agreeing with me. Plus, given that I don't really have any convictions, except to not having any convictions. (What?)

On the opposite side, it seems that you ultimately probably aren't a big fan of Obama, so we at least would have that in common.

quote Originally posted by newf: Many topics are considered controversial, I guess it would depend on which "values" we are talking about. Some that come to mind are Gay Rights, Abortion, Evolution/Creationism...etc.

What difference does it make what a political candidate believes concerning evolution and/or creation?

"Gay rights" is a loaded term. It implies that gay people in this country are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. (The predictable retort to this, of course, is the marriage issue. If you want to argue that, start another thread and I will explain why is it a fallacious argument).

As far as abortion goes..did you know that overturning Roe vs. Wade would not outlaw abortion? It would merely give states the right to decide. Is federalism controversial? If so, why?

[This message has been edited by fogglethorpe (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: That's the difference between us, I don't have enough proof of anything to even HAVE a "conviction". And I certainly don't commit to convictions based on assumption. What's more, with all due respect, I don't really care that much what your opinion is. I'm not saying that in a sarcastic or disrespectful way, it's just that I don't need for you to agree with me or validate me by agreeing with me. Plus, given that I don't really have any convictions, except to not having any convictions. (What?)

No, your validity has nothing to do with my opinion. You can have conviction about that. But not because I said so.
(What?)

quote On the opposite side, it seems that you ultimately probably aren't a big fan of Obama, so we at least would have that in common

Give the man a cigar! DingDingDingDing and all that.
Like some here, I have the utmost hope Ron Paul is the Republican nominee.. he will get my vote if he is. But, according to SOMEONE here today, I am not an inedependent. Horsepuckey, I say.
He gets the nod (which I just don't know about that base..) the independents will flock to the polls for him. Watch and see.

Otherwise, if not Ron or someone else I like, I am voting Cthuhlu.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by tbone42: Give the man a cigar! DingDingDingDing and all that. Like some here, I have the utmost hope Ron Paul is the Republican nominee.. he will get my vote if he is. But, according to SOMEONE here today, I am not an inedependent. Horsepuckey, I say. Otherwise, if not Ron or someone else I like, I am voting Cthuhlu.

To me, that goes back to what I said earlier. I don't really give a crap what party Ron runs under. Hell, he can run under the "Tupperware party", as long as he remains as firm in his *convictions* as he has for the last thirty years, he gets my vote.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: To me, that goes back to what I said earlier. I don't really give a crap what party Ron runs under. Hell, he can run under the "Tupperware party", as long as he remains as firm in his *convictions* as he has for the last thirty years, he gets my vote.

I wanted him to be 'the guy' last time.
Maybe this time? If he survives all the way to the Ohio primary (and I doubt it will take that long to sort out the frontrunner) I will definitely be doing a Republican ballot to try to get him in there.

THATS a debate I would love to see.

[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: What difference does it make what a political candidate believes concerning evolution and/or creation? "Gay rights" is a loaded term. It implies that gay people in this country are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. (The predictable retort to this, of course, is the marriage issue. If you want to argue that, start another thread and I will explain why is it a fallacious argument). As far as abortion goes..did you know that overturning Roe vs. Wade would not outlaw abortion? It would merely give states the right to decide. Is federalism controversial? If so, why?

Nice try but such issues are widely regarded as "hot button" topics and many want to know a candidates stance on them in order to form their opinion. Are you seriously arguing that these are not important to many?

quote Originally posted by newf: Nice try but such issues are widely regarded as "hot button" topics and many want to know a candidates stance on them in order to form their opinion. Are you seriously arguing that these are not important to many?

You speak in generalities, but have not answered my questions. Let's take them one at a time.

What difference does it make what a candidate believes concerning evolution/creation?

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: You speak in generalities, but have not answered my questions. Let's take them one at a time. What difference does it make what a candidate believes concerning evolution/creation?

Depends on who you ask.

How can that question be answered any way but generally, unless you are asking my opinion on if it makes a difference what a candidate believes.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-21-2011).]

Ok, let me be more specific. How does a candidate's view on creation/evolution make him/her qualified/unqualified for the office he/she seeks?

Easy enough?

Can't be any less popular than the current president.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: Ok, let me be more specific. How does a candidate's view on creation/evolution make him/her qualified/unqualified for the office he/she seeks? Easy enough?

Sure.... but that was certainly not the point of the conversation.

It's not a qualification that was in question it was the beliefs a candidate holds and how that relates to their representation.

So you can't answer.

It's ok. Shall we attempt the other questions, or am I wasting my time?

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: So you can't answer. It's ok. Shall we attempt the other questions, or am I wasting my time?

I'm really unsure what you want answered you keep changing what exactly we are talking about.

I stated that I believe a candidates beliefs are used by many to help them decide if they will support that candidate. I also stated that it seems the Tea Party are closely affiliated with Christian Conservatism (not that there is anything wrong with that ). And my experience has been that most Tea Party Candidates have avoided clear answers to such "hot button" issues as Gay Marriage/Rights, Abortion, creationism/evolution and so on.

Do you have any questions about that?

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-21-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: I'm really unsure what you want answered you keep changing what exactly we are talking about.

Ok, let's recap..

I originally asked why the so-called Tea Party was controversial. Your response:

quote Many topics are considered controversial, I guess it would depend on which "values" we are talking about. Some that come to mind are Gay Rights, Abortion, Evolution/Creationism...etc.

I followed up with a few questions, which, up to now, you have not answered:

quote What difference does it make what a political candidate believes concerning evolution and/or creation? "Gay rights" is a loaded term. It implies that gay people in this country are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. (The predictable retort to this, of course, is the marriage issue. If you want to argue that, start another thread and I will explain why is it a fallacious argument). As far as abortion goes..did you know that overturning Roe vs. Wade would not outlaw abortion? It would merely give states the right to decide. Is federalism controversial? If so, why?

Here is your chance at redemption. Otherwise, this is a fool's errand.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: What difference does it make what a political candidate believes concerning evolution and/or creation? "Gay rights" is a loaded term. It implies that gay people in this country are not afforded the same rights as heterosexual people. (The predictable retort to this, of course, is the marriage issue. If you want to argue that, start another thread and I will explain why is it a fallacious argument). As far as abortion goes..did you know that overturning Roe vs. Wade would not outlaw abortion? It would merely give states the right to decide. Is federalism controversial? If so, why?

Really??
Shall I answer it again?

The thing is many people base their support of a candidate on how said candidate takes a stand on issues such as evolution, abortion, federalism, gay rights...etc.

That has been my point all along, if you cannot accept it or don't believe it, that's your perogative.

Now if you are looking for my personal opinions about these issues feel free to ask but I fail to see what you are trying to get at by asking questions like is federalism controversial? To whom? To me? Or in general?

As for "redeeming" myself, from what?

Well, I guess from looking any more desperate to duck followup questions to comments you made.

quote Originally posted by fogglethorpe: So you can't answer. It's ok. Shall we attempt the other questions, or am I wasting my time?

dingdingding! Give that man a cigar!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Democrats...do you think this is appropriate behavior for a Congressperson? Maxine Waters: ‘The tea party can go straight to hell’

I suppose no worse or better than Perry accusing Bernanke of treason.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on...ions-from-both-sides

Bad behavior, it seems, is the order of the day. How unfortunate.

quote Originally posted by tbone42: I suppose no worse or better than Perry accusing Bernanke of treason. http://thehill.com/blogs/on...ions-from-both-sides Bad behavior, it seems, is the order of the day. How unfortunate.

You SERIOUSLY equate the two?

The Fed's policy of printing money and monetizing the debt is a serious risk to the country.

Maxine Waters saying "The Tea Party can go to hell" is an appropriate thing for a sitting member of Congress to say?

REALLY?