Tea Party Movement

[bionicarm]

I didn't want to start another thread for this, but I thought it kinda went with the political theme so why not here. I was perusing through my Sunday paper (twice as bulky as the weekly because of all the ad inserts), and was looking at the Academy Sports flyer. I had to laugh because they are selling this "Smith and Wesson Allied Forces 9MM Disaster Ready Kit". You can look at Page 1 of the ad on the attached link to see what it includes. Think I'll go buy one today. Once the Tea Partyers start storming the White House with their '2nd Amendment' guns ablazing, I'll need it for that home protection.

 
http://www.academy.com/index.php?page=catalog&target=weeklyad&pgNum=1

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310889
Now wait a minute. You keep reiterating States rights. What's the difference between the 1st Amendment and the 21st Amendment? It's OK for Dallas to semi-ban alcohol in their area because States rights afford them that privilege, yet it's not OK for Montana to make homosexuality illegal because it violates the 1st Amendment? So exactly how does one conflict, and the other one doesn't?
Just to keep on topic lets just remember the Republican party isn't the Tea Party.

 
What in the constitution prohibits the states from regulating alcohol sales or gives you unlimited access to it? The 21st amendment didn't make alcohol legal, it removed the federal prohibition on alcohol and reaffirmed the right of states to regulate it. States can't ban or regulate homosexuality because the US Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310898
I didn't want to start another thread for this, but I thought it kinda went with the political theme so why not here. I was perusing through my Sunday paper (twice as bulky as the weekly because of all the ad inserts), and was looking at the Academy Sports flyer. I had to laugh because they are selling this "Smith and Wesson Allied Forces 9MM Disaster Ready Kit". You can look at Page 1 of the ad on the attached link to see what it includes. Think I'll go buy one today. Once the Tea Partyers start storming the White House with their '2nd Amendment' guns ablazing, I'll need it for that home protection.

 
http://www.academy.com/index.php?page=catalog&target=weeklyad&pgNum=1
 
Those are so cheap cause they were mass produced since Obama got elected.

 
Get the Ruger instead, it's a better deal.

 

[darthtang aw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310889
Now wait a minute. You keep reiterating States rights. What's the difference between the 1st Amendment and the 21st Amendment? It's OK for Dallas to semi-ban alcohol in their area because States rights afford them that privilege, yet it's not OK for Montana to make homosexuality illegal because it violates the 1st Amendment? So exactly how does one conflict, and the other one doesn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310888
You are absolutely corect. "But at the same token, they cannot take my rights away to say their thoughts are the only correct ones. You just can't do it in a free society." See how that works?
Again...show me in the constitution you are granted the right to drink alcohol . That is all you need to do. You are arguing about something that is not a "right".....just like driving you must meet a certain criteria...The fed has stated the states get to dictate the criteria. Just like driving, just like hunting. Out of 500 counties in Texas only about 67 are dry.....it isn't all the people....Why do you keep blaming the bible thumpers...I am sure the business owners love this law as well as it increases their revenue...I am willing to bet the businesses lobby for it just as much as your hated "bible thumpers". They aren't taking away your right to drink, they are just asking you to sign a drinking membership.
 
And you didn't answer any of my questions...

 

[fishtaco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310899
Just to keep on topic lets just remember the Republican party isn't the Tea Party.

 
What in the constitution prohibits the states from regulating alcohol sales or gives you unlimited access to it? The 21st amendment didn't make alcohol legal, it removed the federal prohibition on alcohol and reaffirmed the right of states to regulate it. States can't ban or regulate homosexuality because the US Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310868
Beck and Palin are popular in the tea party crowd but they are not officers or anything. If it were about religion Beck wouldn't be popular as he is a Mormon. Most other sects of the Christian religion consider Mormonism a cult. They also support Sharon Angle who I believe is a member of the church of scientology, another "cult". Like I said, contrary to what you hear from certain elements of the mainstream media this is about big government, not big religion.
Reef, you did not address the issue at all of how the GOP is not the Tea Party in the examples I have given. For instance is Michelle Bachman a Tea Party politician or a GOP politician, your point is that they are two separate groups, so how come she is not willing believe in her Tea enough to drop the GOP and put that ( I ) or (T) by her name? My guess is that she is playing the Tea Party crowd for a bunch of suckers and risking invoking Godwins law here, she has that the bigger the lie, the more people believe it kind of deal.
 
Beck and Angle I have a feeling are both experts in being the religion they need to be to sucker people into either making them money or garner votes or both in Angles case. Not the way I would choose to live my life, but then again I am not a conservative talk show host or a politician, neither group being known for having anything approaching a moral high ground.
.
 
Fishtaco

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310928
Reef, you did not address the issue at all of how the GOP is not the Tea Party in the examples I have given. For instance is Michelle Bachman a Tea Party politician or a GOP politician, your point is that they are two separate groups, so how come she is not willing believe in her Tea enough to drop the GOP and put that ( I ) or (T) by her name? My guess is that she is playing the Tea Party crowd for a bunch of suckers and risking invoking Godwins law here, she has that the bigger the lie, the more people believe it kind of deal.
 
Beck and Angle I have a feeling are both experts in being the religion they need to be to sucker people into either making them money or garner votes or both in Angles case. Not the way I would choose to live my life, but then again I am not a conservative talk show host or a politician, neither group being known for having anything approaching a moral high ground.
.
 
Fishtaco
 
 
Obama was endorsed and supported by the Democrat socialists of America and the Communist Party USA. Is he a Democrat, Socialist or Communist?
 
You an expert in talk show host morals now?

 

[fishtaco]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310940
 
 
Obama was endorsed and supported by the Democrat socialists of America and the Communist Party USA. Is he a Democrat, Socialist or Communist?
 
You an expert in talk show host morals now?
Conservative 101......when you can't answer the question, bring up Obama and sadly you don't have to be much of a expert on morals to understand that people like Beck and Rush have none. I don't give you too hard a time about it, but Beck is playing a very dangerous game and it would not suprise me a bit if someone ended up dead because of it, but hey what ever makes you money.
 
Fishtaco
 

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310926
Again...show me in the constitution you are granted the right to drink alcohol . That is all you need to do. You are arguing about something that is not a "right".....just like driving you must meet a certain criteria...The fed has stated the states get to dictate the criteria. Just like driving, just like hunting. Out of 500 counties in Texas only about 67 are dry.....it isn't all the people....Why do you keep blaming the bible thumpers...I am sure the business owners love this law as well as it increases their revenue...I am willing to bet the businesses lobby for it just as much as your hated "bible thumpers". They aren't taking away your right to drink, they are just asking you to sign a drinking membership.
 
And you didn't answer any of my questions...
Why do I keep blaming the bible thumpers? Go do a survey of those 67 counties and see how many 'believers' there are, and how they are the majority voters. Why would a business lobby to limit alcohol sales at their establishments? I have several friends who've owned restaurants. Every one of them have told me that the biggest profit margin they receive is from alcohol sales. I know many people in the Dallas area, and they avoid these 'dry' parts of town like the plague. There have been many small restaurants in the dry areas that ended up shutting down because they couldn't compete with the restaurants that could serve alcohol with no restrictions. That's what stupid with the law in Dallas. An SMU fraternity published a map one time that showed the boundaries of all the dry areas in Dallas. You knew where the line was drawn because you'd cross a specific street, and the road would be lined with bars and liquor stores. I remember staying with a friend in Mesquite, and we'd do weekly liquors runs down the road. Having this law impedes the ability for businesses that rely on alcohol to succeed in those areas.
 
You still don't get it. I really don't care about the alcohol issue in Dallas. I don't live there, so it doesn't affect me. What I have a problem with is that organized religion has the power to enact a law like that in the first place. It's like restricting the evils of gambling in Texas. It doesn't take an econmic expert to see the benefits of allowing casinos in this state. Texas is heading for a $16 billion deficit next year, and the politicians in Austin don't have a clue how they're going to find the money to pay the bills. Those deficits could be made back in less than 5 years by allowing gambling, but the RELIGIOUS RIGHT says no. This state is being hindering because RELIGION dictates policy. Just as in Montana, RELIGION is wanting to decide whether a homosexual is legal or not.
 
My wife and I actually looked at moving to Utah one time, since we're avid skiers, and the beautufual National Parks that are in that state. I have a couple of friends who are Mormons, and they said, "You can move there, but don't count on getting a business started there." When I asked why, they simply said, "The Mormon faith OWNS Utah. It's not written in stone, but unless you're a practicing Mormon, you are essentially shunned. If a Mormon isn't running the company, the company doesn't run." Again, a religion dictating how people live their lives.

 

[reefraff]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310951
Conservative 101......when you can't answer the question, bring up Obama and sadly you don't have to be much of a expert on morals to understand that people like Beck and Rush have none. I don't give you too hard a time about it, but Beck is playing a very dangerous game and it would not suprise me a bit if someone ended up dead because of it, but hey what ever makes you money.
 
Fishtaco
 
 
Question is irrelevant. Common sense 101. Why would Bachman or any other Republican leave the party based on Tea Party support? The Socialists and Communists support Democrats but not all Democrats. Same deal.
 
As far as morality I wouldn't pass judgment on people you don't know.
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310965
Why do I keep blaming the bible thumpers? Go do a survey of those 67 counties and see how many 'believers' there are, and how they are the majority voters. Why would a business lobby to limit alcohol sales at their establishments? I have several friends who've owned restaurants. Every one of them have told me that the biggest profit margin they receive is from alcohol sales. I know many people in the Dallas area, and they avoid these 'dry' parts of town like the plague. There have been many small restaurants in the dry areas that ended up shutting down because they couldn't compete with the restaurants that could serve alcohol with no restrictions. That's what stupid with the law in Dallas. An SMU fraternity published a map one time that showed the boundaries of all the dry areas in Dallas. You knew where the line was drawn because you'd cross a specific street, and the road would be lined with bars and liquor stores. I remember staying with a friend in Mesquite, and we'd do weekly liquors runs down the road. Having this law impedes the ability for businesses that rely on alcohol to succeed in those areas.
 
You still don't get it. I really don't care about the alcohol issue in Dallas. I don't live there, so it doesn't affect me. What I have a problem with is that organized religion has the power to enact a law like that in the first place. It's like restricting the evils of gambling in Texas. It doesn't take an econmic expert to see the benefits of allowing casinos in this state. Texas is heading for a $16 billion deficit next year, and the politicians in Austin don't have a clue how they're going to find the money to pay the bills. Those deficits could be made back in less than 5 years by allowing gambling, but the RELIGIOUS RIGHT says no. This state is being hindering because RELIGION dictates policy. Just as in Montana, RELIGION is wanting to decide whether a homosexual is legal or not.
 
My wife and I actually looked at moving to Utah one time, since we're avid skiers, and the beautufual National Parks that are in that state. I have a couple of friends who are Mormons, and they said, "You can move there, but don't count on getting a business started there." When I asked why, they simply said, "The Mormon faith OWNS Utah. It's not written in stone, but unless you're a practicing Mormon, you are essentially shunned. If a Mormon isn't running the company, the company doesn't run." Again, a religion dictating how people live their lives.
If the majority of people in an area hold a certain religious view and that view doesn't obstruct your constitutional rights shouldn't they have the right to pass laws that reflect their view, keeping in mind there is no constitutional right to drink? And again wouldn't you rather have to power to pass dumb laws at the local level where it's easier to make changes and if you can't you can relocate away from the nutjobs?

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310985
If the majority of people in an area hold a certain religious view and that view doesn't obstruct your constitutional rights shouldn't they have the right to pass laws that reflect their view, keeping in mind there is no constitutional right to drink? And again wouldn't you rather have to power to pass dumb laws at the local level where it's easier to make changes and if you can't you can relocate away from the nutjobs?
You sure are stuck on this "Relocate if you don't like it" mentality. You make it sound like people can just pull up stakes and move where they like with little or no effort. If you honestly believe that, you've lost all sense of reality. For some reason, you have this huge mental block as to what I'm trying to convey. RELGION SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO DICTATE LAW. NEVER. So no, someone creating laws specifically based on their religious convictions shouldn't be allowed. I wish they'd create an amendment that would specifically state there should be a separation between church and state. Unfortunately, the agnostics are outnumbered 10,000 to 1 in this country, so that would never happen.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3310987
You sure are stuck on this "Relocate if you don't like it" mentality. You make it sound like people can just pull up stakes and move where they like with little or no effort. If you honestly believe that, you've lost all sense of reality. For some reason, you have this huge mental block as to what I'm trying to convey. RELGION SHOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED TO DICTATE LAW. NEVER. So no, someone creating laws specifically based on their religious convictions shouldn't be allowed. I wish they'd create an amendment that would specifically state there should be a separation between church and state. Unfortunately, the agnostics are outnumbered 10,000 to 1 in this country, so that would never happen.
 
What I am stuck on is with local control you HAVE THE OPTION to move. With federal control you gotta move to a different country if you don't like what is done. Which scenario would you rather deal with Get it yet??? That is the way the country was intended to work. Each state would retain it's individuality within the confines of the constitution. We would have a common currency, common regulations over commerce, a common military etc. Ever since the feds has assumed more an more power the country has gotten more and more screwed up.
 
There is absolutely no restrictions on religious people running for office. As long as laws they pass do not establish a religion, or favor one over another it's perfectly fine under our constitution. So if people who believe drinking is evil are able to run for office and create laws restricting consumption. Now if they passed a law requiring prayer in school or something like that it would be unconstitutional.
 

 

[socal57che]

Attend a tea party meeting, or shut up.
Watch liberal tv, then curse us and our ideals if you wish, but I know where I stand and couldn't care less about your opinion of me.
Fox news portrays the Tea Party movement without the constant bashing that the other networks include. Who would you hang out with? Someone that lets you say your piece, or someone that calls you a racist. Seems simple to me, but what do I know. I believe in God, so I must be a loon.
Fact is, we associate with others like ourselves. I associate with people who love God. I associate with people who are tired of watching thier tax dollars flushed. I associate with people who expect to earn their own way. I associate with people who want a smaller, less invasive government. It happens that the Tea Party is full of people just like me. It also happens that more republicans fit this mold than democrats. I cannot help that fact.
About this racist thing. Many of my Tea Party friends are black. We are trying very hard to overcome this picture that much of the media and many democrats have painted.
More black people need to come and see just what the Tea Party is all about...that goes for everyone. Just go to one meeting, then bash all you want.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/interview-with-the-black-tea-party/63133/
 
http://www.facebook.com/BlackTeaPatriots?ref=ts&v=wall

 

[bionicarm]

 
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3311026
 
What I am stuck on is with local control you HAVE THE OPTION to move. With federal control you gotta move to a different country if you don't like what is done. Which scenario would you rather deal with Get it yet??? That is the way the country was intended to work. Each state would retain it's individuality within the confines of the constitution. We would have a common currency, common regulations over commerce, a common military etc. Ever since the feds has assumed more an more power the country has gotten more and more screwed up.
 
There is absolutely no restrictions on religious people running for office. As long as laws they pass do not establish a religion, or favor one over another it's perfectly fine under our constitution. So if people who believe drinking is evil are able to run for office and create laws restricting consumption. Now if they passed a law requiring prayer in school or something like that it would be unconstitutional.
 
First local, then state, then national. That's how it's always worked. How do you think Prohibition started in the first place? You think Congress at that time just came up with the bright idea that drinking was bad for you? A little history -- Prohibition was an important force in state and local politics from the 1840s through the 1930s. The political forces involved were ethnoreligious in character, as demonstrated by numerous historical studies.[sup][9][/sup] Prohibition was demanded by the "dries" — primarily pietistic Protestant denominations, especially the Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples of Christ, Congregationalists, Quakers and Scandinavian Lutherans. They identified saloons as politically corrupt and drinking as a personal sin. They were opposed by the "wets" — primarily liturgical Protestants (Episcopalians, German Lutherans) and Roman Catholics, who denounced the idea that the government should define morality.[sup][10][/sup] Even in the wet stronghold of New York City there was an active prohibition movement, led by Norwegian church groups and African-American labor activists who believed that Prohibition would benefit workers, especially African-Americans. Tea merchants and soda fountain manufacturers generally supported Prohibition, thinking a ban on alcohol would increase sales of their products. This little movement ended up creating the 18th Amendment. What's comical is those opposed were also religious. But then, back in those days, who wasn't.
 
How is requiring prayer in school unconstitutional? Which Amendment states that?
 

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3311072
Attend a tea party meeting, or shut up.
Watch liberal tv, then curse us and our ideals if you wish, but I know where I stand and couldn't care less about your opinion of me.
Fox news portrays the Tea Party movement without the constant bashing that the other networks include. Who would you hang out with? Someone that lets you say your piece, or someone that calls you a racist. Seems simple to me, but what do I know. I believe in God, so I must be a loon.
Fact is, we associate with others like ourselves. I associate with people who love God. I associate with people who are tired of watching thier tax dollars flushed. I associate with people who expect to earn their own way. I associate with people who want a smaller, less invasive government. It happens that the Tea Party is full of people just like me. It also happens that more republicans fit this mold than democrats. I cannot help that fact.
About this racist thing. Many of my Tea Party friends are black. We are trying very hard to overcome this picture that much of the media and many democrats have painted.
More black people need to come and see just what the Tea Party is all about...that goes for everyone. Just go to one meeting, then bash all you want.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/interview-with-the-black-tea-party/63133/
 
http://www.facebook.com/BlackTeaPatriots?ref=ts&v=wall
If you're tired of watching your tax dollars getting flushed, what are you doing living in California?

You need to take the Darth Approach and move. It's that simple.
 
Sorry "Smaller, less invasive government" is an oxymoron. My local and state governments have been twice as invasive as the Feds have been for the last decade. But hey, that's not a problem with the Darth Approach. Unfortuantely, if I keep bouncing from one state to another to avoid their restrictive laws, I'll be bankrupt and will have to go on Welfare. Then you'll be ssupporting me anyways.
 
I've already stated that calling Tea Partyers 'racist' is the incorrect term. I think 'bigots' is a more accurate term:
 
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs or genetics.
 
Sound familiar?

 

[reefraff]

 
How is requiring prayer in school unconstitutional? Which Amendment states that?
 
Does "Congress shall make no law establishing religion" sound familiar. By requiring prayer in a government ran school you are establishing religion.
 
And if congress hadn't stepped in and banned alcohol you simply could have moved to a location that allowed drinking if it was that important to you.
 
Here's another example. In California it was illegal to own Parana fish because they feared they would get into the wild and thrive in the mild climate. Montana had no ban because the tropical species wouldn't survive past fall so there was no threat. Lots of other pets that had bans like that too. Should all states ban tropical species even though the threat is only in warm climate areas?
 

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3311125
If you're tired of watching your tax dollars getting flushed, what are you doing living in California?

You need to take the Darth Approach and move. It's that simple.
 
Sorry "Smaller, less invasive government" is an oxymoron. My local and state governments have been twice as invasive as the Feds have been for the last decade. But hey, that's not a problem with the Darth Approach. Unfortuantely, if I keep bouncing from one state to another to avoid their restrictive laws, I'll be bankrupt and will have to go on Welfare. Then you'll be ssupporting me anyways.
 
I've already stated that calling Tea Partyers 'racist' is the incorrect term. I think 'bigots' is a more accurate term:
 
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs or genetics.
 
Sound familiar?
Hmmm, You are calling a group of people you've never met bigots. You do realize that your actions define you as a bigot right?

 

[socal57che]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3311125
If you're tired of watching your tax dollars getting flushed, what are you doing living in California?

You need to take the Darth Approach and move. It's that simple.
 
Sorry "Smaller, less invasive government" is an oxymoron. My local and state governments have been twice as invasive as the Feds have been for the last decade. But hey, that's not a problem with the Darth Approach. Unfortuantely, if I keep bouncing from one state to another to avoid their restrictive laws, I'll be bankrupt and will have to go on Welfare. Then you'll be ssupporting me anyways.
 
I've already stated that calling Tea Partyers 'racist' is the incorrect term. I think 'bigots' is a more accurate term:
 
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs or genetics.
 
Sound familiar?
Why do you call smaller, less invasive government an oxymoron. We are not so narrowminded as to only go for the feds. We are electing Tea Party Patriots to every level of government. Check your local elections...we are there.
Someone mentioned that you are a business owner. As such, you should know better than to support people that not only continue to support a welfare state, but strive to add people to it's list of dependents.
 
 
(I guess the ignore feature hickupped when they switched over to the new board)
 
I appreciate the name calling. If you can't beat em, call em names. My daughter is fine, btw.
 
I'll be praying for you.

 

[spanko]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3311125......Sorry "Smaller, less invasive government" is an oxymoron. My local and state governments have been twice as invasive as the Feds have been for the last decade. But hey, that's not a problem with the Darth Approach. Unfortuantely, if I keep bouncing from one state to another to avoid their restrictive laws, I'll be bankrupt and will have to go on Welfare. Then you'll be ssupporting me anyways.........
Why would you not get involved in your LOCAL government and vote for those that live up to and represent your views? That is the whole idea, then if you can't change that you can move to another city, county, state. But the voters are the ones in control, we put the people there. It is a lot easier to RUN, that is what you choose to do, from local government that it is from Federal government.
I guess we haven't talked enough about how to change local government and instead have focused on moving from a state.
If you don't like it, run for a position, let the people know your positions, see if you get the votes. Don't just stand back and complain.

 

[bionicarm]

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by socal57che http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/120#post_3311152
Why do you call smaller, less invasive government an oxymoron. We are not so narrowminded as to only go for the feds. We are electing Tea Party Patriots to every level of government. Check your local elections...we are there.
Someone mentioned that you are a business owner. As such, you should know better than to support people that not only continue to support a welfare state, but strive to add people to it's list of dependents.
 
 
(I guess the ignore feature hickupped when they switched over to the new board)
 
I appreciate the name calling. If you can't beat em, call em names. My daughter is fine, btw.
 
I'll be praying for you.

You sound like the show "The Visitors". Or better yest, The Borg on Star Trek. "You will be assimiliated. Resistance is futile". I like the way you've created your own little identity. I thought the line in the Declaration "WE The People" meant every citizen in this country. Not WE the Tea Partyers, WE the Republicans, and WE the Democrats. Yes, people like you are VERY scary. Just the thought that you think you need to 'get into every level of government' reeks of Socialism in itself.
 
Hate to burst your bubble, but I don't support just one 'Party'. Just because I disagree with the tenets and principles of the Tea Party, you automatically assume I'm a staunch Democrat and Liberal. I look at both sides of the fence. I don't agree with every policy the current administration has enacted, but I also don't go around waving a placard and calling our current POTUS a Socialist. Marxist, or Communist. I respect the position, and understand what the guy is trying to accomplish. You keep spewing all this "limited, less invasive government" mantra, but no one in your little party has developed a platform on how to fix the economic mess we're in. You say "Cut the deficit, quit spending, lower taxes", will be the magical fixall, yet that little cure did nothing the last four years of the Bush administration. Economic trends constantly change. What worked in principle in the past, may not work today. The problem isn't only the Democrats. There are just as many Republicans in office that have implemented bad policy. Your ideology is to "clean house" in Washington. Problem is, you don't have a clue as to what to do once you accomplish that mission. You have no direct focus on how to fix the problems. Your inexperience will end up causing more problems for this country than helping it.
 
"Can't beat 'em, call them names"? What do you call 'NObama', 'Obama The Marxist", "Obama The Socialist", "Obama The Communist Pig"? Pot, meet kettle.
 
What does you're daughter have to do with this argument?

 
No, please don't pray for me. That would imply I believe in your little Supreme Being.