Pschearer, when people hang tea-bags from the brims of their hats, then they are asking us to call them tea-baggers. If you find that word offensive, then you can overlook those comments, or you can get over it and realize that many words (like “pink”, for instance) have more than one meaning. As for hating freedom, I suggest that you look first in the mirror.
Fritzoid & Anthony, I applaud your sensible remarks. (By the way, the word “jazz” was first used as derogatory sexual term for this new “colored” music.) By the way, considering that the Tea party has merged with the Republican Party, I have simply called the major party other than the Democrats, the Teapublican Party.
JimJam, thanks for the citation to Real Clear Politics. I suggest that you also look at FiveThirtyEight.com and that you look at local races. This is not a national election. It is a thousand local elections. For whom will you vote in your state & district, and why?
Mung, I have been saying that for over a year. I am glad that I am not alone. History will record this Year of the Tea Party as part of the White backlash at having an African-American president. Are the Teapublicans solely racially based? No. Is a great part of this anger racism under another name? Yes.
Nola, I replied to your comment at Slowpoke. The Teapublicans are not angry about the continued imprisoned at Guantanamo. The Teapublicans are angry simply to be angry. It is the tantrum of a two-year-old, encouraged by the right-leaning mainstream media. Their platform is nonsensical: Cut government spending, but maintain the current military & veterans budgets, do not hurt Medicare or Social Security. That is ninety percent of the budget. Cut taxes, but simultaneously decrease the debt, while leaving 90% of the budget alone. It is the stance of a child.
Hugh, your remarks are so moronic, insubstantial, and semi-literate that I see no point in reading them. It is apparent that you hold no interest in reasoned discussion. One question, though: Presuming that Teapublicans gain control of the House and divide the Senate 50-50, what will they accomplish between January 3rd 2011 & January 3rd 2013?
Nola, where did I state that Bush-Dick was solely responsible for rising oil prices over the course of his eight terrible, questionably legitimate years in office?
More to the point is that Bush-Dick, owned by Big Oil, moved slowly to help renewable energy, promoted increased drilling, especially in 1.5 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (A.N.W.R.), and incompetently regulated the oil industry, as a direct consequence of which, oil drenched the Louisiana coast from April to October.
A.N.W.R. holds about four billion barrels of oil. That would run the United States for about two hundred days. In exchange for seven months of domestic oil, we would run roughshod over a natural mating ground for caribou, greatly risking their survival.
In addition, the oil tankers and oil derricks along the coast would disturb populations of polar bears and greatly damage the maritime life—All that for simply seven months’ worth of oil.
Focus on the future, Nola, not simply on lining the pockets of Big Oil. The future is in renewable energy: solar, wind, & geothermal. The universe supplies us with all the energy we want if we can manage the technology to use it.
Oil has led to the deaths of millions. It is the past. It is ending.
Thank you, Lew, for making the point that Israel & Palestine are engaged in a civil war. Palestinians lived there for centuries before Israelis forced them off their land. Now, you point out that Palestine wants at least some of it back and that Israel considers those reasonable acts warlike & has its military shooting unarmed humanitarians.
Actually, Freeholder, Jordan was not for Palestinians, who already had their own country, Palestine, where Jews, Christians, & Muslims lived in peace & relative prosperity. Palestine was a thriving country unfortunately colonized by the British when the British turned it over to the Israelis, who drove out the Palestinians & have slaughtered thousands of them over the last sixty years with the help of the U.S. & the countries of western Europe.
I agree, FriscoLou, that Turkey hardly has clean hands in the matter of genocide (see the Armenians). Of course, the U.S. denounces genocide while it committed genocide on the Original Americans & kidnapped, killed, enslaved, & oppressed a million Africans.
Pschearer, when people hang tea-bags from the brims of their hats, then they are asking us to call them tea-baggers. If you find that word offensive, then you can overlook those comments, or you can get over it and realize that many words (like “pink”, for instance) have more than one meaning. As for hating freedom, I suggest that you look first in the mirror.
Fritzoid & Anthony, I applaud your sensible remarks. (By the way, the word “jazz” was first used as derogatory sexual term for this new “colored” music.) By the way, considering that the Tea party has merged with the Republican Party, I have simply called the major party other than the Democrats, the Teapublican Party.
JimJam, thanks for the citation to Real Clear Politics. I suggest that you also look at FiveThirtyEight.com and that you look at local races. This is not a national election. It is a thousand local elections. For whom will you vote in your state & district, and why?
Mung, I have been saying that for over a year. I am glad that I am not alone. History will record this Year of the Tea Party as part of the White backlash at having an African-American president. Are the Teapublicans solely racially based? No. Is a great part of this anger racism under another name? Yes.
Nola, I replied to your comment at Slowpoke. The Teapublicans are not angry about the continued imprisoned at Guantanamo. The Teapublicans are angry simply to be angry. It is the tantrum of a two-year-old, encouraged by the right-leaning mainstream media. Their platform is nonsensical: Cut government spending, but maintain the current military & veterans budgets, do not hurt Medicare or Social Security. That is ninety percent of the budget. Cut taxes, but simultaneously decrease the debt, while leaving 90% of the budget alone. It is the stance of a child.
Hugh, your remarks are so moronic, insubstantial, and semi-literate that I see no point in reading them. It is apparent that you hold no interest in reasoned discussion. One question, though: Presuming that Teapublicans gain control of the House and divide the Senate 50-50, what will they accomplish between January 3rd 2011 & January 3rd 2013?