Skip to comments.Long live the TEA party rebellion!! NO MORE RINOS!! NO ROMNEY, NO WAY!!
Posted on 10/16/2011 2:06:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party sprang up in spontaneous rebellion to big government's big spending, big taxing ways. TARP, the bailouts, the PORKULUS package and ObamaCare lit the fuse. TEA partiers support the constitution's limited government restrictions. TEA partiers are non-partisan, i.e., we oppose the big government, big spending, big taxing moves of both the major political parties.
This is an open rebellion against business as usual big spending, overreaching government! We demand a return to constitutionally limited government!!
The socialist/progressive Democrat party is our natural enemy and they understand that and attack us accordingly.
The big government RINO socialist/progressive wing of the Republican party is also our natural enemy and they attack us accordingly. They fear us, but they NEED us. They despise us, spit on us, call us right-wing extremists and hateful bigots, but beg us for our votes. They EXPECT us to bend over in the end and willingly accept their BIG GOVERNMENT candidates and programs without any real opposition.
Oh, they may try to sugar coat it a bit, and placate us here and there with some smooth talk, and toss us a bone from time-to-time with conservative head feints, but it's clear they have no intention of ever changing their evil progressive ways.
The progressive wing of the GOP does not really comprehend that the TEA party rebellion is aimed squarely at THEM!!
They believe that we have nowhere else to go and that fear of an Obama second term will compel us to vote for a Republican version of BIG GOVERNMENT, big spending, big taxing, constitution ignoring progressive liar of a candidate.
Got news for them.
The TEA party rebellion is made up of tens of millions of liberty-loving, patriotic citizens who are totally fed up with corrupt, lying, two-faced, smooth-talking, big government socialists, corrupt crony capitalist bastard, progressives, Marxists, etc, and it makes no difference to us which party they belong to. And we're madder than hell and loaded for bear!!
This is OPEN REBELLION at the ballot box!!
TEA party hating elite establishment, Romney, Rove & Co., had best get used to it. Your any RINO but Obama gig is up!!
The TEA party is here to stay and we're NOT going to vote for your big government, TARP pushing, PORKULUS pushing, RomneyCare pushing, gun-grabbing, abortionist, gay-rights pushing, global warming advocating, mandate-loving, anti-Reagan, anti-liberty, socialist/progressive, flavor of the day RINO, the chief architect and advocate of ObamaCare, Mitt Romney!!
TEA partiers unite against Obama/Romney!!
The progressive GOP be damned!!
Long live the Republic!!
Amen Brother! The establishment is nothing without the grass roots and they are going to learn that the hard way.
Should the planets align and the wrong person get nominated, I can see exactly who is going to be learning the hard way, and it won’t be the establishment. Time will tell, and we shall see. I have hope for America.
You’re welcoming to a forum in which I’ve actively participated for years.
It’s privately owned, yes. And the owner can make the rules. And he can openly say that he himself is exempt from those rules. But if he does, it’s fair to ask, will we have to address him as “your lardship” in future, or “your highness”. The laird of the manor also made his own rules on his own estates.
If, however, he wants to preside over a community in which conservative ideas are freely exchanged, it would be advisable for him to not place himself above the rules of that community. Not that it will effect me one iota, nor diminish my participation, but it certainly effects my respect for His Lardship in future dealings. Not dictating to him what he ought to do, mind you. This is his manor.
But how he relates to the serfs who merely post here might be a matter of concern to him.
You noticed that too? Reminds me of how so many followed the Pied Piper from Chicago in '08, simply because he "tickled their ears." Yet any attempts to point out the obvious (Cain "hearts" Romney) is met with vitriol. Partly, I think, it's a dislike--bordering on hatred for some--of anyone or anything southern in general, Texan in particular. Irrational.
If someone is paying even a little bit of attention, they can get a hint of a man’s political leaning just by observing not only his company, but who he endorses. Now we have quite a list of RINOs, and honestly, we should ask questions about this. There’s also the issue of him pulling, and playing, the race card over the errant rock on a property Perry’s family used for hunting. I’m just not liking what I’m seeing, and the more I watch, the less I like it.
You are in Jim’s “house”. If you don’t like it, move on. Jim has guided FR for 15 years and done a damn good job. Only a cretin would “move in” and commence to bitch about the “service”. I have NO patience for a poster like you.
Put this speech on Youtube!
In fact, there are times when I wonder if some (many?) of the Cain-bots are actually Rom-bots in disguise. It would certainly suit the Romney campaign's purposes to have the conservative community turn on itself, leaving Romney as the victor.
So what! He doesn’t have the nomination yet!!! In my opinion let’s see how the first couple of primaries go and then lay aside our candidate partisanship and get behind the leading conservative contender. Until then campaign, donate, and educate.
Well said. I think painting oneself into a corner this early in a campaign is unwise, and could even have unpleasant consequences. It is after all a primary. As you say, no one has a lock on the primary, yet.
Jim, you’re always so vague about your opinions...
Love this post and the one you wrote comparing Romney and Obama. Somehow the tea party needs to come back in force now before the election. Does anyone know if anything is being planned?
Did it ever cross your mind that some of the Perry-bots are actually Rom-bots too or does that thought not cross your mind?
You're not correct.
Here's a link to a video where Cain says when asked, that it is premature to say whether he would except being a VP fpr Romney.
Frankly, I’m not seeing many “Perry-bots” on the attack. Most of the agitators seem to be on Cain’s side.
You got all that right, Jim! Remember, he prepareth a table in the presence of our enemies.
Bias has a way of blinding people.
I've seen plently of reasonable criticisms of Perry come under personal attack.
For example I was called a liar by three different Perry supporters simply for pointing out Algore's liberal pro abortion history in the Senate in the 80's.
BTW I notice that you use the term "Perry-bot" in double quotes but you don't do the same when you use the term "Cain-bot".
There are attack-dog, bot-like supporters for all candidates. Posters don't notice the ones on the side of the candidate they support.
I’m not sure of your meaning. Want to clarify?
I know. Watch - he will backtrack on that. As we already know - even his supporters tried dancing around that one - with covered clueless ears. And given a pass about the rock comment. He promised to attack Mitt before this last debate. Wonder why he said that - could be it’s way too obvious what is going on even to his advisers. Yet, no such attack happened and hoping no one noticed.
It was clear.
Apparently so pnsn. Felt like I was on a liberal website last nite. The name calling and attacks...I call it the ‘pack attack’ mentality.
You might want to think about the reason Democrats have used the senior scare tactic all these years. It works. And not just on liberal seniors or socialist seniors or "dumb" seniors or whatever you want to label. When people find themselves in vulnerable positions, they get very nervous about anyone suggesting a change in the status quo. And if you think the Dems will be the only ones using that tactic this election I have a bridge to sell you. ANY discussion of ANY serious reform is going to be demonized just as we've always seen. Whether its 999 or anything else, at least Cain has the gonads to get the discussion out there. Cripes, even here the very discussion of it has people at each other throats, a year out! It's insane. So go ahead and have the last word, I'm sure you're dying to. As for me, I'm done listening to your unwarranted accusations.
Here’s what I noticed. Before Cain’s rather nasty turn over the rock issue, I was supporting three people—Palin would have been my first choice, and Perry and Cain were about even. I was never attacked by anyone when I said that Cain was one of the ones I supported. After the rock issue, and with subsequent remarks he made, etc., I dropped support for Cain. Palin dropped out, leaving only Perry. I can’t tell you the horrible comments directed at me personally for saying I didn’t care for what Cain did about the rock—some even suggesting I live in an area where cousins marry and people walk around with their knuckles dragging the ground. And then there are those who simply state that anyone who supports Perry is an idiot, a moron, you name it.
So yeah, I’m a little tired of it, and not expecting it from people I used to consider conservatives. I don’t see why a conservative can’t have a reasonable disagreement over who the nominee will ultimately be, without resorting to those kinds of tactics. If anyone wants to rip apart the conservative base, that would be how they’d go about it.
No, it wasn’t. Why not say it directly?
You have a nice day.
“Only a cretin would move in and commence to bitch about the service. I have NO patience for a poster like you.”
“Move in”? Excuse me? I’ve been here for most of those 15 years. I’ve paid my dues. If you don’t like what I have to say, then don’t read it (You obviously didn’t, but think you can intelligently comment on it). You don’t invite the entire world into your “house”. This is either “Jim’s forum” or “Jim’s feudal manor”. It’s up to him which he wants it to be.
This kind of high-handedness on the part of Jim leads me to believe he wants the latter. OK. I got no problem with that. To his credit, this is the first instance in which he has been “high-handed”. I’ll do my thing, and if he doesn’t like it, he can zot me. But my thing in future will not be gladly suffering Jim’s psychophants, your present post suggesting to me that you are a member of that group.
So if we see things we find disturbing about Cain, we’re using scare tactics? Sheesh.
Another thing I read the other nite was that someone had checked this guys church out and it was 100% black which is understandable however, the person said there were pro-Obama everywhere and it claimed it was 100% democrat. Now how can someone attend church and not object to that? Sounds like a familiar story. He was for Tarp and he is for ‘empowerment zones’ etc.
I tried to find the thread last nite and will look later for it. This is not a dead issue or a set issue.
Seems to me that this is the conservative edition of blindly voting for the color in spite of the facts.
This is FR right?
Do I hear clucking in the background? LOL! Personally, if I feel like saying something to someone, I’ll just say it.
I respect Jim as the owner, Founder and ultimate authority of this site. . You don’t.
You: Frankly, Im not seeing many Perry-bots on the attack. Most of the agitators seem to be on Cains side.
Me: Bias has a way of blinding people.
What you want is a fight. Not playing.
Good day to you.
Perry has never expressed a willingness to be Romney’s veep.
Perry has never attack Cain. Cain has praised Mitt not Perry. Mitt has praised Cain.
See a pattern? I do.
No, what you want is to say something ugly that no one can actually pin you down for. That way, if someone comes back at you, you can claim you were “misunderstood.” Ok. I got your game now. I don’t want a fight. You’re wrong about that. But manipulating via the vague snide comment is somewhat unseemly, wouldn’t you agree?
Ha, ha. You live where cousins marry. That’s a good one.
I, too, have suffered abuse from the Cain supporters.
First, Cain turned me off of him for various reasons I’ve stated before.
Then his supporters have turned me way off him because they are hysterical, hateful, mean and off the charts vicious.
That is not the way to gain support for your candidate.
This battle is far worse than when pissant would get on Palin threads and diss her. Some of these Cain supporters make me long for pissant. (I’m sure he’s back under another name).
My point is commie marxists are driven by fear, as you are. You’ll support anybody with an “R” next to their name because you’re scared of Obama. Fear blinds you, and causes you to lash out at anyone that doesn’t march to the Republican beat.
This is what I'm talking about...there is not a single candidate we can't tear apart for things they have said, mistakes they have made, or opportunities they passed up. For example we can easily say (tongue in cheek)...
Mitt's a RINO
Perry can't debate
Paul is the quirky old uncle who says crazy things
Cain is politically inexperienced
MB gets facts mixed up
Newt has baggage
Huntsman uses a tanning bed (George Hamilton's twin?)
Santorum is whiny
Sure we can tear them all up because there is no perfect candidate, but let's start looking at the substantive issues they are raising. Let's consider whether or not they are now truly representing the kind of conservative positions and values we are willing to support. We need to be working hard with conservatives to push against the Mitt Campaign...that's the real target at this point. After the first few primaries thin out the field THEN get behind a common candidate by creating a HUGE wave that will carry him/her into the nomination and then into the White House!
I respect those who act in a manner deserving of respect. Jim as the owner, etc., of this site, can have my respect back whenever I think he deserves it. When he abuses his authority and/or power, he doesn’t get it, and I let my displeasure be known, albeit in publishable, decent American expatriate English. My respect for Jim is conditional. Yours is not, which makes you a sycophant, a lackey. I may or may not respect Jim himself tomorrow, but I will not respect you next week either. Run along.
I don’t mind pointing out what’s wrong with a R candidate, but several things I’m seeing here bother me a lot—for instance, I’m seeing inflated, and in some cases totally false things being said about some. That’s bad enough, but even worse are the folks who are so wrapped up in their candidate that any criticism at all is intolerable—and proof that the critic is a “moron” or “idiot” or worse.
You’re right. All of these guys have their warts and clay feet. Some lots worse than others—Romney, for instance has so many he’s not even in the running as far as I’m concerned. Paul is another. But I don’t go from thread to thread attacking people who support these and the other candidates.
Why can’t people just (a) keep the debate on the truthful side, and (b) criticize the candidate, not the Freeper supporter?
JimRob has a nice, tidy file on what’s wrong with Romney, and it’s documented. Maybe others should compile something like that for ALL the candidates, so that true comparisons can be made. Sure beats calling one another morons.
I’m not the one throwing a tantrum here. I’ve told you what I think of Jim. I’ve told you what I think of WoW. I’ve told you why. Now I’m really done talking about this subject, and told WoW as much. If you must keep this going, I’ll tell you what I think of you. I base my statements on the facts, on reasoned arguments, and I don’t make personal attacks. See if you can do the same.
I’d say “Shame on you” but you obviously have none. You’ll disrespect the owner of the forum but still use HIS venue. You are the worst kind of guest, lacking all grace and manners. You’ll use what isn’t yours while spitting on the host and complaining about HIS behavior. That’s called HYPOCRITE.