bigmanbt wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Today's young people are much more open-minded than people of my generation, and voting patterns will soon prove it.

You're right, but it's not for liberalism. Being a member of the college age generation, I can say without hesitation that the ideas of freedom are very important to today's youth. A lot of youth got lied to by Obama, and lied to by Bush. They are tired of it. Young people leaned toward Obama last election cause he promised what they wanted to hear (he's broken almost every campaign promise, except the socialism ones). The young people want limited government and their freedoms back, not redistribution of wealth, socialized healthcare, and limited freedoms. We want our opportunities.

assumption wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: The politicians are finally learning there are consequences for their actions. They should have learned that lesson during the Bush era, but they will now.

By the way, the Dems and their media pawns largely lied about the racist threats being thrown out. They love the race card though.

Oh I see now. Those were actors I saw on the TV and the internet. No your the one trying to spread lies. You and Faux.

I Wear Pants wrote:

bigmanbt wrote:

FairwoodKing wrote: Today's young people are much more open-minded than people of my generation, and voting patterns will soon prove it.

You're right, but it's not for liberalism. Being a member of the college age generation, I can say without hesitation that the ideas of freedom are very important to today's youth. A lot of youth got lied to by Obama, and lied to by Bush. They are tired of it. Young people leaned toward Obama last election cause he promised what they wanted to hear (he's broken almost every campaign promise, except the socialism ones). The young people want limited government and their freedoms back, not redistribution of wealth, socialized healthcare, and limited freedoms. We want our opportunities.

That's not true at all. He promised health care reform and we all knew that heavy regulations or some government intervention was likely. He talked about wealth redistribution and "spreading it around" on his campaign so don't act like that is a surprise. I don't see what freedoms he has limited so far. We still have our guns, fishing poles, and cars.

He's not kept every campaign promise, Gitmo is still open, but to pretend as though he's been acting completely against his campaign is absurd.

bigmanbt wrote: More and more young people are leaning toward Freedom and Ron Paul's movement. That's the truth.

CenterBHSFan wrote:This reminds me of a pic I saw the other day...

Writerbuckeye wrote:

assumption wrote:

eersandbeers wrote: The politicians are finally learning there are consequences for their actions. They should have learned that lesson during the Bush era, but they will now.

By the way, the Dems and their media pawns largely lied about the racist threats being thrown out. They love the race card though.

Oh I see now. Those were actors I saw on the TV and the internet. No your the one trying to spread lies. You and Faux.

Got a link for these acts of racism you've got on tape?

As Democrats, after a Sunday rally on the Capitol grounds, marched to the House hand-in-hand to vote for health-care reform, tea partiers reportedly shouted the "N-word" at John Lewis and another black congressman. A third was allegedly spat upon. And Barney Frank was called a nasty name.

Tea partiers deny it all. And neither audio nor video of this alleged incident has been produced, though TV cameras and voice recorders were everywhere on the Hill.

Other Democrats say their offices were vandalized and they've been threatened. A few received, and eagerly played for cable TV, obscene phone calls they got.

If true, this is crude and inexcusable behavior. And any threat should be investigated. But Democrats are also exploiting these real, imaginary or hoked-up slurs to portray themselves as political martyrs and to smear opponents as racists and bigots.

This is the politics of desperation.

Majority Whip James Clyburn accuses Republicans of "aiding and abetting ... terrorism." New York Times columnist Frank Rich compared the tea-party treatment of Democrats to Nazi treatment of the Jews during Kristallnacht:

"How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn't recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht."

Kristallnacht, "Crystal Night," the "Night of Broken Glass," was the worst pogrom in Germany since the Middle Ages. Synagogues were torched and hundreds of businesses smashed. Shattered glass covered the streets. Women were assaulted and men beaten and murdered. After that terrible night, half the Jews remaining in Germany fled.

To compare a brick tossed through the window of a congressional office and two shouted slurs to Kristallnacht suggests a growing paranoia on the left about the populist right.

Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made "some Americans run off the rails," said Rich, have we seen anything like this.

Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn't the right that went off the rails. The really big riot in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500 injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington, D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing troops into American cities, were not the work of George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater conservatives. They were the work of folks who went "all the way with LBJ."

Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned ROTC buildings, vandalized professors' offices, toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse that killed three radicals and aborted the terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.

No, this was not the New Right. This was the New Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used to "pal around" with one of the boys who did the Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.

As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of the students marching under Viet Cong flags chanting, about the man who signed that Civil Rights Act, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win," when American boys were dying in the hundreds every week fighting the communist NLF?

The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands tried to break through military police to get into the building, was the work of left-wing radicals. Did the tea-party folks who chanted, "Kill the bill," outside the House behave worse than that?

Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971, when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.

How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a week ago?

Not one tea partier, man or woman.

The "mass hysteria" of the tea-party right, writes Rich, is at root about race. "By 2012 ... non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The tea party is virtually all white. ... Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded."

Rich is implying that when America's white majority disappears, in 2042 according to 2008 Census Bureau projections, the day of the white conservative is over.

Given the rise in ethnic consciousness among all Americans, Rich may be right. But it is not just white folks who want illegal aliens deported and legal immigration curtailed, while 25 million of our own are out of work or underemployed.

A Zogby poll for the Center for Immigration Studies found that 56 percent of Hispanics, 57 percent of Asian-Americans and 68 percent of African-Americans think legal immigration is too high.

If the tea-party folks think it is leftist elites who detest and wish to be rid of the America they grew up in and love, they are right.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Anyone who lived through the 1960s has to laugh at all this hyperbole coming from the left.

The folks who were "mentors" to our President were in the midst of bombing and planning bombings to get their points across -- yet somehow the modern day Tea Party movement is violent!

It's classic Alinsky at work here, folks, and those who are doing it know full well they are lying to try and demonize and discredit conservative people who scare the hell out of them -- not because they're afraid of violence, but because it is a movement to stop what they are trying to achieve.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Ayers hosted a party in his home to help kick off Obama's first campaign, and worked with him for several years with the Annenberg Foundation in Chicago.

You get your facts straight.

gibby08 wrote: Jesus...bringing Ayers up again


Writer...get your facts straight. Ayers was NEVER a "mentor" to President Obama. So cut that crap

Writerbuckeye wrote: Ayers hosted a party in his home to help kick off Obama's first campaign, and worked with him for several years with the Annenberg Foundation in Chicago.

You get your facts straight.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Ayers hosted a party in his home to help kick off Obama's first campaign, and worked with him for several years with the Annenberg Foundation in Chicago.

You get your facts straight.

So, they were on the same board together, and Ayers hosted a party and that makes him his mentor?

That is a stretch, considering Obama has really, over the past 3 or 4 years, gone away from the policies that Ayers has pushed. Even recently, Ayers came out against one of Obama's policies. (I forget which one).

If anything, it was loose connections that only lasted a few years and have zero impact on the Obama agenda today.

stlouiedipalma wrote:
I don't know what they expected either, but I can assure you they didn't expect threats and violence. Is that what a rational person like yourself would expect?

fish82 wrote:

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Ayers hosted a party in his home to help kick off Obama's first campaign, and worked with him for several years with the Annenberg Foundation in Chicago.

You get your facts straight.

So, they were on the same board together, and Ayers hosted a party and that makes him his mentor?

That is a stretch, considering Obama has really, over the past 3 or 4 years, gone away from the policies that Ayers has pushed. Even recently, Ayers came out against one of Obama's policies. (I forget which one).

If anything, it was loose connections that only lasted a few years and have zero impact on the Obama agenda today.

The fact that Ayers hosted the meeting/party to kick off Bam's first State Senate Campaign clearly implies that they knew each other and that there was a relationship. "Mentor" is probably a reach, but so is "just some guy I worked on a board with."

Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

gibby08 wrote: Please explain to me how that makes him his mentor?? Because it doesn't

If that was the case......Charles Keating was a major mentor to John McCain