Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Former leader of East-Central Illinois tea party group, running for IL State senate seat for the 52nd district.

WOW. About all you can say is WOW.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/politi ... ience.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonderful

The "Tea Party" is new and inexperienced. They have made mistakes. They have also acheived spectacular victories.

Tea Party backed candidates have won far more than they have lost in the primaries and will continue to do so in the general election.

The Tea Party, and Tea Party backed candidates, haare not going away after 2010. You have awakened the sleeping giant.

native wrote:The "Tea Party" is new and inexperienced. They have made mistakes. They have also acheived spectacular victories.

Tea Party backed candidates have won far more than they have lost in the primaries and will continue to do so in the general election.

The Tea Party, and Tea Party backed candidates, haare not going away after 2010. You have awakened the sleeping giant.

sad day when being a racist bigot becomes mainstream

deny all you want, the TP movement may not be entirely based or founded on racism, but they haven't gone out of their way to distance themselves either

if this douche gets 1 single vote it will be too many

OSBF wrote:...sad day when being a racist bigot becomes mainstream...

Like his Royal Highness Obama... oh wait, he's not mainstream... but he's sure as hell a racist bigot, particularly against his American Citizen enemies.

OSBF wrote:...deny all you want, the TP movement may not be entirely based or founded on racism, but they haven't gone out of their way to distance themselves either...

Fail. No matter how many times you repeat your big lie.

OSBF wrote:...if this douche gets 1 single vote it will be too many

Dufus is not going very far, dufus has clearly been repudiated by conservatives/Repubs/Tea Partiers, dufus is a red herring.

"I've been in the city and the dichotomy of the women and the men in the minorities, there is a difference in the fact that most minority women, either the single parent or coming from a poor neighborhood, are motivated more so than the minority men," he said. "And it's a pretty good reason. Most of the women who are single parents have to find work to support their family. The minority men find it more lucrative to be able to do drugs or other avenues rather than do education. It's easier.

"We need to provide ways that are more incentive, other than just sports avenues, for the men for the minorities to want to go to college and get an education and better themselves before the women have to support them all."

Sometimes the truth hurts, OB. Put on your big boy pants.

AZGrizFan wrote:

"I've been in the city and the dichotomy of the women and the men in the minorities, there is a difference in the fact that most minority women, either the single parent or coming from a poor neighborhood, are motivated more so than the minority men," he said. "And it's a pretty good reason. Most of the women who are single parents have to find work to support their family. The minority men find it more lucrative to be able to do drugs or other avenues rather than do education. It's easier.

"We need to provide ways that are more incentive, other than just sports avenues, for the men for the minorities to want to go to college and get an education and better themselves before the women have to support them all."

Sometimes the truth hurts, OB. Put on your big boy pants.

I didn't see one single thing in that quote that isn't true. The truth does hurt. This almost mirrors what Bill Cosby said a few years back that got all the libs panties in a wad.

I can tell you this and back it up with closed loan files in my data base which goes back to the late 90's... I have taken many, many more applications- expodentially more- and closed loans for single minority women raising kids while working multiple jobs without a dime of child support than I have single minority men through the years. That's a FACT.

The one good thing about a Bigot, they Die!!!

native wrote:The "Tea Party" is new and inexperienced. They have made mistakes. They have also acheived spectacular victories.

Tea Party backed candidates have won far more than they have lost in the primaries and will continue to do so in the general election.

The Tea Party, and Tea Party backed candidates, haare not going away after 2010. You have awakened the sleeping giant.

The Republicans are being hijacked by the Tea baggers. That's exactly why I changed my voter registration to independent from Republican.

BigSkyBears wrote:

native wrote:The "Tea Party" is new and inexperienced. They have made mistakes. They have also acheived spectacular victories.

Tea Party backed candidates have won far more than they have lost in the primaries and will continue to do so in the general election.

The Tea Party, and Tea Party backed candidates, are not going away after 2010. You have awakened the sleeping giant.

The Republicans are being hijacked by the Tea baggers. That's exactly why I changed my voter registration to independent from Republican.

Without the Tea Party, the Republican Party would be in danger of extinction. What advantage do you think your "independent" registration provides for you? What exactly do you imagine that you are independent from?

The Tea Party will get spanked in a few election this year, notably in Delaware, and will gradually take their lumps and learn their lessons.

But they are not wrong on the substance of lower taxes and limited government.

native wrote:The "Tea Party" is new and inexperienced. They have made mistakes. They have also acheived spectacular victories.

Tea Party backed candidates have won far more than they have lost in the primaries and will continue to do so in the general election.

The Tea Party, and Tea Party backed candidates, haare not going away after 2010. You have awakened the sleeping giant.

New and inexperienced? The Republicans have been around for over a hundred and fifty years!

native wrote:

BigSkyBears wrote:
The Republicans are being hijacked by the Tea baggers. That's exactly why I changed my voter registration to independent from Republican.

Without the Tea Party, the Republican Party would be in danger of extinction. What advantage do you think your "independent" registration provides for you? What exactly do you imagine that you are independent from?

The Tea Party will get spanked in a few election this year, notably in Delaware, and will gradually take their lumps and learn their lessons.

But they are not wrong on the substance of lower taxes and limited government.

Everyone wants lower taxes and limited government. The Tea Party isn't offering up anything new there. The hard part is figuring out how to reduce the size of governement and reduce taxes without cutting programs that people want. The Tea Party offers no new solutions or ideas, which is okay because I don't think most Dems or Republicans have any great ideas either. The Tea Party's problem is that there are too many kooks fronting it.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Without the Tea Party, the Republican Party would be in danger of extinction. What advantage do you think your "independent" registration provides for you? What exactly do you imagine that you are independent from?

The Tea Party will get spanked in a few election this year, notably in Delaware, and will gradually take their lumps and learn their lessons.

But they are not wrong on the substance of lower taxes and limited government.

Everyone wants lower taxes and limited government. The Tea Party isn't offering up anything new there. The hard part is figuring out how to reduce the size of governement and reduce taxes without cutting programs that people want. The Tea Party offers no new solutions or ideas, which is okay because I don't think most Dems or Republicans have any great ideas either. The Tea Party's problem is that there are too many kooks fronting it.

Sure they have kooks! No more than the Repubs or Libertarians, and far fewer than the Dems.

native wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
Everyone wants lower taxes and limited government. The Tea Party isn't offering up anything new there. The hard part is figuring out how to reduce the size of governement and reduce taxes without cutting programs that people want. The Tea Party offers no new solutions or ideas, which is okay because I don't think most Dems or Republicans have any great ideas either. The Tea Party's problem is that there are too many kooks fronting it.

Sure they have kooks! No more than the Repubs or Libertarians, and far fewer than the Dems.

Per capita they seem to have a lot more. Who is the face of the Tea Party right now? O'Donnell? Palin? - both kooks.

The face of the Dems right now is Obama. Like him or not, he is no kook.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Sure they have kooks! No more than the Repubs or Libertarians, and far fewer than the Dems.

Per capita they seem to have a lot more. Who is the face of the Tea Party right now? O'Donnell? Palin? - both kooks.

The face of the Dems right now is Obama. Like him or not, he is no kook.

I thought O'Donnell and Palin were Republicans.

OSBF wrote:[sad day when being a racist bigot becomes mainstream

Sad day when your own ignorance becomes mainstream.

BlueHen86 wrote:Per capita they seem to have a lot more. Who is the face of the Tea Party right now? O'Donnell? Palin? - both kooks.

The face of the Dems right now is Obama. Like him or not, he is no kook.

Just a snapshot... and I'd say Pelosi and Reid are just as much the face of the Dem party as Obama. We're not that far removed from...

Cluck U wrote:

OSBF wrote:[sad day when being a racist bigot becomes mainstream

Sad day when your own ignorance becomes mainstream.

please the ignorance part for me

You surely aren't as stupid as these other dumb fucks that agree with this wack nut

This guy is a total bigot

So the drug problem is endemic to blacks?

What an idiot.

mrklean wrote:The one good thing about a Bigot, they Die!!!

That is true, kleanex. But when you die, another bigot will take your place.

native wrote:

BigSkyBears wrote:
The Republicans are being hijacked by the Tea baggers. That's exactly why I changed my voter registration to independent from Republican.

Without the Tea Party, the Republican Party would be in danger of extinction. What advantage do you think your "independent" registration provides for you? What exactly do you imagine that you are independent from?

The Tea Party will get spanked in a few election this year, notably in Delaware, and will gradually take their lumps and learn their lessons.

But they are not wrong on the substance of lower taxes and limited government.

So they need to move further to the Right? The days of Eisenhower, Nixon and Dole Republicans are over (more moderate). My registration has to do with my frustration with the Republicans more than anything. It's just a personal decision. Sorry that upsets you so much.

BigSkyBears wrote:

native wrote:
Without the Tea Party, the Republican Party would be in danger of extinction. What advantage do you think your "independent" registration provides for you? What exactly do you imagine that you are independent from?

The Tea Party will get spanked in a few election this year, notably in Delaware, and will gradually take their lumps and learn their lessons.

But they are not wrong on the substance of lower taxes and limited government.

So they need to move further to the Right? The days of Eisenhower, Nixon and Dole Republicans are over (more moderate). My registration has to do with my frustration with the Republicans more than anything. It's just a personal decision. Sorry that upsets you so much.

Your registration doesn't upset me at all, bears, but your posts have not been illuminative. I'm just curious as to what actual issues motivate you. Neither Nixon nor Eisenhower were small government conservatives, let alone GW Bush. What "right" issues are you afraid of? Small government? Lower taxes? Less spending?

The things that the Repubs have done wrong in the recent past are commit to too many wars, grow government, and spend too much money. The spending and growth of government are a big deal, but Bush had a lot of help from the Dem Congress elected in 2006, and then Obama more than double-downed on the spending and big government.

I am not trying to attack you, brotha! Just curious what matters to you.

native wrote:

BigSkyBears wrote:
So they need to move further to the Right? The days of Eisenhower, Nixon and Dole Republicans are over (more moderate). My registration has to do with my frustration with the Republicans more than anything. It's just a personal decision. Sorry that upsets you so much.

Your registration doesn't upset me at all, bears, but your posts have not been illuminative. I'm just curious as to what actual issues motivate you. Neither Nixon nor Eisenhower were small government conservatives, let alone GW Bush. What "right" issues are you afraid of? Small government? Lower taxes? Less spending?

The things that the Repubs have done wrong in the recent past are commit to too many wars, grow government, and spend too much money. The spending and growth of government are a big deal, but Bush had a lot of help from the Dem Congress elected in 2006, and then Obama more than double-downed on the spending and big government.

I am not trying to attack you, brotha! Just curious what matters to you.

I'm very familiar with Nixon and IKE administrations. Do I want small government, lower taxes and less spending? Yes, but in a moderate way. Not the extreme Libertarian way the Tea Party wants.

BigSkyBears wrote:

native wrote:
Your registration doesn't upset me at all, bears, but your posts have not been illuminative. I'm just curious as to what actual issues motivate you. Neither Nixon nor Eisenhower were small government conservatives, let alone GW Bush. What "right" issues are you afraid of? Small government? Lower taxes? Less spending?

The things that the Repubs have done wrong in the recent past are commit to too many wars, grow government, and spend too much money. The spending and growth of government are a big deal, but Bush had a lot of help from the Dem Congress elected in 2006, and then Obama more than double-downed on the spending and big government.

I am not trying to attack you, brotha! Just curious what matters to you.

I'm very familiar with Nixon and IKE administrations. Do I want small government, lower taxes and less spending? Yes, but in a moderate way. Not the extreme Libertarian way the Tea Party wants.

I see a couple of differences between the libertarians and Tea Partiers, namely that the Libertarians would abolish the Fed and lead the country to virtual isolationism. If you think theses viewpoints are extreme, I agree. We need a sustainable military, not a hollow shell and not a massive empire-sized military.

On the other hand, the failures and massive unsustainable debt we have accumulated as a result of big government Dem and Repub social programs are far more extreme than anything the Tea Party advocates. There is a big difference between a safety net and subsidizing someone's lifestyle. We have all failed to acknowledge that important distinction. In my view, trying to rescue the current social programs is even more crazy and unrealistic rather than scrapping them and starting all over. Anyone who wants more than the basic safety net and minimum healthcare needs to work hard and save for it.

Social Security. Perhaps both Libertarians and Tea Partiers are inclined to privatize social security, and this would be far better than facing the kind of BS the French are facing now. This would be a boon to everyone who works hard and contributes as much as they take, but a bane to everyone who wants to take more than they contribute. Of course there are legitimate disability cases where those who paid in become disabled and cannot contribute at the same level, but they represent a tiny minority ofcases. Perhaps the disability part of social security should be separated from the retirement part of social security.

Medicare/Medicaid. If you are one who criticizes Tea Partiers who complain about government programs on the one hand and then scream about keeping their medicare/medicaid on the other hand, then I agree with you! Somehow, we have to limit extravagant healthcare benefits at taxpayer expense, but I see no legitimate leadership on the horizon to accomplish this purpose.

Both Nixon and Ike got us out of wars started by Democrats, but neither did a particularly great job about it. Ike gave us the interstate system, a government program I strongly approve of, and Nixon gave us the EPA, an agency that has achieved mixed results, creating as many problems as it has solved.

Maybe you are nostalgiac for style as opposed to substance, bear. I agree. Ike and Nixon could both be considered pragmatic, and in my opinion moderate in governing style. Ike was even beloved. It is easy to contrast the style of these seasoned politicians with the clumsy ham-handedness of many of the Tea Party newcomers. I wince at the rookie mistakes committed by Tea Partiers, but I do not believe these mistakes define who they are or their potential for great accomplishments. The only way for them to become seasoned is to make their mistakes and learn from them. They will do so.

Tea Party just wants "their" country back, no taxes, no government employees, no social programs, great public utilities, greatest military power in the world, lots of cops, laws to enforce their religion and moral opinions, and last but not least, no spooks or spics.

Wedgebuster wrote:Tea Party just wants "their" country back, no taxes, no government employees, no social programs, great public utilities, greatest military power in the world, lots of cops, laws to enforce their religion and moral opinions, and last but not least, no spooks or spics.

Is thast really the best you can do, Wedges?

Goodness Gracious!