Tea Party members assaulting protesters in Florida

They are people with a particular political vision. I don't agree with them, but I would not equate them to terrorists.

if the tea-party'ers really stood for freedom and the origin of american politics( i.e. for the people by the people)...they would be taking on the likes of cheney and the builderburgs and all the other scum that hides in the dark corners of america/europe who run this "once" great country even further into the ground. theres way more to the story(of america) than anyone can imagine, but what I/we can see is the vile nature of this group(teaparty) and it's willingness to "just get in the way".

Hetep and Respect Minan59 The corporatist Taliban Tea Party are cultural terrorists in their majority they have corrupted the Republican party into a treasons insurrection gang.

The criminally insane flag hat and cloths Republican woman who assaulted the law abiding citizen should be arrested. Her face and her act is clearly visible on the tape.

FBI, apply a little face recognition software and you can mark one criminal as caught.

Every person of good will should carry a video phone. I use Iphone 4 and recommend it, but any smart phone will do. Evil can't live in light, did U see them scatter when they were told about the light.

The historical cultural anti-humanist terrorist cowards like the KKK use to hide from light under hoods, not the Tea Party tries to hide from light. But Technology is bright.

Clipped and will post this Republican attack video to my blog

Ray...thank you for seeding this video. I had never noticed that the Yellow Snake 'Don't Tread on Me' flag is the symbol of the Tea Party. Yellow...hm...OK, says alot about them. Snake...hmmm...pit viper found in the grass; also says alot about them.

Sounded, to me, that the guy with the bullhorn had a message about 'corporate America'. Too bad I couldn't hear it properly. I might have agreed that corporate America has used its wealth to back the Tea Party, which I really believe to be louder and dumber than the average American.

I think people may be helped by remembering what the first Tea Party was about:

The Real Boston Tea Party was Against the Wal-Mart of the 1770s

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the BEIC pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

I think people may be helped by remembering what the first Tea Party was about:

So pretty much the exact opposite of the 21st Century Tea party.

AWESOME! they were so pissed because he was using their same obnoxious tactics.

All they ever do is try to scream as loud as possible. If you ever watch a gathering of them they just scream like maniacs.

Tea Party is already becomeing weak tea. Two years ago the TEA party tax day rallys easily drew 3 to 5 thousand participants each. Last year they were drawing in 4 to 6 thousand each, but this year they were lucky if they could pull in 4 to 5 hundered. That is not the mark of a movement in it's upsurge phase. But what could be different? The same or better tax rates are in place. Maybe it is just that the economy is improving and people are not as afraid. Yes, I bet that is it. The Tea Party runs on fear, they will just have to jin up some more things for people to be afraid of I guess.

This video should stand up in court... smile :-)

Tea-Baggies getting violent, priceless...

And the teabaggers claim that they are educated, nonviolent patriots?? With their mentality I would expect pictures of the two protesters on the internet with gun sights on them next. People who result to violence as their first reaction are typically on the bottom of the intellectual food chain.

are you being paid to be ignorant or is it naturally from not having been nurtured? Illegitimate perhaps?

Personal attacks are against the COH. Few folks last very long on Newsvine slinging insults at others...Even if one feels completely justified. Civility is a better path.

Too bad they don't have CoH at teabagger political rallies.

Too bad they don't have CoH at teabagger political rallies.

Something like it. It's called "The Law".

OneNationUnderGOD-3209506

"UNDER GOD" was added in 1954, and the pledge wasn't written originally until 1892. Therefore it wouldn't have had any significance in the original "TEA PARTY" becuase it didn't exist.

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an oath of loyalty to the national flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The Pledge has been modified four times since then, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954. Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.

I guess patriotic platitudes are in style right now though.

P R O O F not heresay unless you are totally ignorant:

I'd call video actual proof and not heresay. Here's a definition of "ignorant" for you:

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective

1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

AND, I'd venture that would apply to MANY members of the modern Tea Party.

ignorance kills and so do illegals and those in the White House occupying it illegally along with their illegal aunts and illegal 37 Un Con Stitutional Socialist CZARS:

Ok, let's see if we can untangle this. In order to feel better about your current financial situation, you need to hate illegal immigrants (Fox calls them ALIENS which lends a helpful non-human feel to the mix), the President, somebody's aunt...and I guess the TERM czar which MANY Presidential Administrations have used to describe people in their administration with very specific jobs...including GEORGE BUSH.

Does it make you feel better about your situation to hate these people?

are you being paid to be ignorant or is it naturally from not having been nurtured?

I wouldn't say that to you, it might APPLY, but I wouldn't say it.

Illegitimate perhaps?

Now you get the ignore button...and I'll be at the first Tea Party rally I have the ability to travel to...with a sign, a camera and a bullhorn.

Bye!

Even though I personally am not in favor of violence I am in complete favor of self defense. I would have loved to see that red head beatch try to smack my son's girlfriend in the face the way she did the woman in the video. My son's girlfriend is a martial art instructor and as soon as that girls hands touched her she would have put that tea party-girl in a choke hold until she just passed out. It wouldn't have hurt her and it would have been a beautiful thing to see. In fact, I would have paid to see that happen. The Tea Party members can dish out their obnoxious tactics of yelling and screaming, but they sure get riled up when someone does it to them. Ha ! idiots !

Too bad they don't have CoH at teabagger political rallies.

Something like it. It's called "The Law".

Something like that is called "civility".

And only needs to be enforced on those like TPers who don't seem to have the ability to control their violent urges.

There can now be little doubt that the Teabaggers only have what's worst for America, at heart!

Once again, the Teabaggers show how they represent the American "Brown Shirts". Violence and intimidations is their creed. But that is sooo UNAMERICAN; don't ya think...

Yeah, and if you counter Ignorance and stupidity with reason, you get Teabagger hate and violence! YUCK...seems we need a lot more "RED" flags, because in the end we know what the MATADOR does to the BULL (LY.).. LOL

I seem to recall some union goons calling a black man a token and a house black. Socialists who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

So.... Did they punch him? Did they swear at him or threaten him? I think there is quite a stretch between saying a token house black. And what I saw on the video.

I seem to recall some union goons calling a black man a token and a house black

If it's the same video I think you're talking about (featured on Newsvine a couple of days ago), the man didn't show a union card when he said the reprehensible things he said. In fact, he looked like he might not be part of the protest, but just walking by.

How did you know he was a "union goon" and not just a guy?

Socialists who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.

People who over use the term or don't know the definition of "socialist" shouldn't use "socialist".

Where do you see in this thread or the seeded video someone suggesting that the government acquire and retain sole ownership of the means of production and distribution in the US?

Can't say this surprises me. It's in the nature of the very people who join up with this quasi-party.

Now is the time when we need to make these people the face of the republican party.

The teabaggers arent just a radical faction that are disappearing.

They are still there just going back into the herd.

When speaking of teabaggers remember they are republicans first!

The joys of not having speakers on certain computers..
One way of shutting that guy up would be to cut the wire between the speaker and microphone. Simple yet effective.

Simple yet effective.

And yet, still illegal!

Happy trolling OneNation!!

One nation, under siege, by the Teototalitarians

Colodomom --
Francis Bellamy was a socialist. Also. From your link:

Bellamy was a Christian Socialist[2] who "championed 'the rights of working people and the equal distribution of economic resources, which he believed was inherent in the teachings of Jesus.'"[4] but he was forced to leave his Boston church the previous year because of the socialist bent of his sermons.

Also, in response to Lord Fluffy's statement:

They are people with a particular political vision. I don't agree with them, but I would not equate them to terrorists

I do. Terrorism is defined as violence intended to force political results. Ergo, teabaggers and their violent rhetoric (and action) ARE TERRORIST by the VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

I'm not giving them any wiggle room just because they paste an American flag over the top of their ugly rhetoric and inexcusable actions. Teabaggers are very much the American Taliban, and deserve to be treated as such.

Ergo, teabaggers and their violent rhetoric (and action) ARE TERRORIST by the VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

If I thought that the violent members in any way represented the mainstream or core of the Tea Party movement, I might be inclined to agree with you. I don't think they do.

And yet, still illegal!

Although there was kicking and hitting, was anyone prosecuted? If they can get away with that then they can get away cutting a cord and avoiding more conflict.

Terrorism is defined as violence intended to force political results. Ergo, teabaggers and their violent rhetoric (and action) ARE TERRORIST by the VERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

Pretty big brush you are using there. Using your logic we could label Democrats with the TERRORIST label now couldn't we? Or maybe you hit your head and now suffer from amnesia that prevents you from remembering all of the anti-Bush protesting and violent rhetoric he engendered? How about the SEIU's violence? Or maybe you have them confused with being TEA Party members.

Here you go, just a few example of the oh so well behaved Lefties...

So do we now call Democrats as well as Republicans Terrorist like you do the TEA Party members or do they get a pass because you belong to one of them?

If I thought that the violent members in any way represented the mainstream or core of the Tea Party movement

It doesn't matter. Teabaggers condone the violence by either pretending it doesn't exist, or pretending false equivalences to the left. Either way, they refuse to address the inherent violence of their movement, thus permitting it to continue pretty much unabated.

Pretty big brush you are using there. Using your logic we could label Democrats with the TERRORIST label now couldn't we?

No. You must not grasp the fundamentals of logic.

Here you go, just a few example of the oh so well behaved Lefties...

The violence on the right-hand side of the column is often promoted by PROMINENT right-wingers, who make paranoid calls for revolution, secession, and murder. Bill O'Really spends months calling George Tiller a "baby killer." Tiller is assassinated by an unhinged loon who has Operation Rescue's phone number on his car dash. Glenn Beck goes on TV and predicts armageddon every other week, and says things like "You'll have to shoot them in the head." Sarah Palin paints gun targets on Congressmen and women. Gabrielle Giffords gets actually shot in the head. Rand Paul's CAMPAIGN employees curb-stomp a left-wing activist. Ann Coulter suggests poisoning a Supreme Court Justice. Glenn Beck pretends to serve Nancy Pelosi a poisoned glass of wine. All of these things are fomented by the LEADERS of the movement.

There are no equivalences on the left to this. I am not even bothering to follow your nutpicked link because it is a waste of my and everyone else's time. If you can produce examples of left-wing LEADERS saying these things, do so. In your own words, please. No more world-nut-daily or other bs website links. Say your own words. And be man enough to stand behind them, for crying out loud.

OneNationUnderGOD-3209506 Comment collapsed by the community

P R O O F not heresay unless you are totally ignorant: ignorance kills...illegal 37 Un Con Stitutional Socialist CZARS...

I'd be careful tossing out accusations of ignorance if I were you, since you seem to get your information from Glenn Beck.

In the United States, the informal political term "czar" or "tsar" is employed in media and popular usage to refer to high-level officials who oversee a particular policy. There have never been any U.S. government offices with the title "czar", but various governmental officials have sometimes been referred to by the nickname "czar" rather than their actual title.

The earliest known use of the term for a U.S. government official was in the administration of Franklin Roosevelt (1933–1945), during which eleven unique positions (or twelve if one were to count "Economic Czar" and "Economic Czar of World War II as separate) were so described. The term was revived, mostly by the press, to describe officials in the Nixon and Ford administrations and continues today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

List of U.S. executive branch czars

President's Name and #Czar Titles

Franklin Roosevelt
1933–1945
11

Harry Truman
1945–1953
6

Dwight Eisenhower
1953–1961
1

Lyndon Johnson
1963–1969
3

Richard Nixon
1969–1974
3

Gerald Ford
1974–1977
2

Jimmy Carter
1977–1981
2

Ronald Reagan
1981–1989
1

George H. W. Bush
1989–1993
2

Bill Clinton
1993–2001
8

George W. Bush
2001–2009
33

Barack Obama
2009–
37

While it may not be popular, I have to agree somewhat with Citizen Kane's points. The one basic thing about the TEA people is that they're irritated with "business as usual"; from that point everything goes in different directions, but nonetheless they are free as anyone to gather, say, and listen to what they want. If your hometown held a big rally for a presidential candidate of your party, would you be amenable to having someone from the opposing party carrying around a bullhorn and yelling at you why your eyes are brown?

I personally think the GOPhers and TEA people range from greedy to irrationally confused. But they are free to think and vote as they will, and so are the rest of us. In the meantime, there is nothing to be gained by initiating, or reacting to confrontation. Sadly, we're in deep trouble, and it's only gonna get a lot worse before it gets better. Every effort should be made to take the high road as much as possible.

I am not even bothering to follow your nutpicked link because it is a waste of my and everyone else's time

In other word "Idon't want to look at anything that goes against my opinion. Facts and truth don't matter" (said to yourself as you hold your eyes tightly closedyour fingersn in your earswhie shouting LA_LA_LA I cant' hear you!)

Davy-755715

I personally think the GOPhers and TEA people range from greedy to irrationally confused. But they are free to think and vote as they will, and so are the rest of us.

True! What would really make that situation interesting is if the Wesboro Bat@!$%# Barn attended the festivities. Oh man! Would both the TP and megaphone man join forces to put them down? LOL!

An intriguing thought, I will admit (in spite of what I said about keeping it civil).

If you can produce examples of left-wing LEADERS saying these things

Does the President count as a "leader" of the Left Wing? Didn't he want people to "Punish your enemies"? Get in faces? Kick some ass? Yep that's real peaceful talk there. Oh yeah, I can't recall the name of the first Senator to engage in hate vitriol right after Obama called for an end to it. Help me out here. Who was it again? What party were they a member of?

Speaking of names, see if any here ring a bell.

You know it's kinf of funny in a sick sort of way; I am pretty Left in my leanings but I find myself defending the Right against this bull@!$%# all the time; how much better "we" are than them becuase "we" don't do the same @!$%# they do. BULL@!$%#!!! Every goddamn side does the same thing:

Don't like the message-attack the messenger!

Can't disprove the evidence, accuse him of being a liar!

Can't admit to being wrong, refuse to view the evidence!

I am not even bothering to follow your nutpicked link

Now show us you are a man and admit you are wrong!

The hate, the violent speech, the inflamming is all around us coming from every side from the leaders all the way down to the average Joe's walking the streets. I know this and I admit this and I point this out to anyone still in denial that their side also engages in it. Some Left winger got her self stomped and some Right Winger gets his finger bit off at the first knuckle. Some Leftie gets smacked for acting an ass at a TEA Party rally and some black guy gets a beat down for selling "Don't Tread On Me" flags. McVeigh blew up a Federal Building and Joseph Stack kamikaze's his plane into the IRS building. I could go like this tit for tat for quite a long rant but I think everyone gets the picture. None of us are innocent of promoting intolerance.

Citizen Kane--

None of us are innocent of promoting intolerance.

Intolerance is one thing...violence is completely different...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/john-dingell-runs-through-litany-of-violent-rhetoric-on-house-floor-video.php#

I'm an "average Joe" walking the streets and I'm sorry, but I don't use hate or violent speech. Maybe it's just me, but I can't see the connection between that awful act McVeigh did (how many years ago now?) and the modern Tea Party....to be honest I can't see how you would add that to your list.

There's a few rules that everybody KNOWS they need to be following regardless of political opinion and whether we want to admit it or not, it applies to everybody:

1. People have the right to assemble (hold rallies).

2. People have the right to stand on public property and voice their opinion (even with a bullhorn).

3. As soon as one person puts their hands on another person against their will...IT'S ASSAULT...and it's illegal!

4. Having a conversation with someone you disagree with doesn't require screaming in their face. In fact, screaming in someone's face doesn't make them suddenly see the merits of your point of view.

Perhaps we should be looking at ourselves to weed out intolerance or hatred. Perhaps we should be noticing when our friends and family voice intolerance or hate speech...and calling them on it. Maybe we should start having ACTUAL conversations again, you know....as a group.

But, the only way that will happen is if we don't start out accusing each other of being anti-American. We can't start by screaming at someone and expecting them to listen. We have to be able to start from the mutual fact that all Americans are citizens and love the country regardless of political opinion....

otherwise the conversation goes nowhere.

colodomom,

Keeping in mind that we both agree that violence is bad business, might I point out the several instances I mentioned above showed violence committed by both sides. This is what I've been preaching since I stumbled into this Salem Witch Trial of a column.

See my comment @ #1.9 for my analysis of the situation in which I state that both sides are guilty of assualt. It so disturbed some people to admit this guy provoked his own assault that they felt compelled to collapse the comment!

Gillinator

Note the SEIU shirts as they beat the nice black man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr_4ZWEFOjQ

3. As soon as one person puts their hands on another person against their will...IT'S ASSAULT...and it's illegal!

Colo- I agree with your entire post..except, it's actually battery as soon as you place your hands on another.

Sorry folks but if you wave a red flag at a bull you must expect to get the horns.

I just want to make sure that you've thought this through. You're equating these folks reactions with animal brain reactions? Because yes, if we lived in a barnyard then this wouldn't so much be acceptable as much as it would be expected.

Citizen Kane--

See my comment @ #1.9 for my analysis of the situation in which I state that both sides are guilty of assualt. It so disturbed some people to admit this guy provoked his own assault that they felt compelled to collapse the comment!

By your logic here, that would mean every single person (tea party member) at that rally was provoking their OWN ASSAULT, by loudly voicing their opinion in public and it would have been ok to assault all of them.

By your logic, I could show up at every single tea party rally, go up to the nearest person with a bullhorn, or even just yelling loudly, and kick them in the shins...and it would be because they PROVOKED me by loudly voicing their opinion on public property.

Do you not see how twisted that logic is? The guy with the bullhorn had the right to voice his opinion free from assault, just like everybody else there. Just because you don't like his message, it doesn't change that.

This guy was there to disagree with the tea party rally. That's the cool thing about FREE speech, everybody has a right to it. Your defense of THEIR violent actions is why your comment was collapsed, and you know that.

Frankly, I disagree with collapsing comments. I think everybody should have to stand by what they write and their comments should be on full display for everybody to read...the good, bad and ugly. I think some comments are collapsed as a way for the community in general to "slap the wrist" of the most offensive comment writers. Yours, though, I think should have stood...so I could argue with it. grin.

Rachel--

Ok, we'll go with battery!...grin. That sounds even worse than assault...doesn't it.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on tv....but I know that attacking another person tends to land someone in court or jail.

This guy was there to disagree with the tea party rally. That's the cool thing about FREE speech, everybody has a right to it.

You are correct in pointing out their right to free speech, but what Citizen Kane points out is the antagonistic extreme that some people take it to. For example, I agree with the Westboro people that homosexality is not normal; but I sure as hell don't go along with their version of "free speech", which tells them it's fine to show up at the graveside services of soldiers to holler and rant.

but what Citizen Kane points out is the antagonistic extreme that some people take it to

You mean like members of the tea party holding up signs of our President as Hitler? You mean how I find that to be an antagonistic extreme that I'd like to smack people for, but I don't because I know it's wrong to commit acts of violence? You mean the antagonistic extreme of attacking someone physically at a rally? Are those the antagonistic extremes you mean?

For example, I agree with the Westboro people that homosexality is not normal;

Other people's sexual preferences are none of your business. Don't agree with homosexuality?...don't practice it.

but I sure as hell don't go along with their version of "free speech", which tells them it's fine to show up at the graveside services of soldiers to holler and rant.

As an active duty military wife, I'm sure you can understand that I find the Westboro cult offensive on so many levels. That being said, I am intelligent enough to realize that my husband has spent nearly 20 years in the military specifically to PROTECT free speech rights along with every other freedom we have.

Unfortunately, in order to BE free speech, it has to apply to EVERYBODY...and that includes the dreadful cult of Westboro. If my husband died in combat and they showed up at his funeral, I would want to approach them....I would want to ask them if they are too warped to understand that the American military helps protect their right to make complete twisted and hateful asses of themselves. I know they wouldn't be able to comprehend what I was saying, but it would make me feel better to say it.

That, my friend, would be free speech.

See, the problem with the Tea Party is that when they agree with someone, they call it free speech...but when they don't, they attack them. Trying to defend the actions of the people at this rally only serves to prove that point.

Colodomom,

Are you deliberately trying to twist my words or do you really not see the difference between how he acted (blaring bullhorn into peoples faces and ears as he walked up and down the sidewalk) and that of the TEA Party organizers and attendees(speakers placed in fixed position while they are sitting/standing in one area)?

You know your hated Hitlet/Obama sign (the design of which they borrowed from the Bush protesters): If I were to assault you with that sign how would you react? This is exactly what he did. That bullhorn he carried has enough power to be heard up to 2000 yards (or maybe feet-the product description says how far) away. This is louder than a car horn. I tell ya what, stick your head under the hood of your car while someone you really don't like acts an ass and honks the horn repeatedly regardless of how much you complain or give them hard looks. Let me know how long you last before you react in a not-so-pleasant manner. =)

At #1.9 I defined both provocation and assault. You have a Right to self defense from bodily injury. Having someone do something to you repeatedly that can result in bodily injury (in this case deafness) is provocation. Can you deny this? Can anyone deny this?

You are quite right that he has the right to disagree and had he picked a spot away from the people that were already there and set up shop and began his rant, no one would have said a word about it. If they had tried to assault him for it and I had been there, I wouldn't have "had his back", I would have stood between him and everyone else and dared them to go through me first!

On the other hand, had I been there and he had pulled that bullhorn stunt in my ear, or God Forbid, around my childrens ears, he would have needed a proctologist's assistance. If THAT makes me animalistic, defending myself and those I love from harm, then so be it...

P.S. I voted up your comment because I like it when people are willing to discuss (or "argue as you call it) an issue like adults instead of gang-collapsing like a bunch of pubescent children!

Are you deliberately trying to twist my words or do you really not see the difference between how he acted (blaring bullhorn into peoples faces and ears as he walked up and down the sidewalk) and that of the TEA Party organizers and attendees(speakers placed in fixed position while they are sitting/standing in one area)?

He was walking the sidewalk and blaring his bullhorn...they CHOSE to be in HIS face. Do YOU really not see the difference? He didn't enter the rally, he was on the sidewalk behind it. They came to HIM because they didn't like what he was saying. They CHOSE to attack HIM and his WIFE. How can you defend this?

You know your hated Hitlet/Obama sign (the design of which they borrowed from the Bush protesters): If I were to assault you with that sign how would you react?

As I've said before, I wouldn't allow myself to smack your face OFF your face just because I didn't like your sign...you see, THAT would be wrong. I would calmly ask you if you really believed that sign was appropriate...and when you acted like an ass, I'd walk away.

This is exactly what he did. That bullhorn he carried has enough power to be heard up to 2000 yards (or maybe feet-the product description says how far) away. This is louder than a car horn. I tell ya what, stick your head under the hood of your car while someone you really don't like acts an ass and honks the horn repeatedly regardless of how much you complain or give them hard looks. Let me know how long you last before you react in a not-so-pleasant manner. =)

I'm not an ass so I wouldn't react violently. I think the key phrase here is "someone you really don't like", that's what it comes down to and YOU KNOW IT. They didn't like his message so they came TO HIM and ATTACKED him. It's really quite simple. No amount of your convoluted excuses changes that.

At #1.9 I defined both provocation and assault. You have a Right to self defense from bodily injury.Having someone do something to you repeatedly that can result in bodily injury (in this case deafness) is provocation. Can you deny this? Can anyone deny this?

Oh pulleeeeze. Deafness? really? Again, he was carrying a bullhorn on a sidewalk behind the tea party rally...and THEY CAME up to him. Nobody was forcing these people to be inches from his face...nobody. I do agree with your right to self defense from bodily injury argument though...and I'd say both this man and his wife had a right to self defense...while they were being hit and kicked by tea partiers.

You are quite right that he has the right to disagree and had he picked a spot away from the people that were already there and set up shop and began his rant, no one would have said a word about it.

So the sidewalk behind the rally wasn't far enough for you. I guess if he had picked a sidewalk one town over, that would have been ok....pffftttt. Pure silliness.

If they had tried to assault him for it and I had been there, I wouldn't have "had his back", I would have stood between him and everyone else and dared them to go through me first!

Considering your arguments here, somehow I doubt that.

On the other hand, had I been there and he had pulled that bullhorn stunt in my ear, or God Forbid, around my childrens ears, he would have needed a proctologist's assistance. If THAT makes me animalistic, defending myself and those I love from harm, then so be it...

Right, because your ear would be FORCED to be inches from his face.

P.S. I voted up your comment because I like it when people are willing to discuss (or "argue as you call it) an issue like adults instead of gang-collapsing like a bunch of pubescent children!

I'd still call it "argue." grin.

I think you need to watch the video again and note the people seated in the grass.

. I do agree with your right to self defense from bodily injury argument though...

And that is all I needed. Once you review the video again and see that he was blaring his bullhorn into peoples ears that were NOT in his face, well we can imagine how this REALLY started. Matter of fact, this dumbass actually quotes one of the TEA Party people specifically telling hime to "Keep it away drom their ears man" 22 seconds into the video. He then adds a subtext in parentheses underneath claiming the guy is trying to refer to his message. DOH!!!

Gotcha!

At 2:25 seconds into the video his bullhorn squeals and a person standing 10-20 feet away cringes in pain, grabs his ear, and heads away quickly-attesting to the volume of his bullhorn being painfully loud. Now what was it you said again? Oh yeah:

I do agree with your right to self defense from bodily injury argument though...

Personally, I don't care if you are my best friend in the world, IF you are doing something deliberately that causes me pain, I would make sure you stop. Wht? Once again:

. I do agree with your right to self defense from bodily injury argument though...

Especially if you brought the bullhorn to my ear like this guy did to the people sitting in the grass!

*grinning as well*

kane

your argument would perhaps be a bit more valid if the people had been next to the guy with the bullhorn, but if you watch the very beginning of the video, they came to him. he was on the sidewalk alone, and not that close to anyone. the bullhorn sounds loud, but we can not really tell how loud. the people do not like the fact that he is counter-protesting, so they approach him. as i said earlier, i have not heard one person complain about the noise, or that they were being injured in anyway due to the volume of the bullhorn. if they had been polite and asked him to turn it down, then he may have done so, or he may not have, but we have no way of knowing, since it seems that no one asked him to do so. they attacked him for his words, not his volume. in america, this is wrong, and against the law.

gorilla and unsweet tea--

Funny, but the poor poor victims on the grass had no problems with the guy talking on the loudspeaker they agreed with, isn't it. The guy talking on the loudspeaker at the TEA PARTY RALLY was just fine for their ears. Kane has changed his argument and defenses of this so many times now it has become ridiculous.

I saw NO part of the video where this guy walked up to someone sitting on the grass and used his bullhorn on them.

I saw people WALK UP TO THIS GUY, get in his face and physically attack him and his wife.

Nice try Kane...but you know this is the truth as well as I do, you just won't admit it.

Are those the antagonistic extremes you mean?

Bingo, extremes exactly like those, because they take the free speech too far. C'mon, mom; if the guy had been a TEA partier, blaring the ame points himself, don't you think the others woulda come up to him and told him to knock it off, because he was distracting from the speaker at the podium? I'd even bet if he kept hollering on the bullhorn next to peoples' ears, they woulda stopped him too: Nobody would give much credibility to any political concern whose participants all yelled at the same time, even if it was the same rhetoric. And the Westboro people would protest Daylight Saving Time, except for the simple fact that doing so wouldn't achieve the over-the-top irritation that they're addicted to.

Nobody would give much credibility to any political concern whose participants all yelled at the same time,

Perhaps this is a lesson the TEA PARTY could learn.....since it describes them fairly accurately.

And the Westboro people would protest Daylight Saving Time, except for the simple fact that doing so wouldn't achieve the over-the-top irritation that they're addicted to.

Yet another good description of the Tea Party.

Funny, but the poor poor victims on the grass had no problems with the guy talking on the loudspeaker they agreed with, isn't it.

Are you serious? Did you note the fact that they are sitting as far away from the stage speakers as possible? Could it be they might agree with what the speaker had to say but didn't feel the need to sit any closer because IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOO LOUD FOR THEM?

I saw NO part of the video where this guy walked up to someone sitting on the grass and used his bullhorn on them.

That might be because you didn't look. I've posted exact times where this appears in the video.

Kane has changed his argument and defenses of this so many times now it has become ridiculous.

Bull@!$%# and a lie. I guess this is typical of some people though, even with VIDEO PROOF staring them in the face they will continue to deny anything that doesn't coincide with their limited views of what they so desperately need to believe. Not only have I pointed out exact times in the video showing where this guy approached within mere feet of people seated in the grass next to the sidewalk, but in the section of this column collapse under comment #1 I have also identified the exact model of the megaphone being used, the sound levels necessary to produce hearing loss, the sound levels this megaphone is capable of, the exact moment in the video where someone standing 10-20 feet away reacts in pain, and various legal reasons why this can be used to charge this @!$%# with assault.

What is so cute is that the lies will be allowed to stand while everyone runs around high-fiving each other on what a great job this @!$%# did and what a great time they've had defending his actions. What really sucks is that even thoughalmost every person here claims to want dialog and compromise to set this nation back on track, you endorse, promote, and defend the exact opposite. Not one of you have denounced this persons antagonism anywhere nearly as loud as you denounced the TEA Party people, but have lauded it as an example of what you wish would happen to other citizens of this country you disagree with politically. It is people like you and he that will bring this country to its knees and beyond if not stopped. The lines have been drawn and you are standing on the side of violence and destruction. It matters not what hat you wear, whether it be TEA Party, Liberal, Progressive, Democrat, Republican, or Marxist. To endorse this type of behavior through tactic approval or overt enthusiastic defense of it makes you no better than those whom you seek to condemn.

I am stating right here and now that all parties involved should be stood before a court of law and a jury of their peers with all evidence presented determined their guilt or innocence. My personal opinion of the matter is that all those involved engaged in physical assault should be punished and this includes the TEA Party People and the @!$%# with the bullhorn along with his wife. The couple who set out to deliberately provoke people into commiting a crime of got what they wanted and that is a crime in and of itself. Those of you who are promoting this violence and endorsing it should also have your asses hauled into court for incitement. Cheering on this type of behavior isexactly that-incitement; and sickening.

The truth is going to hurt people but you seriously need to examine exactly what you are doing here with your words. Can you trust your luck that some unbalanced individual won't choose to take your hate speech to heart and go on a rampage that may end up costing you someone you care about?

Not one of you have denounced this persons antagonism anywhere nearly as loud as you denounced the TEA Party people, but have lauded it as an example of what you wish would happen to other citizens of this country you disagree with politically.

I have not done this, I believe the guy's somewhat of an a**hole and I've not said anything to the opposite. I just don't believe that's right enough to strike at people. I've met many a-holes and I don't start swinging.

Those of you who are promoting this violence and endorsing it should also have your asses hauled into court for incitement.

Who put their hands on WHO again? Right the TEA PARTY people put their hands on this couple and kicked the wife....

And YOU are promoting this violence and endorsing it.

What was that about court for incitement?

Cheering on this type of behavior isexactly that-incitement; and sickening.

It sure is and yet you keep defending the violence...the Tea Party people stepping WAY over the line. It IS sickening.

Tea Party imagery:

House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) were among the GOP leaders who spoke in front of the more than 5,000 activists protesting Democratic-sponsored health-care reform legislation. The crowd, according to media reports, included attendess holding a pair of banners picturing Holocaust victims with the words "National Socialist Healthcare, Dachau, Germany, 1945" and a smaller sign stating that "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds."

NJDC president David Harris said the signs were "vile and disgusting" and it was "morally incumbent" for any speaker at the rally to condemn them.

Asked how a speaker at a rally could be expected to know the content of all signs in the crowd, Harris said that, according to media reports, the Dachau sign -- with its familiar image of stacked bodies -- was front and center and very visible to anyone at the podium.

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/11/06/1008998/njdcgop-must-condemn-tea-party-signs

Tea Party violence:

The former Rand Paul campaign coordinator accused of stomping on the head of an anti-Paul activist last year will be heading to trial this June, after a judge refused his request to dismiss the assault charges filed against him.

http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/charges-not-dismissed-against-kentucky-headstomper/

mom - Again: We should all have free speech, but also the presence of mind not to take it too far. The nation's in deep trouble now; with emotion running as high as it is, there's simply no point in antagonizing people or increasing the likelihood of physical response. This applies no matter which side of the aisle someone is on or which opinions they have.

Davy:

there's simply no point in antagonizing people or increasing the likelihood of physical response

I agree with this completely - in theory. In fact, most protests anywhere in the world will have bystanders who antagonize the main group. It's a question of how far it goes or is allowed to go.

And YOU are promoting this violence and endorsing it.

I do believe I have called out both sides for their bad behavior. Have you?

A cigar is a good thing so I am told when put in the right hands!

Still fixated on Bill's sex-life, eh? If you only had your own.

While that is an un-sanitary place to put a cigar, who gives a crap? At least he didn't go around buggering other people about their sex lives.

Yeah, that cigar thing was nowhere near as hypocritical as the "wide stance" bit from one Republican or as worthy of a criminal investigation as the sexually explicit texts to pages from another, just to name a few.

No room for disagreement with the TP or Republican Party---pretty disgusting behavior.

yeah right, as indicated by all the other violent tea baggie caught on tape. Get real. everyone knows the tea bags are about to explode with rage.

Now.. now, Naomi, it's impolite to pick on "Special" people

oh, like this guy...

Tag

I agree arkpdx; the Left is so desperate and frightened, they would do anything at this point. The closer it gets to the dumping of Obama in 2012, the more irrational and sneakier they'll become. The TPP is here to stay and growing larger every day. Stick and stones, lefties; it will avail you nothing.

Obviously a fake video. Probable were paid by the SEIU to make it look like it was Rubio supports doing the violence.

I like how you backed it up with facts. Oh wait...

Allright, then who's it going to be in the Oval Office if you think Obama is one and done? Give us a name.

All this presumption of Obama's defeat conveniently forgets: It's not enough just to hate Obama. That alone will not oust him from the White House. The GOP field can really only be best described as an overstuffed clown car, the most popular clown of which is Donald Trump. (That should tell you plenty about the state of the Right's chances to win in '12.)

No, really, this should be funny. Give us a name. Who's it going to be? Who's your Teapartarian savior?

*crickets chirp*

Oh, the howls of rage that will erupt when you realize your GOP elected officials overplayed their hand and aren't going to take back jack @!$%# in 2012. The weeping, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth when it sinks in that anyone crazy enough to get the Republican primary nomination is far too crazy to ever have a snowball's chance in hell of taking the general election.

Aqua:

The TPP is here to stay and growing larger every day.

What is the TPP? The Toilet Paper Party? Are you saying they are on a roll?

Three days later and still no name. Y'all ave fun trying to convince yourself that the Donald will save you from the libruls.

Justin PM
I showed just as much proof as those of you on the left do when a seed shows an outrageous incident committed by the left. That was my point. Too bad you missed it.

The burden of proof is on the person saying it's not true. That would be you. You've only said that it's fake, and not even said why you believe that. And if you're going to make accusations, it's best to specific other than vague.

First of all I don't know if it is fake or not. To be honest I don't really care. I am just trying to make a point. Take a look at the sites that show left wing supporters doing stupid things or making outrageous statements. None of them have proof either other than the commentor stating that it is fake. Just doing a little turn about justlike I said in my last post but I guess that point went right over your head. Not surprised really.

First of all I don't know if it is fake or not.

Are you sure? 'Cause up here you said:

Obviously a fake video.

That doesn't sound like you don't know. Are you saying that this was "not intended to be a factual statement"?

To be honest I don't really care. I am just trying to make a point.

Then work harder at that, because you didn't here.

Take a look at the sites that show left wing supporters doing stupid things or making outrageous statements.

I seemed to have thought that this article was about the video in question and not the "left wing supporters doing stupid things".

None of them have proof either other than the commentor stating that it is fake. Just doing a little turn about justlike I said in my last post but I guess that point went right over your head.

I'd be careful backpedaling this fast, you might fall off the bike. You're meant to go forward. Also, I tend to believe that turnabout in the context you used it is pretty futile. There was no turnabout when you're the fourth person commenting on the article. If you wanted to make a snarky or sarcastic remark, then by all means give someone the clue that you're doing that, because the supportive comments you've had don't lead for people to think they're sarcastic.

Not surprised really.

I'm glad you're impressed by yourself. That makes one of us.

Your opinion of me and $5.00 will get me a cup of coffee almost anyplace in town. It'll cost $3.00 without you opinion.

Your opinion of me and $5.00 will get me a cup of coffee almost anyplace in town. It'll cost $3.00 without you opinion.

I don't know what to tell you. Have a good time with "you opinion" because so far you haven't provided anything factual. And when asked then you just make it a "you're too dumb to have gotten the joke" that you never said it was. Have fun moving those goal posts, because at this point I don't see use in talking to someone who's going to reinvent their position.

I'm a left leaning moderate? Does that mean I hate my country, but only a little? I don't remember hating it at all. I differ with some on how best it should be governed, but that's not exactly the same thing, now is it?

It will come to violence sooner or later. The left hates the country so much they'll do anything to ruin it.

Right, right, I remember it was the left and all their rhetoric about starting a 2nd civil war.

/sarc/

And yet it's the right in the video committing the violence, which you are ignoring. Why? Are you against the American right to speak?

The left will resort to violence? The rightwing gun nuts will come nearer to an armed overthrow before anyone on the left shoulders a weapon in self-defense from Teapublican goons.

I rally just wanted to see what tea party conservatives were saying. I'm always surprised that when presented with evidence, they don't believe it and even become verbally aggressive. Oh well.

The Left is showing their smallness right here on this board by collapsing/deleting every post they disagree with. They're big on censorship and the trashing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Censor this Commies, I dare you not to.

Just to expand on this. You're not given the right to free speech on Newsvine, so falling back on that undermines your point. The comments that I've seen collapsed so far have some grenade trolling on them, so I can understand that. The motto here is "Get Smarter" not "Call everyone fascists/communists because they totally are!". If you can't make a point without name calling, your point is probably pretty weak. Also, censorship implies that people cannot see something. Making something more enticing, as is the case for me and collapsed comments, is certainly not censorship.

Aqua, having your comment collapsed or even deleted on newsvine is not now and has never been censorship. You are free to spout your beliefs on your own webpage. The whole point of having the ratings system is for people who are being jerks and can be weeded out with ease. You have the right to speak; you don't have the right to blast your spew on someone else's page without them having some kind of admin power over it.

It's really sad when your arguments are so bad you have to result to the wholly fallacious "voted down = censorship" argument. Until it's the guvmint stepping in to shut down your speech, it doesn't even come close to qualifying.

Since when is YouTube part for the MSM?

Did you even watch the video?

But the Tea party is here to stay

IMHO for about 20 more months.

You use ridiculous terms like "lame stream media", fed to you by the idiot in chief Palin, and yet "liberals" are the ones that believe anything that's fed to them? LOL!

the tea party hatriots will die off completely within 15 years.

The conservatives were fine with yelling over everyone at townhalls and now cry like babies when ONE person shouts over them LMAO!! nice double standard pathetic conservative weaklings

dubbie...you...ahhh just forget it, your not worth the time.

,But the Tea party is here to stay

My grandpa all ways reminded me that teabags are only good for two dunks.

Tea Party is already becomeing weak tea. Two years ago the TEA party tax day rallys easily drew 3 to 5 thousand participants each. Last year they were drawing in 4 to 6 thousand each, but this year they were lucky if they could pull in 4 to 5 hundered. That is not the mark of a movement in it's upsurge phase. But what could be different? The same or better tax rates are in place. Maybe it is just that the economy is improving and people are not as afraid. Yes, I bet that is it. The Tea Party runs on fear, they will just have to jin up some more things for people to be afraid of I guess.

the tea party hatriots will die off completely within 15 years.

I honestly think you're giving them too much credit. It's already showing that they're not quite what they were portraying themselves to be. I think their political shelf-life is going to be even shorter.

IMHO for about 20 more months.

It would be nice to have their insane contribution disappear from the political landscape and have things restored to the usual level of craziness between the parties, but my guess is that you'll have holdouts and morphed variations of the Tea Party around for decades at least to occasionally cause some kind of noise.

• Someone please tell that fake, Blackwater Merc he is not Clint Eastwood nor a Marine
• Someone please inform Susie Potty Mouth about the Chinese recall of her flag hat due to high concentrations of formaldehyde affecting the brain. Forget it! There has to be brain matter present.
• Sane Americans have the cure for Teanuttery-- recalls, the vote and vials of penicillin.
• Someone please remind the Teanuts of the adage: Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it!

Unfortunately:

1. He isn't off the air yet.

2. He'll still have his radio show and he'll be behind some of the "programs" on Fox.

3. Fox is plenty twisted without him

4. The damage is already done. There are people walking around with such a twisted version of reality, they can't agree that the sky is blue.

freaks me out....

I love the part where someone said that she assaulted the woman with her face.

Megaphone guy was right; they have no real arguments, so all they can do is fling silly insults.

That is why you are a teapatriot and not an American Patriot. Would you have beat up his wife too, andy? She had her hands full so you may have fared better. I recommend tough guys like you keep the threats to the internet.

If I was there I would have kicked mega-phone guys ass.

You realize condoning assault in a public forum isn't the brightest thing anyone has ever done, right? It usually is the sort of thing one gets from people who use their party as excuse to express base urges or more likely have never thrown a punch in their lives.

Though thank you for demonstrating why we're having a hard time having a genuine debate on the issues. Too much trash talk, not enough rational discourse.

The thing that bummed me out was megaphone guy, still shouting into the megaphone when his wife was being assaulted! I would think he would have stopped, at least long enough to see if his wife might need help since she had two cameras AND a sign.

Otherwise, those particular tpers were disgusting. Yikes................even had the *Men in Black*! LOL :-)

If I was there I would have kicked mega-phone guys ass. He had it coming.

Gotta love the "Jerry Springer" approach to political debate.

Yosho--

that made me laugh.

On Springer...the "debate" was always "hands-on" and the only thing that could stop it was the appearance of a boob.

Hmm, wonder if that works at Tea Party rallies?!

Is Springer still on the air? Haven't watched any low brow tv in a while.

I still can't understand where these tea patriots were when The war in Iraq stared.

RACHEL1-933952-

I love the part where she showed the camera her IQ score.

Jimster- Exactly what I meant!!

Notice how some of them were wearing the flag. They literally wrap themselves up in it as you said, but not one of them knows what it truly stands for. How pathetic.

its always the blind ones that follow the closest

bonos_rama

Notice how some of them were wearing the flag. They literally wrap themselves up in it as you said, but not one of them knows what it truly stands for. How pathetic.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Fascist-Palin-and-Tea-Party.jpg

Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. ~ Sinclair Lewis

I am not surprised by this at all. Seems to be a growing trend. Be on guard

hvymetal

I am not surprised by this at all. Seems to be a growing trend. Be on guard

Looks like I might have to read "It Can't Happen Here" by Lewis. It's supposed to be a satirical political novel that sounds a lot like the rise of the hyper nationalism. Like the TP.

Personally, I think it can happen here and it's in progress.

I agree with you wholeheartedly K1NGZ - other than your comparison of the teabaggers to animals, that is so unfair to animals. Other than that kudos!

thanks tessy, your right about my animal comment, even animals are more civilized...lol

for clarification, I was not a Marine, but US Navy, served 24 months in Vietnam, my post made it appear I was a Marine, just to clarify! What I meant "he", Mr. Blackwater was a former Marine, and I doubt that!

He was a Black-water employee...so I guess that makes him a mercenary..scary stuff mercenaries working on US soil...hum...

BWG's momma was never sensible enough to "learn" him not to hurl labels, but I'm sure your's taught you not to throw the first punch.

That I thought was the most interesting part of the video. You expect trailer trash to act like trailer trash, no news there. But that blackwater guy was something else really shows you who pulls the strings huh?

Absolutely. I was absolutely stunned when I saw that. I couldn't believe it. Blackwater!!!! And Blackwater don't come cheap-so I'll give you 3 guesses, first 2 don't count on who's paying his tab?

Bet'cha kain't figgur it out.

Blackwater may be easy-but they ain't cheap.

They'll murder anyone for a buck.

They are a large and in charge army for hire and now we know the teaparty has hired them...just makes you think what they might do with all that military experience, equipment and firepower.

What do Blackwater, Sarah Palin and the Tea-liban have in common? They all love guns....lots and lots of guns. For shootin moose of course, of course.....

While the actions of all of the Tea Party people there make me sick...do we KNOW that Mr. Suit is Blackwater?

I re-watched the video to see if he said it...maybe I missed it.

If that's true, and he really IS a Blackwater employee...then this is WAY bigger and more sinister than two people getting accosted at a TP rally.

Blackwater? Oh my God. They are killers for hire. So Blackwater was defending the teabaggers? Who was defending the man with the bullhorn? I think we know who (as if there was any doubt) who paid for Blackwater - most likely the Koch brothers.

You lefties will believe anything. Someone mentions Blackwater and in less that 10 posts you have convinced yourselves that the Tea Party has hired them. No wonder Obama has such a hold on you, 1 socialist and 100 fools.

No wonder Obama has such a hold on you, 1 socialist and 100 fools.

Irony: Calling anyone in the current administration a socialist while insisting that other people are gullible.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is a union stager for live performances. We were talking about he Wis. Tax rally by the
Tea party. He estimated the cost of the setup for the rally in Wis.to cost anywhere between $35k to as much as $50 k.

He told me that to get that much equipment leased and delivered takes a weeks of planning. Week end events are the hardest to orginize. Regional event equipment is limited so you have to plan way in advance to make sure you get what is needed.

The TP is not a grass roots organization. They have millions of. Tax free $ supporting their minority message.

We have to challenge the message to run these nuts off.

True-

I saw no real evidence that the fascist goon was a Blackwater (Xe) employee. BUT...

If I was going to cast someone as a Xe/Blackwater employee security guard it'd be him.

The Soviets coined a phrase for those in the West who followed them....useful idiots....

The Soviets coined a phrase for those in the West who followed them....useful idiots....

That's nice. Why is that relevant again?

No one in the video or in the administration wishes to "follow" Soviet Communism.

uh huh Fluffy....gotcha....socialist programs abound and that's your response...yup...gotcha.

...socialist programs abound and that's your response...yup...gotcha.

Name one.

While your at it, please define "socialism".

uh huh Fluffy....gotcha....socialist programs abound and that's your response...yup...gotcha.

So, how's that military socialism going for you Col? They have pretty socialist programs in there too and they're defending democracy. What say you to this?

You like having the military protecting you? Sure, there is fat that can be trimmed from the DoD budget. Everyone in the military knows it. And yes, we know that we have socialist programs... but so is Medicaid and Medicare... Universal healthcare would have been a great idea for this country too... still is...

Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and distribution of goods within a nation. Neither Medicare nor Medicaid are socialist, sorry. They are aid programs; government run charity.

You like having the military protecting you?

Is this to me?

Provide for the common defense.... Now...is there a clause for provide for retirement? Or how about provide for medical care? How about provide for unemployment insurance for 99 weeks....those are all socialist programs....

And Justin...after 6 surgeries, I think I paid mine...so you actually got me for free. How's that teat time going for you?

those are all socialist programs....

No.

They.

Aren't.

They are aid programs. Government aid does not equal socialism. Period. It's not in the definition.

Either that, or you're calling every charity organization in the world socialists. You're calling Jesus a socialist and all of the Apostles. You are demonstrating you have no idea what the word socialist means, especially now that it's been substituted in the media for "some left wing thing that I'm against'.

And retirement? You mean that thing you pay into your whole life, along with a number of other people, under the hope that with the "socialist" concept of an interest earning account, you can withdraw enough to live off of for the last few years of your life? Part of a benefits package provided by the free market? That's what you're calling socialism?

I asked you to point out one socialist program this administration is involved in. So far, you're failing.

Care to go again or quit while you're behind?

How's that teat time going for you?

No surgeries due to combat, but I've been in for 10 so far. Just don't know many Col's like you to be honest. The colonels I know tend to have a less hyperbolic approach to things, a measured approach if you will. May I ask what service you were/are in? Much as derision might come my way, I'm in the AF.

JustinPM, there are always going to be some guys that present themselves as Another Colonel does. Fortunately, there are soldier/scholar/statesmen that bring honor and humility and decorum to military service, such as Wesley Clark...National Merit Scholar, Rhodes Scholar, served in Vietnam (Bronze Star, Silver Star awarded for effective leadership after taking four bullet wounds). Clark is also a Democrat, which, ironically, makes him a teat sucking socialist in the eyes of Another Colonel.

Justin, your service in the Air Force is appreciated.

I don't want it to be a pissing contest, but I honestly want to know what service he was in. There are folks from all walks of life, and I just want it to have a little background.

But thanks none the less. :)

Uhm people you really need to delve a little deeper into your definitions and PoliSci. We are in fact a Capitalistic Society in the process of transforming into a Socialistic society. This is done through a step by step process by the ever increasing introduction of Social Welfare Programs of which we already have hundreds. The list is too long for me to post them all but you can find them here. When you read the definition above of Social Welfare Programs you have to remember these started long before President Obama and every administration has been doing this since long before any of us were born and probably before our parents were born too. The next step is the seizing of privately held companies and turning them into Nationally owned companies. China has reached that point in their move towards Socialism. To this day there are still privately owned "Capitalistic" companies in China and yet they are a Socialistic country. As you can see by the example of China today, Socialism does not happen overnight. Communism does:

Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in.

Read more: Communism vs Socialism - Difference and Comparison | Diffen http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism#ixzz1KDkYyQAu

Justin @14.25, just adding a counter balance to all the right wing bluster.(:^)>

This is done through a step by step process by the ever increasing introduction of Social Welfare Programs of which we already have hundreds.

Outside of having the same root word in both, Socialism and Social Welfare Programs do not necessarily have anything to do with one another.

The next step is the seizing of privately held companies and turning them into Nationally owned companies.

Much in the same way that once you let the kids dance in public, the next thing you know they'll be having sex in the streets.

One does not necessitate the other. And in no wise does a military retirement plan constitute Socialism.

We are in fact a Capitalistic Society in the process of transforming into a Socialistic society.

I beg to differ. We are a capitalistic society in the process of transforming into a fascist society. Buoyed by the Koch brothers organizations and the tea party, governors in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, and Arizona are pushing the country towards fascism. We see people like Paul Ryan on the national stage pushing his fascist agenda, among others.

I can also agree that is indeed a possible outcome at the rate we are going but if it is the Corporartist who are controlling the Fascist, then it is a Plutocracy isn't it?

Lord Fluffy,

The shared root word is what makes them related, is core to both, and without which neither would exist. You cannot have Socialism without Social programs now can you?

You cannot have Socialism without Social programs now can you?

It's also the root word of "society".

By your logic, Social Studies and Social Networks are leading us down the path to Socialism as well.

Having social programs doesn't make you more socialist. It may mean that your citizens suck at charity themselves, but it does not make you more socialist.

fluffy

Having social programs doesn't make you more socialist. It may mean that your citizens suck at charity themselves, but it does not make you more socialist.

i concur.

when the oil companies and gas stations (an example) begin to be owned by the federal government, then we will be getting closer to socialism, but i do not see that happening anytime soon.

Okay, suppose you show me how you can have a Socialist Government without Social Programs.

PS. Society is a noun and Social is an adjective (unless you are referring to the high brow parties). IG difference there...

Ice and steam have the same root (water) and yet it would be very hard to say they are anywhere near alike except for that common denominator. They are exact opposite ends of the spectrum.

And Yes, it sould be argued effectively that Social Networking and Social Studies could indeed bring us closer to Socialism as people learn more about the injustices that others also suffer under the Capitalist society we live in. Here is a good example of how Social Networking can foster the growth of the Social goal of organizing a union. Just so you know, I don't consider Utopian Socialism to be a bad thing. Nor do I consider a corrupt Capitalistic Government any better than a corrupt Socialist Government.

business

Definition

An economic system in which goods and services are exchanged for one another or money, on the basis of their perceived worth. Every business requires some form of investment and a sufficient number of customers to whom its output can be sold at profit on a consistent basis.

The United States owns and operates businesses as well as States and Municipalities. Some examples would be:

Who owns the water companies?

Sewage companies?

How about passenger rail service?

How about the Lotteries?

Don't they have a piece of GM?

The link above provides more examples of government owned and/or operated businesses

Okay, suppose you show me how you can have a Socialist Government without Social Programs.

I'll hold up as my example the United States for the past 50 years. We're not socialists. We have social welfare programs.

That was easy...

And Yes, it sould be argued effectively that Social Networking and Social Studies could indeed bring us closer to Socialism as people learn more about the injustices that others also suffer under the Capitalist society we live in.

So just by participating in a Newsvine discussion, you're supporting socialism?

Wow... I don't think Mr. Fantastic could stretch like that.

Who owns the water companies?

If you're talking about the utility I pay directly, then the city I live in. If you're talking about the infrastructure that allows them to bill me? That would be private corporations.

Sewage companies?

Same deal.

How about passenger rail service?

Amtrak is owned by the US Government. *gasp* They have been since 1971, under the past 8 Presidents.

There is nothing stopping anyone, however, from forming a competitor. It's just not profitable enough for anyone to be interested.

Not exactly scary.

How about the Lotteries?

State lotteries are owned by the states, sure. But the multi-state ones? From Powerball's website:

The Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) is a non-profit, government-benefit association owned and operated by its member lotteries.

So, it's privately owned.

Don't they have a piece of GM?

They took collateral on a loan. About as socialist as your corner bank.

The link above provides more examples of government owned and/or operated businesses

I didn't see the link, but I've had this argument before: The government owns some things. It's kind of part of is required for the government to do it's job. By and large, however, it contracts out to private companies (hence, government contractors we hear so much about).

The fact that The US Government has held some businesses for the past 40 years doesn't suggest we're suddenly turning into China. Sorry.

Fluffy...taking from one to give to another by force (taxes) is socialism and indicative of a socialist program....that stated, any thinking individual will see the increasing debt being created through entitlement (socialist) programs. Evidently your lack of thaought on the subject leads you to believe you are ahead at something. Let me ask you this...when the nation goes bankrupt, where do you "think" those people on those sioocialist programs are going to get their entitlements?

Justin,

No surgeries due to combat, but I've been in for 10 so far. Just don't know many Col's like you to be honest. The colonels I know tend to have a less hyperbolic approach to things, a measured approach if you will. May I ask what service you were/are in? Much as derision might come my way, I'm in the AF.

If you are a 10-year AF member (and I believe you) then chances are you have not seen colonels when they are being direct. We shield the troops under our command...I've had 5. While shielding our troops, God help the peer who screws it up. That stated, I have no restrictions here other than the CoH and am free to express my opinions as are all the members here. I am a 30-year member of the AF. Pilot...MX, Logistics and command and control from the ground for air support for TICs along the Afghan/Pakistan border. All four combat tours were with the Army..... So...what are you doing in the AF?

And finally Loozerio....who fancies being the counter balance....

JustinPM, there are always going to be some guys that present themselves as Another Colonel does. Fortunately, there are soldier/scholar/statesmen that bring honor and humility and decorum to military service, such as Wesley Clark...National Merit Scholar, Rhodes Scholar, served in Vietnam (Bronze Star, Silver Star awarded for effective leadership after taking four bullet wounds). Clark is also a Democrat, which, ironically, makes him a teat sucking socialist in the eyes of Another Colonel.

And there will always be a plethora of smarmy indiviuduals who fancy living their lives vicariously through others like Clark whom they admire without knowing either the individual or their life actions in any other way than reading a book. They stand on the sidelines and cheer the individual because they match politically. Well...loozerio...had you taken yourself off the sidelines then you would know the prevailing opinion of Mark Clark by is peers...and those peers would be the fighting generals of the Army. Those not so politically connected but extremely good at conducting combat operations. Clark started a warrior and evolved into a politcal hack and thus his appointment by Clinton. BTW...his bronze was for staff work...the Silver was for valor. I see Clark as not on par with those like McKiernan, McChrystal, Patreaus or Franks...Just one link for you to start you on your educational journey should you wish to know the prevailing opinion of Clark by the fighting generals:

http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles8/DVNS_Wesley-Clark.htm

Justin...good to see another Airman.

Citizen,

Don't they have a piece of GM?

Actually they entered a different realm with GM when they got rid of the CEO and one was appointed by the Administration. That would be very similar to the Social Democrats of the Nazi Party....more proponents of large and oppressive government of the left.

Fluffy...taking from one to give to another by force (taxes) is socialism and indicative of a socialist program....

Then every functional government in the history of the world has been socialist by your definition.

Taxes are part of the social contract. We pool money to achieve things we can't, won't or would have a great deal more difficulty doing on our own. Taxes are not theft. They are not forced on us. They are the cost of living in a communal society.

If you don't like them, go find a country where there is no enforced taxation and live there. I'm pretty sure you'll find they're all states run by warlords and thugs. Good luck with that.

The other option is figure out a functional anarchy. Unless you can do one of those two, you're going to be funding the government in some way to do the things the government does.

Socialism is a specific economic model. It's not bad. It's not good. It's like every other economic model ever concieved of by man; great on paper, runs into problems with human beings become involved in the implementation. Socialism has been turned into a boogyman by the right and a label for anything they feel is not in their party.

But now that we've gone through the first sentence and found it intellectually bankrupt, let's see if this gets any better, shall we?

Let me ask you this...when the nation goes bankrupt, where do you "think" those people on those sioocialist programs are going to get their entitlements?

Why do you think the nation is going to go bankrupt? It's possible, of course, as with any nation. But we are a free market economy at the moment. If we go bankrupt in our lifetimes, it will not be because we tried to provide for the old and the sick when private citizens and the free market failed to do so.

The social safety net is there because we need it. Do you think that pushing the resources towards the upper end of the spectrum, maintaining a "I got mine, you get yours" attitude towards the lower classes is going to end in a healthy, sustainable economy? A peaceful, functional nation?

It results in a collapse. It has every time in history. The only way this works is if we try to make sure that everyone has the basics they need to be a functional member of society.

That's not socialism. That's just trying to live together.

I've thought about this quite a lot, Colonel. Care to tell me what you think is the better way?

So, Another Colonel, would it be fair to say that Clark, by taking on postitions of the highest responsibility, and thus of the highest media visibilty, showed he had the stones to make serious real time decisions, with the whole world watching,even though those decisions were going to be second guessed, picked apart, micro-critiqued and spun around? Also, the link you provided didn't seem to be anything more than a website dedicated to the smearing of Clark, and Loozerio found no quotes from, or attributed by name to, the fighting generals you listed. The only quotes found were from an unnamed major, an unnamed colonel, etc..

Finally, for the record, Loozerio has not served in the military, but is a U.S. citizen. If that makes him a smarmy sideliner in the eyes of chest pounding right wing demagogues such as Another Colonel, that's O.K.

The fun thing about this thread is that all functioning governments ARE to some degree socialist organizations. The question is, how socialistic do we want to be? As Oliver W. Holmes Jr. observed, "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." In the United States we have a mixed economy of socialism (eg. education) and capitalism.

It seems to me that we are in danger of losing our balance in an unusual way. If the corporate giants own/become the government instead of the government owning the giants, what do we call that?

Tyranny by any other name is still repressive.

Fluffy...there is a Constitution involved here...please find a place for that as well in your diatribes.

loozerio,

That link was a first step for you....do you need guidance in self-education? I only ask because a small amount of effort on your part may provide the light bulb above your head that you seek. It was a link as the antithesis of your admiration for a one-time warrior turned political hack. Interesting use of the third person...and yes...your comments are smarmy and quite frankly irrelevant. There's no chest pounding going on here...merely answering the questions of some American citizens who may, or may not, know the answer before hand. Your responses show the latter.

Fluffy...there is a Constitution involved here...please find a place for that as well in your diatribes.

And nothing I said goes against what's in it.

It's like you're picking words at random and stringing them together until they sound 'Merican.

I take it that you're not going to actually suggest a better way, but just kind of spout random, patriotic terms? I'd get a better argument if I fed a social studies book through a woodchipper and then looked at how the readable words arranged themselves on the ground.

I'd get a better argument if I fed a social studies book through a woodchipper and then looked at how the readable words arranged themselves on the ground.

And that appears to be the sum total of your effort....have you ever actually READ one?

And that appears to be the sum total of your effort....have you ever actually READ one?

Yes, I have.

Now, do you have an argument or not? Do wish to answer my question or not?

If you do, please present what you've got to say. If not, stop wasting our time.

If you are a 10-year AF member (and I believe you) then chances are you have not seen colonels when they are being direct.

I had to hang out with Gen. Sanchez in Iraq for a bit. Wasn't the greatest job I've had, but it certainly did realign my expectations for the ranks. I was the only AF member, and the lowest ranking at that. Bonus!

We shield the troops under our command...I've had 5.

This I know about. I've seen this one first hand.

While shielding our troops, God help the peer who screws it up.

I've also seen this as well as been real near the receiving end. It's not always something you can fix, but that doesn't mean that you're not going to hear about it. :)

That stated, I have no restrictions here other than the CoH and am free to express my opinions as are all the members here.

Indeed!

I am a 30-year member of the AF. Pilot...MX, Logistics and command and control from the ground for air support for TICs along the Afghan/Pakistan border.

That sounds like the complete opposite of fun. Good luck with that, my hat's off to you for being there.

All four combat tours were with the Army..... So...what are you doing in the AF?

Comm. I've been to Schriever, Rhein-Main (was there for the closing, very sad), Ramstein and Beale. August will be 11 for me. I had to work with the Army in Iraq in 2003, I'm betting that the O and E difference was a great divide in how your experience was as opposed to mine. :)

Justin...good to see another Airman.

Indeed sir.

Hubby is 19 years AF...currently assigned to NATO and.... TDY in support of ops for Lybia.

Justin, we've done Schriever, Bitburg (during closing) Keesler, Buckley and Ramstein....plus a stint at Bagram. Seems your paths may have crossed at some point.

Another Colonel...while I do appreciate your service...I am not a fan of your style. This is a public forum and everybody HERE has the right to make their comments. Telling Loozerio or Lord Fluffy to comment elsewhere or that their comments are not intelligent only makes you look angry and intolerant.

Colodomom.... BRAVO on all counts!

Another Colonel...while I do appreciate your service...I am not a fan of your style. This is a public forum and everybody HERE has the right to make their comments. Telling Loozerio or Lord Fluffy to comment elsewhere or that their comments are not intelligent only makes you look angry and intolerant.

Colodomom...I tend to be direct with those who know not of what they comment on...I now instruct on government, history and international cultures (via personal experience)....I know my subjects and have little time for pontificating by individuals who miss the mark.

Justin...always wanted Beale....good mission but working with Special Ops seems the way it went for me later in the career.

Justin...always wanted Beale....good mission but working with Special Ops seems the way it went for me later in the career.

Beale's not bad, but wow is it remote. I thought Schriever was bad. Mission-wise, yeah, they've got a strange mix of cutting edge and legendary machinery. I'm still trying to put my thumb on what I'd consider it all to be about. The technology is amazing though, that much I'll say.

Colodomom, yeah, it seems we've been in relative proximity over the years. The AF is funny that way, it's really interesting to see the odd coincidences over the years.

Colodomom...I tend to be direct with those who know not of what they comment on...I now instruct on government, history and international cultures (via personal experience)....I know my subjects and have little time for pontificating by individuals who miss the mark.

You are commenting with your opinion.

I have much experience with international cultures...Hubby has an IR Masters and has worked in several multi-force situations, including the current NATO assignment. He has also held an AF instructor position in an international situation a few years back. We currently LIVE in Europe for the SECOND time and we often have international gatherings at our house, with many people from other NATO countries coming to eat and talk (my family calls these gatherings "summits").

I doubt you could describe us as people "who know not of what they comment on"...and yet our opinions and views are completely different than yours. Regardless of your belief that you don't have time to be polite, you are HERE in this public forum pontificating just like everybody else.

Your service experience does count, but only to a point...after that you're just lobbing in opinions....and so are we.

how you can have a Socialist Government without Social Programs.

Lord Fluffy,

As a matter of fact I was the one that stated by increasing the Social Welfare Programs, the United States, A Capitalistic nation, was moving closer towards Socialism. This is natural.

It is funny you didn't bother to look at the link provided to see the other examples of how government can and is involved in U.S. businesses. Whether they are profitable or not or any other reason for getting involved does not change the fact that this is a Socialistic act.

Refusing to acknowledge or even to examine evidence presented while staunchly defending an untenable position is not discussion but trolling. I know you aren't a troll so I find myself wondering why you persist?

As a matter of fact I was the one that stated by increasing the Social Welfare Programs, the United States, A Capitalistic nation, was moving closer towards Socialism.

If I'm moving towards a thing, I'm not at the thing yet. You implied social welfare programs require a socialist government. We're not one, yet we have them and have for 50 years. The fact you think we're moving towards it is irrelevant to the fact we're not one.

One government, with social programs, that does not function under the economic system of socialism. QED.

It is funny you didn't bother to look at the link provided to see the other examples of how government can and is involved in U.S. businesses

I looked at your posts and didn't see a link to look at. That would be why I did not say I didn't look at the link, but that I did not see one. Which comment was it in?

Whether they are profitable or not or any other reason for getting involved does not change the fact that this is a Socialistic act.

Being involved in business is not socialist. Owning them to the exclusion of competition is. And we don't do that.

Refusing to acknowledge....

I acknowledged. I just disagreed.

...or even to examine evidence presented....

I examined it. I just disagreed.

is not discussion but trolling....

Trolling is arguing just to cause grief. I actually believe what I'm arguing, hence not trolling.

I know you aren't a troll so I find myself wondering why you persist?

I hope I've explained that now.

#14.26 is loaded with the links showing what businesses government is involved in and no where did I say that we ARE a Socialist country; merely approaching it. Yes, the government does have locks on certain businesses also mentioned in the link at 14.26, so there are indeed Socialistic elements to our government including the Social Welfare programs.

I hope I've explained that now.

Yes, we are actually in agreement; just approaching from different sides apparently...

no where did I say that we ARE a Socialist country....

Never said you did. But you asked this:

...show me how you can have a Socialist Government without Social Programs.

We are a non-Socialist nation. We have Social programs and have for decades. Your request has been fulfilled.

Yes, the government does have locks on certain businesses....

The only industry we appear to have a "lock" on is passenger rail. Show me one company that has wanted to break into that business but has been denied because the government does not wish competition and you may, and then only "may", have a point.

Are the English socialists for their health care?

Colodomom,

Congratulations on your European experience. When your husband chooses to comment I may pay attention as he would be the one with the degree and the experience. Now...when YOU choose to try a polite attempt you will get it in kind. I responded to someone else, not you, that someone else knows not of what he writes.

All four tours were Joint Ops...in the Spec Ops arena on three of them. I think I may have a little more than the degree...which I have as well.

Lord Fluffy,

What part of this statement do you not understand?

how you can have a Socialist Government without Social Programs.

Nowhere do I ask how you can have a Captitalistic Society with Social Programs...

...how you can have a Socialist Government without Social Programs.

Ah. I better understand your question now. As we were discussing how social programs turned a country socialist and I was disagreeing with you, I think I've been reading this backwards.

To answer your question, though, it depends on how you define "social program". A country could own all the manufacturing in a country, but not in any way subsidize the purchases of the goods produced by that industry. At that point, the country is involved in socialism (which, again, is an economic system wherein the government owns the means of production and distribution) that doesn't necessarily have the entitlement/social programs you seem to be objecting to.

At this point, I'm not actually seeing why your question is relevant. I can't make a cake without eggs, but that doesn't make it breakfast. Why does the idea that you believe a socialist country requires social programs impact that fact that America, despite having social programs, isn't a socialist country and the current administration is not pushing for us to become one?

The bottom line is that we have never been socialist, we are not socialist now and there is no reason to think we're going to become socialists. The current administration isn't pushing for socialism and entitlement programs, like medicare or social security, do not make us more socialist.

I'm still waiting to see a good counter argument to this, but so far the best is that the government owns trains. Oh, and Colonel was nice enough to say he's got experience, therefore I'm wrong, and Constitution Freedom Founding Fathers Liberty.

So what exactly is your point?

Another Colonel

Colodomom,

Congratulations on your European experience. When your husband chooses to comment I may pay attention as he would be the one with the degree and the experience. Now...when YOU choose to try a polite attempt you will get it in kind. I responded to someone else, not you, that someone else knows not of what he writes.

Thank you. I knew sooner or later, you'd whip out the "YOU are JUST the WIFE" argument. I feel sorry for the families under your command as it is obvious to me that you consider them the "insignificant others" and they are of no real concern to you. It does, however, surprise me that you have made it to the rank of Colonel and don't realize families ALSO SERVE in every way except the battlefield...we support our spouses careers, move our families often, have to be both mother and father to our children when the military member is deployed or tdy, and sacrifice almost as much as every single active duty military member. Your attempt to put me in my place as the wife makes you appear to be a small, small man.

It seems you think I'm required to be polite here...and yet it doesn't apply to you. Wrong. You may actually BE a Colonel for all I know...but your rank doesn't apply in Newsvine.

All four tours were Joint Ops...in the Spec Ops arena on three of them. I think I may have a little more than the degree...which I have as well.

And I laid out my husband's credentials for you...as well as MINE...lol. If you believe that I am an uneducated mousy little wife...you are sorely mistaken. My role in this NATO assignment is as an ambassador of sorts...bringing the NATO troops assigned here together, often at our home, to cement the working relationships begun at the Headquarters building....as well as connecting to the other NATO families, both American and International.

For you to piss on all of that as unworthy of YOUR stature is ridiculous and it makes me doubt your credentials as listed here.

I disagree with you politically....so does my husband. I don't need him HERE in this forum to take up for me just because HE is the active duty military member. You will need to get over the fact that I disagree. You don't automatically get your way HERE.

And I laid out my husband's credentials for you...as well as MINE...lol. If you believe that I am an uneducated mousy little wife...you are sorely mistaken. My role in this NATO assignment is as an ambassador of sorts...bringing the NATO troops assigned here together, often at our home, to cement the working relationships begun at the Headquarters building....as well as connecting to the other NATO families, both American and International.

Here's the point I am making. You do not know, nor should you know what is going on for sure. YOU do not have a clearnace and if he has told you what goes on, then a quick call to OSI is in order. We talk around issues and you do not have the need to know what is, in fact, reality. For this reason, you do not have all the facts. For this reason, your opinions do not have the benefit of reality...enjoy your place.

Here's the point I am making. You do not know, nor should you know what is going on for sure. YOU do not have a clearnace and if he has told you what goes on, then a quick call to OSI is in order.

Oh puleeese...of course my husband hasn't told me anything he'd have to kill me for. BUT, you can't say any of that in a Newsvine thread either...so please explain how any of that has anything to do with your rudeness on the vine.

We talk around issues and you do not have the need to know what is, in fact, reality. For this reason, you do not have all the facts. For this reason, your opinions do not have the benefit of reality

Again...YOU cannot talk about any of that here either. Please explain how any of THAT has anything to do with the POLITICAL opinions you blather here...since they ARE opinions. The fact that you have a clearance doesn't give you the defacto right to be rude and it doesn't make you always right either.

...enjoy your place.

MY PLACE is in partnership with my husband and working on MY OWN career. Apparently YOURS is back to the rock you seem to want to dwell under.

We can be done now. I only have so much time to spend on Newsvine, since I have an actual life and a deployed husband...I don't intend to spend any more of it on you.

...so please explain how any of that has anything to do with your rudeness on the vine.

Hopw about you take a look in the mirror.

Again...YOU cannot talk about any of that here either. Please explain how any of THAT has anything to do with the POLITICAL opinions you blather here...since they ARE opinions. The fact that you have a clearance doesn't give you the defacto right to be rude and it doesn't make you always right either.

Once again...take a look in the mirror....and maybe while your at it, you can point out ONE real political point you have tried to make with me. You appear to have a need to vent....if that's what your after....then have at it. I have some concerns about your approach as I have never met a military spoise quite as venemous as you...so, throw all that wonderful knowledge out there and try to make a politcal point.

MY PLACE is in partnership with my husband and working on MY OWN career. Apparently YOURS is back to the rock you seem to want to dwell under.

Tut tut....mind that CoH while you try to control your anger.

We can be done now. I only have so much time to spend on Newsvine, since I have an actual life and a deployed husband...I don't intend to spend any more of it on you.

K...CYA....I am sure you have someone else to bother.

1. Blathering about the evils of socialism is interesting coming from someone who participates in government run healthcare and who's paycheck is PURE socialism....just like every member of our military.

2. Your clearance doesn't mean you know all of America's secrets and you know it. Even those with the highest clearances are on a need to know basis and it's very specific to their jobs and their "need to KNOW" it to do their jobs. Yet you present yourself as a know it all who is above all scrutiny because of your military career. It's pure BS.

3. Just because the term socialist was part of the label of nazi, does NOT mean the party was on the left of the political spectrum. Anybody with ANY understanding of the history and the differences between fascism, socialism and communism knows the nazi party was extreme rightwing in their political stance.

4. I highly doubt that you've never met a military spouse quite as venemous as me, since I can picture how you would treat the spouses of those in your command.

Mind the COH?! That's funny...to use your words, "How about you take a look in the mirror." Need to vent? Nope, I do plenty of that thank you....I'm just not buying the "know-it-all because I'm military" sh!t sandwich you're selling, that's all.

Ok, now I'm done...you can have the last word now and I know you need it.

1. Blathering about the evils of socialism is interesting coming from someone who participates in government run healthcare and who's paycheck is PURE socialism....just like every member of our military.

Constitutionally driven...do try again

2. Your clearance doesn't mean you know all of America's secrets and you know it. Even those with the highest clearances are on a need to know basis and it's very specific to their jobs and their "need to KNOW" it to do their jobs. Yet you present yourself as a know it all who is above all scrutiny because of your military career. It's pure BS.

Provide some evidene for this or I'll simply pass it as balthering by you.

3. Just because the term socialist was part of the label of nazi, does NOT mean the party was on the left of the political spectrum. Anybody with ANY understanding of the history and the differences between fascism, socialism and communism knows the nazi party was extreme rightwing in their political stance.

The Nazi Party stems from:

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known in English as the Nazi Party (from the German Nazi, abbreviated from the pronunciation of Nationalsozialist^[4]), was a political party in Germany between 1919 and 1945. It was known as the German Workers' Party (DAP) prior to a change of name in 1920.

A Social Democrat party and built on a large central government in the same way as the Socialists and Communists. Had you done your research you wopuld have known this...they are both in favor of large government and LEFT in the spectrum. Anarchy is right.

4. I highly doubt that you've never met a military spouse quite as venemous as me, since I can picture how you would treat the spouses of those in your command.

I'd much rather their opinions than the opinions of one that knows little of what she writes...

Mind the COH?! That's funny...to use your words, "How about you take a look in the mirror." Need to vent? Nope, I do plenty of that thank you....I'm just not buying the "know-it-all because I'm military" sh!t sandwich you're selling, that's all.

He volunteered for that deployment didn't he.........

Anothercolonel:

A Social Democrat party and built on a large central government in the same way as the Socialists and Communists. Had you done your research you wopuld have known this...they are both in favor of large government and LEFT in the spectrum

I'd say you are the one who needs to do some research. Hitler despised Communism. Why else do you think he attacked Russia? To ensure an end to that system of government so it wouldn't poison his Reich.

As for 'socialism', Hitler's version of that term was meant as anything that was good for the Reich. It was all about Germany, not about citizens. He only saw them as future breeders and soldiers. That is not the same meaning as we think of it in the USA.

National Socialism was a right-wing movement to bring everyone in line with the government. It's main concept was 'obedience'.

I'd say you are the one who needs to do some research. Hitler despised Communism. Why else do you think he attacked Russia? To ensure an end to that system of government so it wouldn't poison his Reich.

Is it or is it not in favor of large central government...it clearly is. The right end of the spectrum is anarchy. It's pretty clear when you actually do the research. Both forms of government strip rights and kill those who disagree....haven't seen millions killed by anarchists yet.

TennisMom2

It's main concept was 'obedience'.

It was a strong component. But the basis of all that he did, socially and politically, was the concept of racial supremacy and lebensraum (Living space). He said what he does he does for Germany but it was for the mythos of a Teutonic Aryan state. The people either toed that line or they were out. Permanently! And of course there was no room for any dissent. Socialists, communists, jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc. where all a threat to his Reich.

1. Blathering about the evils of socialism is interesting coming from someone who participates in government run healthcare and who's paycheck is PURE socialism....just like every member of our military.

As Lordfluffy has said..

Social program != socialism

Rhep...while I understand the point you are trying to make...the Constitution does read "provide for the common defense"

Rhep...while I understand the point you are trying to make...the Constitution does read "provide for the common defense"

I know. But saying the fact that we have a military is a mark of socialism is just.... silly.

...the Constitution does read "provide for the common defense"

Of a note, some words you will not find in the Constitution are "free market" or "capitalism". The Constitution does not indicate what economic system is to be used to "provide for the common defense".

Again, nothing you've said has supported the idea that the government is currently overrun with socialist initiatives. Period.

Rhep - why is stating that a standing military is socialist silly. It is extreme, but not inaccurate. The federal government owns and controls the entire defense system. Even if you had the desire and funding, you would not be allowed to start up your own fully equiped army. As reflected in the 2nd amendment, a militia (volunteers armed and trained by the state) was expected to be the first and primary defense of the US.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Even if you had the desire and funding, you would not be allowed to start up your own fully equiped army.

1) Go tell this to Blackwater.

2) The Government makes no guns, bombs, planes or tanks. They contract this out to private companies.

Unless you're suggesting "defense" is a manufactured product, an army is in no way socialist. Furthermore, even if you were suggesting that, you'd have to then explain all the private security firms who will provide a similar product at work in the US.

Rhep...

Sad but these folks are not going to understand the definition.

LF does quite well.

=P

at times....

Defense is an intangible good, also known as a service. So, yes I do consider it a product that is manufactured.

Blackwater does not to my knowledge provide national security to the United States. Any part they, or any othe security firm, may have in the process is controlled by and paid for by the US Government.

Blackwater does not to my knowledge provide national security to the United States.

They provide the product of "security". Their customer, in some instances, is the United States.

There are also private militias. The Government isn't trying to put them out of business, at least unless they break laws in the course of doing what they do.

Your argument is weak to begin with and getting weaker.

......that's what I thought.......

So macho yet so stupid. If someone were to hit attack me when I'm excercising my right to free speech, I would do what this couple did, tape them and show how stupid they are.

Then I'd sue them. I'd take em for all they're worth.

Then I would challenge them to a fight and put forth a contract where we absolve all legal liability of them and do so publicly .

Then I'd kick the ever loving @!$%# out of them, if they had the plumbs to accept.

It was stupid, but think of the cheap entertainment! She was a little whacked. He was being a rub, and she was willing to respond. :)

Makes for compelling video. And I could crow about it , but only so far as someone one the left does something equally as stupid as ms halfpint and co. It is becoming an exercise in futility, downplaying incidents on one side and accentuating incidents from the other side.

They should have a Jersey shore for politics, half Tea folk and half union "thug". Now THAT would be some entertaining viewing

Did you like the way Miss Tough Kicking Tea-person told us all her I.Q. ? LOL

Miguelito84- The megaphone couple have freedom of speech on their side. Even your willingness to trash the Baggers, doesnt make your viewpoint against the couple any more digestible.

Here's the difference, they didn't hit them in the face.

Speaking of shouting down, how about those union protestors in Madison booing and shouting Sara Palin and Andrew Brietbart?

They were protesting Fascism and its supporters, and yet there were no incidences of violence..

Here's the difference, they didn't hit them in the face.

The real difference is that they had the guy and his wife outnumbered. They are loud and physical when they have numbers but notice that they kept their big mouths shut when Breitbart and Palin barfed out their bull@!$%# in WI.

So assault is what the tea party is all about? Do they learn that in church?

Bootstrap
Nice rationalization. The TP would never assault anyone in a fair fight. They have to have numbers. So with the low numbers of TP supporters showing up at these lavish events it doesn't sound like many soccer horns are going any where soon.

Ya out of control spending, right that's you argument? Where was that lame argument when earmarks, prison for profit companies,,debt ceiling being raised every year, wars off the books were going on in 2000's

The cause is this boobstrap Quality of life for the Americans that taxes every day. Limiting government from making our lives worst with laws against our civil liberties.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. If you suspect this isn't the truth, find something stating that. Otherwise it's purely straw man fallacy with a hint of deflection.

He can't. That's just a right wing tactic to make accusations and then run like hell when challenged or asked to provide proof to their inane posts. It's like a hit and run tactic. Used to derail an effective seed.

Oh I know the repeat offenders of this. I try and call them out on this as much as I can. I just don't see how five people agreed with a completely made up thing. No supporting facts, they just don't like "the other side" that much.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/inside-man-how-a-prankster-plans-to-destroy-the-tea-party-movement.php

http://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/04/14/source-state-dems-scrambling-to-deploy-tea-party-%E2%80%98crashers%E2%80%99/

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/liberal-group-to-infiltrate-tea-party-demonstrations-2-19719318/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/14/tea-party-protesters-gird-possible-liberal-backlash/

http://www.libertyscout.com/2010/04/12/unhinged-liberals-now-planning-to-infiltrate-tea-party-rallies/

http://www.crashtheteaparty.org

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2010/04/13/daily-gut-infiltrating-the-tea-party/

http://bigjournalism.com/wthuston/2010/04/15/infiltrating-the-white-boy-tea-parties-are-leftists-like-the-westboro-hatemongers/

One of my personal favorites below.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/liberalism-an-ideology-of-hate

Oh no, you misunderstand. In this case, how is what you said applicable? You can't just say it happened so this means these folks were plants too. That doesn't fly, regardless of how many links you put down.

Tea Baggers behaving badly. Union supporters behaving badly. It won't be the first or the last time we'll see things like this.

But.

The group which reached the absolute nadir of ugly protests was the Tea Baggers. They used pictures of Dachau victims being bulldozed into a mass grave to protest Health Care Reform. Nothing beats that for heinous and unacceptable behavior.

Nothing.

Can anyone tell me how much these Liberals charged to beat up their friends the protestors?

Taao - Please tell me how your links in 22.4 prove the statement I quoted above to be true? Where is this even mentioned in those links let alone proven? All except for one of them are a year old and one is two years old. The one you say is on of your personal favorites (the only one that isn't at least a year old) is nothing more than a right wing opinion piece. And what "Joe Newby" complains about in his article are mainly comments made by left wingers which is no different than everyday common verbiage on the right. None of which in my opinion is any worse than that said and defended on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh show. And certainly by the right wing fringe element like Coulter.

I especially like how the articles in these links carefully mix the statements and exaggerations. But easy to find if you know what you're looking for. Example:

“Every time we have someone on camera saying that Barack Obama isn’t an American citizen, we want someone sitting next to him saying, ‘That’s right, he’s an alien from outer space!’” Levin said.

Notice how the comment is validated with quotation marks. They want to make sure that they show that these exact words came out of the mouth of the person being quoted. But the very next sentence which was a more extreme implication was not quoted:

Levin says they want to exaggerate the group’s least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them.

So this was something they are implying but have no proof of. Much like the statement in post 22 from what I can see.

Almost all of the links that I read are nothing more than trumped up exaggerations from the right about left wing campaign strategies. Not very good strategies I think. But taao you implied in the post at the top of this thread that liberals had hired people to beat them up and make it look as though it was done by tea party members who had done it. Where in the links that you posted is that proven?

Gillinator, never use the words 'taao' and 'proof' in the same sentence. They are incongruous.

one could say that some facts are taao proof. :)

Sorry, but in America we have the right to freedom of speech. He was exercising that right. Why do you hate America's freedoms? And who taught you that it was right assault fellow Americans? Wherever it was - church or home - it's wrong. It's illegal and unAmerican.

Sorry but in America this moron was there only to disrupt period.His right but with rights you may have to pay the piper.If i went into a black bar and started yelling nig,you know ,it's my right but if the patrons beat the hell out of me I shouldn't be surprised or offended.

bonos

You are right, they seem to be un-American to me...

Also, keyboard hero's come to mind... lol

I went back and watched the entire video.The guy in the black suit exercised a lot of restraint.That life saving moron in white was damn lucky.He came there to cause trouble and he almost got it.I would have liked to have seen him get his ass wupped.

Oh, so then you would condone anti-abortion protesters getting beaten for exercising their free speech rights, devil? How about the tea partiers at that rally? Why aren't you saying they should be beaten for speaking out?

Either way, beating someone for speaking is a violation of their constitutional rights. if you don't like constitutional rights, =you are free to live in a communist country or a Muslim theocracy. We Americans don't beat each other for speaking.

This is clearly an assault against free speech by an increasingly violent movement. The protester's message that this hate group is being used as a pawn for corporate greed is correct. They're on the payroll along with Sarah Palin and others. T-Baggers are waging a jihad against the working class. So it's understandable to label them homegrown terrorists when you witness the level of violence against law abiding citizens....

I only watched half the video.Did that lib get his ass kicked?I could only hope.

How American of you, detest the right to free speech and peaceful protest. Oh wait...

Most of you libs must of missed the pieces of crap that tried to break up 3 0r 4 other peacefull Tea Party gatherings last week.

Post a seed, the topic here is about this video. No political ideology is free from crazies.

I love when you guys say ,oh how the bad tea party people prevented this mans right to free speech.

Uh huh. People hitting him and the camera certainly don't seem to want them to have that right, now do they?

This moron comes to a place where he is clearly not welcome with a megaphone preventing the people attending their right of free speech.

The guy didn't harm anyone, it's a public environment. Is it the most kind thing in the world? No, but then again, as long as it's not hate speech it's constitutionally protected even if you don't like or agree with it.

The little liberal bastard was the instigator.

Instigating what? Where did he shove anyone? Seemed he was just being a loudmouth, which other there responded in kind to as well.

Not long from now it will get worse because libs think they have to be heard and they'll never learn.

This kind of thing bugs me. This is not an "American" position. You do not further your cause by inciting or eluding to violence. Guess who does that? There was a dude they were looking for a while ago, had a beard, a dialysis machine, and a whole lot of hate for the US. Guess how he tried to get political change?

If the Westboro Church nutters protest a military funeral and slings insults, I am indeed unmoved by their pathetic pleas for justice if they were to get the beat down they deserve.

As much as I don't want to say it, those that injured the WBC should stand trial. Due process in my eyes is not just in favor of those things I favor. I detest their actions, but that doesn't mean harm should be visited upon them and a blind eye turned.

A child molester run out of town by the neighbors when paroled early by liberal Judges.... not one tear shed.

This is called vigilantism. That's not what the US was founded on. I thoroughly dislike child molesters, and would certainly put myself between them and my family, but I would not stoop to violence. It's not something that should be taught like that.

So.... Why would some Liberal Douche Nozzle expect any less? They went looking for trouble and they found it. Liberals, What a bunch of whining and crying sissies. "whaaa, whaaa she just hit me...." Pathetic. What a BS story.

While their reactions aren't too motivating for me, the fact of the matter is that you cannot hit someone because you disagree with what they say. Be an adult and walk away or kindly tell them to stop shouting. Incite violence and you should be prosecuted. Laws don't go off of the books if you agree or disagree with the position. Laws are law.

As much as I don't want to say it, those that injured the WBC should stand trial.

Should they? Perhaps the Law sees it that way. Ok. They should if the Law says so. But... Surprised? No.

This is called vigilantism. That's not what the US was founded on.

Actually, I disagree with you there. Vigilantism is the natural right of all people when the methods of self protection and preservation through the government system has failed. I do believe it is how our country was founded. IMHO.

Be an adult and walk away or kindly tell them to stop shouting.

Sure.... I do that myself. But, one can not expect everyone to be able to control themselves when provoked. It is human nature. To whine about it afterwords is pathetic. I don't have any problem with the Law being enforced. Folks should be aware of the consequences of their actions. I just can't muster up the "surprise"and "indignation" factor when people obviously bring about their own misfortunes.

stonesoup68: Vigilantism is the natural right of all people when the methods of self protection and preservation through the government system has failed. I do believe it is how our country was founded. IMHO.

stonesoup--I challenge you to support your statement that vigilantism is "how our country was founded." Our founders were very careful to make a case that delineated how the laws which protected British citizens were being selectively violated in the treatment of the American colony. They were also diligent in establishing rule of law after the revoluntion.

Vigilante justice is notoriously imperfect. It doesn't require the evidentiary due diligence of a court of law. And disagreement with laws isn't sufficient justification for taking the law into your own hands. When citizens begin taking the law into their own hands, they are choosing a path with the potential to become a slippery slope to mob rule and anarchy. The solution to a system that is broken is for citizens to participate legally--by running for office, or changing their vocation to law enforcement, or challenging questionable laws in the courts. The fact that you personally don't agree with any particular law or judicial decision in no way justifies taking the law into your own hands, any more than disagreeing with Thomas Jefferson's politics justifies writing him out of Texas history books.

Should they? Perhaps the Law sees it that way. Ok. They should if the Law says so. But... Surprised? No.

That's not on the table, assault is assault, regardless of who the injured party is.

Actually, I disagree with you there. Vigilantism is the natural right of all people when the methods of self protection and preservation through the government system has failed. I do believe it is how our country was founded. IMHO.

And then those that take the law into their own hands will in turn be judged by our judicial system. As they should be.

Sure.... I do that myself. But, one can not expect everyone to be able to control themselves when provoked. It is human nature.

It may indeed be some folks' nature, but that doesn't in the least bit make it alright or justifiable in the very least.

To whine about it afterwords is pathetic.

Reporting an assault to me doesn't seem that pathetic. That crowd was pretty damn hostile.

I don't have any problem with the Law being enforced. Folks should be aware of the consequences of their actions. I just can't muster up the "surprise"and "indignation" factor when people obviously bring about their own misfortunes.

I wasn't surprised or indignant more than I was disgusted. This is the level of discourse in this country at this point in time. It's pathetic on both sides, and the side that resorts to violence loses any semblance of an upper hand.

His right but with rights you may have to pay the piper.

Under the laws that I'm familiar with, "pay the piper" doesn't legally include the folks who are offended committing assault, since there's no constitutional right to respond to free speech with violence.

If i went into a black bar and started yelling nig,you know ,it's my right but if the patrons beat the hell out of me I shouldn't be surprised or offended.

Well, I'm sure any bouncers or other employees of the bar would try to remove you first, but you'd have the right to press charges or file a civil suit against any attackers. Of course, a jury might see your hypothetical actions as being similar enough to the intent of causing trouble by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none to let your assailants walk free...

And then those that take the law into their own hands will in turn be judged by our judicial system. As they should be.

Of course. As it should be.

Vigilante justice is notoriously imperfect.

Yes. It is also notoriously natural, when people feel abandoned and unprotected by the Law and their government.

I whole heartedly support Vigilante Justice as the natural right of all citizens when their Government can not or refuses to provide adequate protection. That's my opinion and I am sticking to it.

after the revolution..

Yes, After the Revolution.

The Revolution. By the way, couldn't the colonists have worked through the system and petitioned the British crown for Justice? Or perhaps do you feel that the Revolution was justified because those avenues were tried and no Justice was forthcoming?

So very true!! I support that right all the way!!! But.... People are people. If you exercise your Rights in a way that is obviously found to be socially acceptable.

You know stonesoup ( is there a story behind that screen name?) I may not agree with you politically, but that is a valid point. And I ca see honor in it. BUT. It has to go both ways. You can't defend one side and condemn the other for the same thing. IF both sides could treat each other with respect. We might, finally, be able to get something done in this country.

You know stonesoup ( is there a story behind that screen name?

Never mind a quick search provided the answer.

Stonesoup is my favorite children's story to tell my little ones. You can change the nationality/ethnicity each time to keep it interesting.

IF both sides could treat each other with respect. We might, finally, be able to get something done in this country.

So very true. If folks in general would be more polite, whether driving a car or standing in a check out line all the way to political discourse, life would be all the better. The hate and polarization that you see all too often. Here on Newsvine and out in the world in general is growing everyday. I see liberals doing it just as much as I see conservatives doing it. Even the violent rhetoric(not to mention assaults) are taking place all over the country. Any attempt to portray one group over the other in terms of civility falls flatter then a pancake.

Vote you up on that one.

Not to worry. There are idiots on both sides. Here's one of your esteemed union members swearing at and flipping off a 14 year old girl speaking in Madison last week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8f7gjBUBLQ&NR=1

Sally ... Keep an eye on this one. It's a candidate for seeder deletion.

Referenced the wrong link. Here's the goof playing nice with a teenage girl at the podium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXnJKc337Ic

The Liberal Left (all you need to know about Liberals). Their true colors speak loud and clear.

The Liberal Left (all you need to know about Liberals). Their true colors speak loud and clear.

Okay, if we're going to go there I have a name for you. Scott Roeder. An idiot that says stupid stuff about wiping his butt with the flag does not even compare with a dyed in the wool murderer. Saying "the left" or in this case "the liberal left" is an exercise in making poor statements. There is always an idiot amongst the bunch, to use that idiot to define the ideology is an indefensibly poor decision. Make better ones.

I would be willing to bet that some of yours were the ones who were plants and made the comments about using the flag for toilet paper. The left does not say what was stated by the couple of guys who kept repeating those comments. It actually looked staged to me.

Scott Roeder is a pathetic criminal. I see no connection to anything other then Murder.

Those lib protesters are run of the mill from what I saw in San Fransisco or up in Seattle. Just my opinion, but they are very Representative of the Liberal Lefts young activist set. Obviously you are welcome to what ever opinion you have on the subject. I am just going by my own experience.

would be willing to bet that some of yours were the ones who were plants and made the comments about using the flag for toilet paper.

Obviously you have never been to Portland. Young Liberal Activists are not just prone to speaking badly they also engage in serious violence and vandalism(Seattle 1999 WTO). They are typically anti-american and unpatriotic. No different then the Liberals who tossed insults at Veterans durring the Vietnam War. Close your eyes to it. I don't care.

Scott Roeder is a pathetic criminal. I see no connection to anything other then Murder.

Then you're not getting it. If you're going to say that those folks in your video are representative of the left with no statistics to back it up, it's the same as saying it may as well be anyone, murdering a-holes included. It's a poor statement, and I used Roeder as an example to see if you'd recoil from it. And you did. So it seems to me to be a one sided thing. You're fine with saying the a-holes in the video are representative of the left, but you're sure that Roeder is not representative of the right. Both positions are wrong, mine was to prove a point and is not actually my view as the rest of my statement said.

Those lib protesters are run of the mill from what I saw in San Fransisco or up in Seattle. Just my opinion, but they are very Representative of the Liberal Lefts young activist set. Obviously you are welcome to what ever opinion you have on the subject. I am just going by my own experience.

But it's a limited experience at that, something someone as smart as you should know can not be the truth. San Fran and Seattle being pretty progressive places doesn't mean that this is indicative of "the left" anymore than the deep south racists are indicative of the right. Do you get what I'm trying to say here?

stone

Obviously you are welcome to what ever opinion you have on the subject. I am just going by my own experience.

yours is an opinion. justin's is a factual response based in logic. score: justin 1 stonesoup 0.