Okay boys and girls it’s all up to you!
56 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread”
Comments are closed.
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Okay boys and girls it’s all up to you!
Comments are closed.
Blogs For Victory 
RIP
Al Davis
they say these things come in threes…who is next?
Hmmmmm
http://www.therightscoop.com/open-thread-grinding-america-down/
Time to turn the tables…
JOIN US IN DC ON 11-11-11
This is a NATIONWIDE Call-to-Action!
We CALL upon every member of federal, state and local government, legislative, judicial, law enforcement and military, who have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitutional Republic from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to act upon those oaths for the stated purpose of restoring the Constitutional Republic.
We CALL upon ALL veterans and veteran organizations in America, who still believe in their oath to protect and defend, to unite with us at once – in this Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic.
We CALL for ALL citizens who still desire freedom and liberty, to stand with us in peaceful protest, and carry our demands to right the wrongs against our nation in the preservation of freedom, liberty, justice and the rule of law.
Help us save our Nation. Start here…
http://patriotsforamerica.ning.com/forum/topics/just-this-minute-launched-a-declaration-to-restore-the-constituti
Soros?
psalm 109:8
Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been declared the winner of the 2011 Values Voter Summit Straw Poll, garnering 37 percent of the vote.
Herman Cain finished in second place with 23 percent, while Rick Santorum took third at 16 percent.
Herman Cain finished in second place with 23 percent,
rocks?
California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday finished signing the California Dream Act, under which California students who are undocumented immigrants will qualify for state-funded financial aid for college.
Despite GMB’s pessimistic attitude. The fighting Illini are 6-0 with a guaranteed winning season.
Pessimistic attitude? Illionois does not have a steady history of winning football games. 6-0? Maybe if they go undefeated I will drink two beers. Maybe 🙂
“The House Judiciary Committee passed a bill yesterday that would make it a federal crime for U.S. residents to discuss or plan activities on foreign soil that, if carried out in the U.S., would violate the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — even if the planned activities are legal in the countries where they’re carried out. The new law, sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) allows prosecutors to bring conspiracy charges against anyone who discusses, plans or advises someone else to engage in any activity that violates the CSA, the massive federal law that prohibits drugs like marijuana and strictly regulates prescription medication.”
Remind me again about the GOP being about small government. The GOP not only wants federal laws not given in the constitution to overrule states rights, they even want federal laws to be applicable in foreign countries. Oh yeah, Obama is the commie that is backing the alcohol industry in California in it’s fight to get rid of medical marijuana.
We can always use another federal criminal statute. We just don’t have enough already. At least you stated one truth. bams is a commie.
treason is already a crime…and you dont have to be in a foreign nation to commit it…
figure that congress has failed to enforce treason laws…so they make a oops justincase law…
get real…this is stooge bait…try obama for treason…he is an enemy of the United States…he is not eligible to hold the office of POTUS…because he was born a british citizen…
him his whole commie filled cockroach regime and the anarchists on wall street.
I hadn’t heard the British Citizen angle on the worthless birther movement. Would you like quote for us all the portion of the Constitution where it says the President can’t hold or have ever held citizenship of another country? For a bunch of Constitutionalists, you guys sure seem pretty willing to ignore the Constitution completely when it makes for a good story.
corky
the proof is there for any idiot with an IQ of 85 to find….OH WAIT!!
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;
(oh…the first time you ever heard about WHAT? im calling you a liar)
congress has the duty to “To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;”
congress does “not” have the power or duty to determine what a “natural born citizen” is…that meaning must be determined by searching the halls of history…to certify WHAT the founding fathers meant by “natural born citizen”…
it can be, at the least…confirmed that the 14th amendment does not award natural born citizenship…
in the 1770s…it was pretty well internationally recognized that if a transient father had a child in a foreign nation…that child was a lawful citizen of that nation…if the father married while transient…to a woman who was a citizen…of a foreign nation (foreign to the husband)…the woman automatically assumed the nationality and citizenship rights of the husband…
the SC…established this as precedent…in 1874…that a natural born citizen…need be born of 2…”parents”…and that other (possible) interpetations to the term natural born citizens…always left doubts…hence…a child born with a foreign citizenship…owes loyalty to a foreign sovern…cannot be a cinatural born citizen of either nation…neither that of his mothers birth citzieship….nor his fathers…hence… the 14th amendment…awards naturalization……a naturalized citizen therefore…is not, never was, and cannot be…a natural born citzien of the USA…because congress awarded citizenship…its not a natural condition…at birth
“The Supreme Court in Minor specifically avoided construing the 14th Amendment as to the issue of whether Virginia Minor was a US citizen. Instead, the Court looked no further than the natural-born citizen clause in Article 2 Section 1. The Court held that Minor was a member of the “class” of persons who were natural-born citizens. They defined this class as those born in the US to “parents” (plural) who were citizens. “
as a matter of fact…the 14th amendment differentiates between born citizens…and naturalized citizens…
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
and further…it established the naturalizatin of children…who do not hold natural born citizenship status…as citizens of the USA….such citizenship being recognized under the 14th amendment as “naturalized” citzienship…
the key is “and subject to”…the jurisdiction of the United Statees…in the determination of who is awarded citzenship under the 14th Amendment…and who is a natural born citizen…this is how it ties in…if that child is subject to any other sovern…(id…the british crown)…then the 14th amendment awards naturalization at birth…to the child…however…if the child is a citizen without any other citzenship…not being subject to any other sovern nation…then the congre3ss has no authority to award or determine…that thchilds citzenship status…as congress only has the power to award naturalization…a naturalied citizen is all the 14th amendment can awawrd…
Ubama is a Kenyan muslim.
The Supreme Court made a decision directly contradicting what you are saying all the way back in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The majority opinion directly cited the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and said that it was only controverted if the child were born to foreign diplomats, rulers, or hostile occupying military forces, or if they were born on a foreign public ship. Obama was clearly none of these things, which in turn indicates that he gained his citizenship, Constitutionally, by right of birth.
There are certainly no high court decisions that I can find that draw a distinction between a person who is a citizen by way of his birth and a natural-born citizen. You’re wasting your time.
corky
You’re wasting your time.
arguing with idiots (you) I agree.
sorry…you are wrong cory…kim ark did not provide any supreme court precedent on what a natural born citizen is…
if it did…the libtards that you copy from would have given you a lot more than lip service…there is no other supreme court ruling that states what a natural born citizen is…
it must suck to be a stooge and screw up like you do…
The Court in Minor, referring directly to Article 2 Section 1, and specifically avoiding the 14th Amendment, held that women, if born in the US to citizen parents, were citizens and that their citizenship was equal to men. The Court further stated that this “class” of persons were “natives, or natural-born citizens”.
The Court also held that while women were equal citizens to men, the Constitution did not provide a right to vote to anyone, male or female. This part of the holding was later erased by the 19th Amendment, but the citizenship determination remains as good law today. Therefore, the Court’s decision in Minor operates against Obama being eligible, since his father was never a US citizen.
_____
_____
i challenge you to document anything in kim ark that changed this…or even…addressed it specifically…(you cant…its not there)
And such help came in 1898 when the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen under the 14th Amendment. Since Minor was a natural-born citizen, the 14th Amendment need not be construed. But Wong Kim Ark was not in the class of natural-born citizens (previously defined in Minor), and therefore the Supreme Court was forced to directly construe the 14th Amendment to resolve citizenship doubts pertaining to the “class” of persons born in the US to alien parents.
It is crucially important to recognize that Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship could not be established without the 14th Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen. If he had been in that class, the Court would have established his citizenship under Article 2 Section 1 as the court had previously done for Virginia Minor.
The holding/definition of a natural-born citizen issued by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett does not mention the Law of Nations or Vattel. There has been a great deal of scholarship unearthed by both sides of this argument. But in Minor we have direct Supreme Court precedent for this issue which renders other sources moot.
Vattel does not make national law. The US Supreme Court and the Congress make national law. Unless the Supreme Court overrules the citizenship precedent stated in Minor v. Happersett, or the Constitution is amended, the case stands as governing national law. This is due to the separation of powers determined by the Constitution itself. It’s important to focus on the Supreme Court’s holding as opposed to allowing the precedent set therein to be hijacked by those who seek to define this definition as “Vattelist” or “foreign”. The US Supreme Court in Minor failed to mention Vattel, so despite any influence he might have had on the framers, the definition stated is to be referred to as the US Supreme Court definition of natural-born citizen, and by no other name.
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”
That is from the decision you are using for precedent. And again, the Wong Kim Ark case specifically said the 14th Amendment was NOT involved. Good try, though.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
Which side is Cory arguing? His quote, reproduced above and highlighted by me, appears to be arguing that a “natural born citizen” is one born to citizen parents, within the jurisdiction. That is to say, meeting two criteria, not just one.
what you said is nothing short of a lie corystooge…
WONG KIM ARK DID NOT EXPAND THE CLASS OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
The Court in Wong Kim Ark did not expand the class of natural-born citizens defined in Minor. The simplest way to put it is thus:
If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Supreme Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)
That is the simplest way to accurately state the issue. Read it again:
If Wong Kim Ark had been a natural-born citizen, then the Court would never have reached the 14th Amendment issue (just as it didn’t reach it in Minor.)
Since Wong Kim Ark didn’t fit into the class of natural-born citizens as defined by Minor, the Court looked to the 14th Amendment to grant him US citizenship.
isnt if funny how you shove your foot into your lying mouth…and you cant even document what you claimed…
its even funnier that you tried…or should i say…
DUMBER
…”as to this class there have been doubts”…
that doesnt make children born of aliens a natural born citizen…it specificaly fails to resolve that question…they didnt need to…because the other part…
“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”
is all that they needed to determine the case…which literally established what natural born citizenship is…under Supreme Court precedent…
obieOne is a mutt…he isnt eligible to be POTUS…and corystooge is an enemy of the USA…for supporting the fraud that they have perptrated upon America
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children:
British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.
(from FactCheck.org)
Are you guys illiterate or just deliberately dense? If you read that passage, it says they are specifically avoiding the question of whether anybody other than a person born in the US with citizen parents is automatically a citizen because they didn’t need it in this case. Or, in other words, they spoke specifically about not setting the precedent you are trying to cite.
I also did not city Wong Kim Ark because they ever used the words “natural born citizen” but specifically because they DID set precedent as to whether the the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment included foreign citizenship (it doesn’t).
So one piece of your argument was sidestepped by the court and the other has precedent speaking directly against it. You still have not provided even a shred of case law that gives anything you’ve said here even a little credence. Unfortunately, I doubt you even have the intellectual capacity to fathom the arguments you are copying and pasting blindly from other sources, so arguing the specifics of it here is probably a waste of my time.
I would like to reiterate that I actually had never heard anybody put forth this particular variant of the birther argument before, so the sources that I’ve provided are just what I’ve found in 15 minutes of internet research. The fact that you are using a court case where the court said specifically in their majority decision that they were not addressing the point you are trying to make tells me pretty much all I need to know about your interest in sound, factual discourse.
Cory,
What you are attempting to do is argue precedent by exclusion; that is, the Court cited facts as understood and did not broaden the scope of the facts as understood.
By this reasoning they stated that there is no question that “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” but left open the Constitutional question to this status should these criteria not be met; both conditions. Part of that question is answered in Minor.
The Wong Kim Ark Court did not answer all of the possible iterations of the Constitutional term “natural born” indeed they specifically stated “ For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
In common Law, we first go to the specific text, then to the precedent (or controlling legal authority, thanks Al Gore). If the question is still open we go to the Framers’ intent. This is where it gets really interesting; many times when arguing before the Court, one side will cite minority opinions from previous Court decisions to bolster the understanding of Framers’ intent.
In Wong Kim Ark we can go straight to per curiam where “there is no question” as to what the framers’ understood “natural born” to mean. Wong Kim Ark provides the definitive definition, and as js01 pointed out, Minor provides an addendum or precedent by inclusion.
what kind of idiot are you corystooge…you lied…i documented the minor case…you come skippidy lickspash and post nothing of any conclusive nature and then…try to say we are WHAT?
even the libtard wikipedia agrees with me
the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. the Wong Kim Ark case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause.
wow corystooge…
tell us…did ever have…brain surgery…maybe the surgeon slipped a little eh…took a piece here and there that he shoulda left huh?
if you dont understand this by now…there is only one reason…you cant understand…your reprobate mind does not have the capacity to grasp the reality in this issue…you sidestep…misdirect…deny and lie…and its simple…
this thread is conclusive corystooge…you are a mental midget…give up blogging…you dont belong here
kim ark sylybus stated;
“By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”
effectivly…kim ark was deceided;
The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed.
and nothing about natural born citizenship was ever determined in the Kim Ark case…period…it was solely based in the 14th amendment…
I never claimed that Wong Kim Ark made any definitive determination of what constituted a “natural born citizen”. I again cited it because they took up the 14th amendment issue that js keeps trying to cite. They took it up and in the majority opinion dismissed the idea that the “under the jurisdiction” clause applied to cases involving foreign citizenship, which is the exact opposite of what js is trying to claim it said. He keeps claiming that it was based on the 14th Amendment, but the majority opinion was that it was NOT based on the 14th amendment.
I do agree that the phrase “natural born citizen” has never been explicitly defined in any section of the Constitution, but if you look closely, citizenship requirements were never set forth at all. You can make claims all day about Obama’s citizenship being granted by this or that amendment, but I dare you to tell me which portion of the Constitution gave you your citizenship and how it did so in a different way from how Obama got his.
Ultimately what you guys are trying to claim is that Obama was granted citizenship by birth but somehow his citizenship is different from the citizenship I was given at birth. All of your specific reasoning is faulty for reasons I’ve put forth above, so you are left making a case solely on the basis of the phrase “Natural Born Citizen”. I find it highly doubtful that courts are even going to take this up for argument without any case law at all to back you up.
u r lost corystooge…
its been detailed intricatly…and you spin and spin and spin…but cant change the truth…
obiedumber was born with british citizenship…end of story…it doesnt matter that his mother was a US Citizen…obiedubmest was subject to other than US citizenship…and the only way he was given citizenship was as a naturalized citizen by congress…which is the only authority congress has…they cant make natural born citizens with man made laws….
Bush was born of 2 parents who were both US Citizens…to his natural born status…there are no doubts…but to opiedipshxt…he was born with FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE…natual through his father…who literally…never intended to permanently domicile in the USA…he was here for an education…noting else..
What you can’t seem to grasp is that Wong Kim Ark SPECIFICALLY DECIDED that foreign citizenship does not matter at all. Not even a little. Not the slightest. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
So yes, Obama might have a claim to British citizenship. So what?
CITIZENS MAY BE BORN OR NATURALIZED
A common misconception of those who argue in favor of Obama’s eligibility is that if one is, at the time of their birth, a US citizen, then that person is also a natural-born citizen. False. This was unequivocally established by the majority holding in Minor, which states:
“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat ‘no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,’and that Congress shall have power ‘to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”
Again, at first glance this appears to provide a neat little soundbite for Obama supporters. But it doesn’t. The quote above is taken out of context. The Court’s opinion goes on to state:
“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided…that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.”
Here, the Minor Court cites the first naturalization act of 1790 to the effect that persons born of US citizen parents – outside the jurisdiction of the US – are “considered as natural-born citizens”. So, here we can see that while the Minor Court only recognizes two paths to citizenship, birth and naturalization… it is clear that some persons who, at the time of their birth, are US citizens, require naturalization for such status.
Cory,
Here is the ultimate result of the vaunted 2009 stimulus that you claim saved so many jobs. And this coming from a blue state.
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/politics/Layoffs-to-Begin-Today-121556469.html
cluster
they would rather commit suicide (job wise) than pay 3% out of their own pockets.
FOOLS being led by idiots.
Issa Announces Fast and Furious Subpoenas of Holder and the DOJ
Go get ’em Darrell
Now THIS is the Herman Cain I can get behind.
Herman Cain At VVS: ‘You Can Demonstrate All You Want on Wall Street, the Problem is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue’
video here
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/herman-cain-occupy-wall-street-vvs/
figure this one out…
they can execute an american on foreign soil without an indictment…no trial…no treason charges…nada…
but when it comes to a mexican drug cartel enforcer…who is not a US citizen…they can present an indictment…
howzat go again?
I’d like to discuss the TEA Party.
Bill Kellor over at the New York Times, has an editorial Is the Tea Party Over?
The gist of his argument, if you can call his rambling digest an argument, is that the Republican Party will most assuredly select either Mitt Romney; the Anti-TEA Party Candidate, or the Anti-Romney Candidate Rick Perry.
Kellor’s labored logic goes something like this; since the TEA Party doesn’t support Mitt Romney because of his moderate to liberal position on social issues, then by default Rick Perry’s apparent social conservatism makes him the TEA Party candidate. For evidence of the rejection of Romney by the TEA Party, one should only Google “TEA Party and Mitt Romney” and you’ll be presented with dozens of websites featuring such headlines as “Romney faces Tea Party Protests” and “Tea Party group sets defeating Mitt Romney as top priority.” Trouble is, most of the information regarding Romney vs. the TEA Party is being drawn from websites like Huffington Post, Mother Jones, Crooks & Liars and Daily Kos.
In my discussions with TEA Party members, which admittedly are inductive, I have found that Romney-Care is the primary issue the TEA Party has with Romney. Social conservatives have many issues with Romney, and many social conservatives are also TEA Party Patriots, but the TEA movement isn’t about social issues per se, it’s about fiscal responsibility and government intrusion; hence the problem with Romney-Care.
Likewise, Rick Perry has issues of his own with social conservatives not only with immigration, but with other touchstones of the Perry administration in Texas, and the TEA Party has issues with Perry’s immigration record of government intrusion and the costs affiliated with that intrusion, among other things. So in the purest sense, the TEA Party as fiscal conservatives would be more likely to support Romney than Perry were it not for Romney-Care, and not exactly enamored with Perry based not on border security but on his lack of discipline in dealing with the Texas-sized budget shortfall (it’s not a deficit by definition).
Clearly, the TEA candidate of the moment seems to be Herman Cain, but being a leaderless affiliation of like-minded Americans, the consensus among TEA Party proponents is hardly clear, which brings me to my point.
The Left and the MSM seem intent on creating a controversy over the TEA Party choice, and intent on creating the idea that the TEA Party has caused a “split” in the Republican Party effectively weakening both of their chances at defeating Obama. Since the Independent voters, those not affiliated with Republicans or Democrats, draw their perception of the TEA movement from the loudest voices the message is easily drowned out by the imagery, and the image of angry, uncooperative, selfish middle-aged white people on Medicare is the one the Left will always accentuate. Recently, the Obama-mania Media have been comparing the unfocused rabble currently befouling New York City with their neo-communism, drugs, patchouli and excrement in alleyways with the TEA Party gatherings. Only the weak-minded among us would see anything of a correlation between the Occupy Sesame Street clowns and the 9/12 Project.
But, determined to portray the TEA Movement as self-serving malcontents the Left continues to discuss the eminent disarray in next year’s election caused by those obstinate TEA-People! Oddly, no mention is ever made of the split in the Democratic Party as a result of the Über-libs supporting Obama and the more centrist Democrats represented by the diminishing influence of the Clinton wing of the party, but … whatever.
The question becomes, since the opposition to the TEA Party will create the narrative that most harms the TEA message should the TEA Party simply fade away? Should the TEA Party begin anew with protests, town-hall disruptions and grabbing headlines as before since the message, when unfiltered resonates with the voting public? Will 11-11-11 on the Washington Mall happen? Or, should the TEA Party ignore the messaging of the Left and continue to influence the debate by framing the examination of the Republican candidates?
Trolls need not respond; I’m not interested in reading your absurd opinions of the TEA Party.
wow…what a delusional rant…
i read 1 paragraph and saw that…
give it up…you dont have a clue
js,
Which paragraph did you actually read? I’d like to know if you’re learning disabled or simply literacy challenged.
Are you stupid or just don’t care?
If you are incapable from engaging in discussion you can simply not comment; we can all do without the dots that you seem to think pass for rational discussion.
Emily Dickinson’s dashes insist on an audience, one “at its rare best,” as Harold Bloom has put it in the Western Canon, and one she never really had
js’s dots insist on an audience at its rare worst, welcome to B4V
Patent pomposity from a pusillanimous putz principally peddling packages of pap.
Dickenson dashes were white space, not little marbles rolling around between intransigent thoughts.
The Count doesn’t like Harold Bloom, Sterling Professor of Humanities at Yale University? That is an interesting tidbit for an open thread.
As to your interest. The TEA Party people I know are mostly concerned with government spending but can’t bring themselves to cut any of the really big programs. What are they going to protest, the wasted money on solar, the 2 bucks NPR costs, the P.O. not closing down rural offices quickly enough?
It’s not Bloom that I have a problem with; apes can quote Nietzsche, that doesn’t mean they understand it.
As an added bonus for attempting to carry on a conversation with said ape; your response vis-à-vis TEA doesn’t address the question and merely seeks divergent argument; quelle surprise!
Sit down before you hurt yourself; and read the Ryan Plan as apparently the “Tea Party people” you know are otherwise occupied arguing Dodgson’s obsessions and other imaginary script.
baldork
The TEA Party people I know are mostly concerned with government spending but can’t bring themselves to cut any of the really big programs.
are you really that Freeking stupid?
the TEA “party” is a movement NOT an elected political party……good grief stick with the basket weaving courses.
typical…you are clueless…so you try to brush it off on someone else…
countstooge…your rant is obvious from the 1st paragraph…its useless to argue with stooges…you dont have a clue what is right or wrong…your reprobate mind echoes in insanity and stupidity…
go back to hells half acre with thomastooge…you and pain are one and the same…2 losers and that will never change
Pwlhsh xruswn lirwn kai oxi mono. Dwrean ektimhseis . http://www.facebook.com/pages/Enexyra-Athina/279450458741755