What may very well happen

[Wonkish1]

The Tea Party movement is predominately a FiCon movement.

Sorry I must have missed it.  Please repost the link to the multi-year academic study from two reputable institutions that stated this so we may discuss.

The event that sparked the Tea Party occurred on the F*ing New York Stock Exchange.

Pull up the platform/issues on the website of every Tea Party group in the country it might be pretty shocking that there is a large absence of SoCon issues in the list.

Tea Party polling numbers, meet ups, events, groups, organizations, parties, strength at town halls, etc. are all right in exurbia and suburbia.


And all of that holds a lot more weight than some bull$hit study performed by a bunch of Harvard liberals who started their study not knowing the first thing about the Tea Party.

I'll tell you what how about from now on I'll pull up every study done by CATO and Heritage and then act like because its a study that it is irrefutable lore handed down from God, since that seems to be what your implying in regards your precious Harvard study.

I mean how stupid are you to believe this?

Well thanks for confirming that you are ignorant retard.

[Link]

The Tea Party movement is predominately a FiCon movement.

Sorry I must have missed it.  Please repost the link to the multi-year academic study from two reputable institutions that stated this so we may discuss.

I'll tell you what how about from now on I'll pull up every study done by CATO and Heritage and then act like because its a study that it is irrefutable lore handed down from God, since that seems to be what your implying in regards your precious Harvard study.

CATO + Heritage=Harvard

[tpfkaw]

CATO + Heritage > Harvard studies that use the term "false consciousness" seriously, Zig.

[Wonkish1]

The Tea Party movement is predominately a FiCon movement.

Sorry I must have missed it.  Please repost the link to the multi-year academic study from two reputable institutions that stated this so we may discuss.

I'll tell you what how about from now on I'll pull up every study done by CATO and Heritage and then act like because its a study that it is irrefutable lore handed down from God, since that seems to be what your implying in regards your precious Harvard study.

CATO + Heritage=Harvard

Harvard's entire liberal arts school = toilet.

Luckily the institution has some value outside of its liberal arts departments.

[Link]

The Tea Party movement is predominately a FiCon movement.

Sorry I must have missed it.  Please repost the link to the multi-year academic study from two reputable institutions that stated this so we may discuss.

I'll tell you what how about from now on I'll pull up every study done by CATO and Heritage and then act like because its a study that it is irrefutable lore handed down from God, since that seems to be what your implying in regards your precious Harvard study.

CATO + Heritage=Harvard

Harvard's entire liberal arts school = toilet.

And what about the co-author from Notre Dame.  Do you have any slurs about that institution?

[Link]

CATO + Heritage > Harvard studies that use the term "false consciousness" seriously, Zig.

I'm going to assume you just started manically banging on the keyboard without even bothering to read the Op Ed by the authors of the Harvard study.

Please prove to us you are not a mindless partisan hack by showing the forum where in the authors' piece the term "false consciousness" is used.

[Wonkish1]

Link how you could possibly call someone a "mindless partisan hack" is absolutely astonishing. You are definitely in the top 3 "mindless partisan hacks" on this entire site.

I have yet to hear you concede or even allude 1 thing that could even be construed as putting your side of the aisle in negative light. Nor have I seen you say one positive thing about the our side.

If that isn't the definition and height of partisan hackery I have no idea what is.

[fezzyfestoon]

Eh...since this is the first I'm seeing of this topic, forgive me if I bring up a few things that have already been covered in a thread too long to read. And sorry for interrupting such a vivid debate, but I read the first post and felt compelled to respond. I disagree with the "no goal" criticism. It's pretty clear that there is one simple fault the movement is pointing to; A governmental preference towards the rich. How is that not clear? The government is being used as a tool to further the interests of those with the power to influence it. The whole "no goal" thing is a part of the characterization of this group as a bunch of clueless, hopeless idiots. How is it our responsibility to come up with platforms and solutions to the nation's problems? That's exactly the reason we have Representatives and Senators for in the first place. Are they really stupid enough that ordinary hippies have to come up with better ideas of their own? Do your job, stop asking us to do it for you. On the other hand, I'm sure they know exactly what needs to be done. It's not in their interests to do anything though. The only interests currently on the radar for our government are the ones with the deepest pockets.

[Link]

Link how you could possibly call someone a "mindless partisan hack" is absolutely astonishing. You are definitely in the top 3 "mindless partisan hacks" on this entire site.

I have yet to hear you concede or even allude 1 thing that could even be construed as putting your side of the aisle in negative light. Nor have I seen you say one positive thing about the our side.

If that isn't the definition and height of partisan hackery I have no idea what is.

I wasn't a Bush fan but I could come up with a thing or two that was good under his presidency.  Bush increased funds for fighting HIV in Africa.  That is something that is often overlooked.

How in the world would Romney destroy the GOP?  I don't agree with him on several issues but on a certain level he seems like a reasonable guy.  He seems competent.  He doesn't seem crazy.  He seems like a true family man not some family values hypocrite (ie Gingrich)

Maybe Perry has the same tolerance issues as Romney?

I wasn't aware either of them had tolerance issues.  I've never heard either of them say anything disparaging about any race or religion.

Even though I am Christian I was a little bit worried about Perry after his prayer event.  The fact that he is willing to sit down and have a dialog with Muslims actually makes me feel a lot better about him.

Here's what Donna Brazile a southern black Democrat had to say about Rick Perry...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I saw the interview with Donna Brazile when the whole nhead controversy broke.  She quite clearly stated that she met the governor years ago and that he is a decent man.

I'm a Democrat and I don't always agree with Christie but if I lived in New Jersey and I had to make a choice right now it would be very difficult for me to vote for anyone but Christie.  You have to reward people for good behavior.  He's made several good calls.  I have a bit of a problem with his stance towards public sector unions but nobody is perfect.

Re:  Opinion Bush Sr.

The posters that are ranking him as a very bad president need to explain.

As usual Wonkish1 your wild pronouncements and reality don't match up.  My problem with Wormy's comment is it was a complete and utter lie.  When he was challenged about it at least he had the decency to clam up and quietly slink away from the thread.  You on the other hand responded with baseless slander.  My challenge was not even directed at you.  I don't know why you felt you had to defend an obvious lie by impeaching my character.

You cannot provide evidence from a reputable source to debunk the Harvard researchers' article that shows that the average rank and file Tea Party member is a right wing Republican racist and religious extremist.  And no Astro turfed advertisements on right wing websites don't count as a reputable source.

If you want to debate then debate.  But do not accuse me of being a Democratic Marco Rubio (please see my signature).

[Wonkish1]

As usual Wonkish1 your wild pronouncements and reality don't match up.  My problem with Wormy's comment is it was a complete and utter lie.  When he was challenged about it at least he had the decency to clam up and quietly slink away from the thread.  You on the other hand responded with baseless slander.  My challenge was not even directed at you.  I don't know why you felt you had to defend an obvious lie by impeaching my character.

You cannot provide evidence from a reputable source to debunk the Harvard researchers' article that shows that the average rank and file Tea Party member is a right wing Republican racist and religious extremist.  And no Astro turfed advertisements on right wing websites don't count as a reputable source.

If you want to debate then debate.  But do not accuse me of being a Democratic Marco Rubio (please see my signature).

"Wild pronouncements", Link I'm very level headed on these forums.

But I'll give you credit for giving a nice rebuttal listing all those things you have said in the past.  That was good and I'm sure it took you a while to do that. I will admit after reading each one I don't remember reading a single one of those, but that doesn't matter. Good response.


Link it isn't up to me to disprove the notion that the tea party is racist or that it is astroturf. It is up to you to prove it. Your the one trying to make the assertion not me.

And even then I did a pretty damn good job of disproving it by pointing out that the Tea Party bases most of its strength in Suburbia and is FiCon movement. A good portion of these people are even pretty libertarian in areas like gay marriage.

You're whole damn bogus "study" is hilarious. And unless your going to provide evidence(which doesn't exist) that the tea party is movement based more on cultural issues than economic ones and is more strongly based in rural and southern areas then you don't have a leg to stand on, and frankly if you don't actually engage in providing any meaningful evidence other than "so and so bogus study said x", there is no reason for me even to deal with troll posting like this.

[Link]

"Wild pronouncements", Link I'm very level headed on these forums.

I do not think statements like this are "level headed"...

Harvard's entire liberal arts school = toilet.

Well thanks for confirming that you are ignorant retard.

I mean how stupid are you to believe this?

Link how you could possibly call someone a "mindless partisan hack" is absolutely astonishing. You are definitely in the top 3 "mindless partisan hacks" on this entire site.

I have yet to hear you concede or even allude 1 thing that could even be construed as putting your side of the aisle in negative light. Nor have I seen you say one positive thing about the our side.

If that isn't the definition and height of partisan hackery I have no idea what is.

The reason you had to walk back your remarks about never seeing me "say one positive thing" about a Republican is not because I am a model of bipartisanship but because your statement was a wild pronouncement.  I have amassed almost 900 posts.  If I couldn't data mine them to find a handful of positive remarks about some Republicans it would mean I am either clinically insane or a paid political plant.

In a debate saying or implying a broad based absolute about your opponent is usually a bad idea.  It is very easy to disprove.  The fact that Marco Rubio said what he did about Obama immediately made me question he's credibility.  The fact that he repeated the statement several more times when given the chance to walk it back made me dismiss him altogether.  It is pretty much scientifically impossible for "every aspect of life in America today" to be worse under Obama.  Just as it's highly unlikely that I have never said anything positive about a Republican.  Frankly I would be shocked if anyone has read even half the stuff I've posted.  I would actually be very disturbed if someone had read all my posts.  There is no way with certitude to know whether any prolific poster on this forum has never said something positive about one party or another.  To imply with confidence that you know is not level headed.

Don't feel bad though.  I have had to do at least some version of this exercise with a total of three people (2 Lean Republican, and 1 Lean Democrat) over the course of three months.

[Wonkish1]

"Wild pronouncements", Link I'm very level headed on these forums.

I do not think statements like this are "level headed"...

Harvard's entire liberal arts school = toilet.

Well thanks for confirming that you are ignorant retard.

I mean how stupid are you to believe this?

Link how you could possibly call someone a "mindless partisan hack" is absolutely astonishing. You are definitely in the top 3 "mindless partisan hacks" on this entire site.

I have yet to hear you concede or even allude 1 thing that could even be construed as putting your side of the aisle in negative light. Nor have I seen you say one positive thing about the our side.

If that isn't the definition and height of partisan hackery I have no idea what is.

The reason you had to walk back your remarks about never seeing me "say one positive thing" about a Republican is not because I am a model of bipartisanship but because your statement was a wild pronouncement.  I have amassed almost 900 posts.  If I couldn't data mine them to find a handful of positive remarks about some Republicans it would mean I am either clinically insane or a paid political plant.

In a debate saying or implying a broad based absolute about your opponent is usually a bad idea.  It is very easy to disprove.  The fact that Marco Rubio said what he did about Obama immediately made me question he's credibility.  The fact that he repeated the statement several more times when given the chance to walk it back made me dismiss him altogether.  It is pretty much scientifically impossible for "every aspect of life in America today" to be worse under Obama.  Just as it's highly unlikely that I have never said anything positive about a Republican.  Frankly I would be shocked if anyone has read even half the stuff I've posted.  I would actually be very disturbed if someone had read all my posts.  There is no way with certitude to know whether any prolific poster on this forum has never said something positive about one party or another.  To imply with confidence that you know is not level headed.

Don't feel bad though.  I have had to do at least some version of this exercise with a total of three people (2 Lean Republican, and 1 Lean Democrat) over the course of three months.

What's your point?

Where did I say a "broad absolute"? Read that post again I said that I haven't ***seen*** you post one positive thing I didn't say that I ***know*** you haven't posted one positive thing. The former is a statement of fact regarding the anecdotal evidence I've obtained. The latter is a "broad absolute". Again STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

I didn't "walk them back" either I said that you provided a good response, a good rebuttal. Walking back means to say that I'm trying to dodge giving you credit for a good response.

The Harvard comment is just being cute with a little bit of my subjective opinion in there. If you take that literally something is wrong with you.

The 2 comments about you being stupid to believe this study are my subjective opinion based on how hilariously stupid the Harvard study was. Those are not "absolute comments" nor wild pronouncements. You consider them intentionally deprecating towards you though.


None of what you just posted even deals with level headedness. Krazen, Obepo, you and some others furnish some very outlandish stuff as fact. None of them/you don't even seem to realize that what your saying is completely out of rational mainstream discourse and then they don't back it up in a conciliatory(for lack of a better word) way methodically piece by piece like most people do when arguing an uncommon position. Instead they try to turn it over onto the other guy to try to disprove their outlandish $hit.

[Link]

Link it isn't up to me to disprove the notion that the tea party is racist or that it is astroturf. It is up to you to prove it. Your the one trying to make the assertion not me.

And even then I did a pretty damn good job of disproving it by pointing out that the Tea Party bases most of its strength in Suburbia and is FiCon movement. A good portion of these people are even pretty libertarian in areas like gay marriage.

You're whole damn bogus "study" is hilarious. And unless your going to provide evidence(which doesn't exist) that the tea party is movement based more on cultural issues than economic ones and is more strongly based in rural and southern areas then you don't have a leg to stand on, and frankly if you don't actually engage in providing any meaningful evidence other than "so and so bogus study said x", there is no reason for me even to deal with troll posting like this.

Wonkish it's a debate.  Both sides must state their position and provide their facts.

To be honest with you I don't know your age, education, or work experience.  What I am willing to reveal about myself is that I have multiple degrees in multiple fields of study and have studied and worked in various fields in various countries.  I have been to numerous journal club meetings and international conferences and watch experts critique numerous studies and papers.  What I can honestly say is I have never seen anyone talk about an academic research project from an institution like Harvard or Notre Dame the way you have... even if they disagreed with some of the conclusions.  Wonkish I don't know if you are in high school or just started colllege but this is not how you discuss papers...

You're whole damn bogus "study" is hilarious.

Harvard's entire liberal arts school = toilet.

[Link]

What's your point?

My point is if you say stuff like this...

Nor have I seen you say one positive thing about the our side.

You can expect people to easily disprove whatever point you are trying to make about your opponent time and time again.  That's all.  It's one of the basic rules of debating.

[Link]

Where did I say a "broad absolute"?

In a debate saying or implying a broad based absolute about your opponent is usually a bad idea.

Sooo... what was the implication of this little rant...

Nor have I seen you say one positive thing about the our side.

If that isn't the definition and height of partisan hackery I have no idea what is.

[Wonkish1]

Link it isn't up to me to disprove the notion that the tea party is racist or that it is astroturf. It is up to you to prove it. Your the one trying to make the assertion not me.

And even then I did a pretty damn good job of disproving it by pointing out that the Tea Party bases most of its strength in Suburbia and is FiCon movement. A good portion of these people are even pretty libertarian in areas like gay marriage.

You're whole damn bogus "study" is hilarious. And unless your going to provide evidence(which doesn't exist) that the tea party is movement based more on cultural issues than economic ones and is more strongly based in rural and southern areas then you don't have a leg to stand on, and frankly if you don't actually engage in providing any meaningful evidence other than "so and so bogus study said x", there is no reason for me even to deal with troll posting like this.

Wonkish it's a debate.  Both sides must state their position and provide their facts.

To be honest with you I don't know your age, education, or work experience.  What I am willing to reveal about myself is that I have multiple degrees in multiple fields of study and have studied and worked in various fields in various countries.  I have been to numerous journal club meetings and international conferences and watch experts critique numerous studies and papers.  What I can honestly say is I have never seen anyone talk about an academic research project from an institution like Harvard or Notre Dame the way you have... even if they disagreed with some of the conclusions.  Wonkish I don't know if you are in high school or just started colllege but this is not how up discuss papers...

You're whole damn bogus "study" is hilarious.

Harvard's entire liberal arts school = toilet.

I'm done with school have and have been in my career for quite a while now.

And no its not a debate. You tried to make an assertion that the Tea Party is racist and astroturf and pass it off as fact. The burden of prove is on you my friend, not me. I didn't even have to throw out the part about the Tea Party being primarily based among suburban FiCons, but I did anyway.

You aren't backing any of your statements up. Your just relying on the infallibility of Harvard liberal professors and telling me that I have to just accept it as fact even though its so far from the truth that its unbelievable. If Harvard professors commissioned a study saying that 2+2=5 it doesn't make it accurate.

Harvard poli sci department is way more leftist than the Brookings Institute. I'd trust research out of the Brookings Institute(a liberal think tank) much more than anything Harvard Poli Sci department comes out with(and even Brookings Institute can be pretty bad at times).

But ultimately Harvard produced a study that so far off in its conclusions from any other objective data on the tea party that there is just no way you can believe their conclusions.


Link I'm not calling you a liar, but you definitely don't act like someone that has numerous degrees and has a background in academic research. You lack any gravitas that is almost universal among people that