Liberal actress says tea parties were racist

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I was at the Tea Party here in Vegas and I assure you I am most definitely NOT rich. The aim was to raise awareness of those in power about their inept use of our tax money. Not only was it not racist in any way, there were several black speakers at the event. Security at the event was ordered to strictly enforce a ban on racist placards, t-shirts, etc. When I spoke with the LVMPD officers afterwards they said it was the most orderly, friendly and polite group of protesters they've ever encountered.

The original Tea Party in this current movement was conceived by a woman in Seattle, of all places. She is no millionaire, she's a *** and a blogger who is fed up with this irresponsibility. I heard the name of her blog is the "Liberty Belle."

As for Janeane Garafolo, I haven't cared one way or the other about her or her opinions. By the way, there were tons of liberal democrats in the crowd here as well. So she was talking about you, too. The fact that people subscribe to every idiotic thing she says makes me lose a little faith in the American people and liberals in particular. I tend to lump her, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon (Tim Robbins ***?) and Madonna into a group of people who should STFU if they're not attempting to entertain us. I really don't want to hear about politics from someone who's claim to fame was a starring role in "Mystery Men."

 

[The Paulinator]

Racist????

The woman who called Gen. Colin Powell a "house negro" is accusing someone of racism?

Attention whoring knows no shame, I suppose.

 

[Philbert]

She's as well-qualified to utter her opinions - like 'em or not - as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck are.

I just know you really meant to say " She's as well-qualified to utter her opinions - like 'em or not - as I am." That would be a bit closer to the truth.
At least for you...

 

[Philbert]

Racist????

The woman who called Gen. Colin Powell a "house negro" is accusing someone of racism?

Attention whoring knows no shame, I suppose.

She is in the same category as Fran Drescher's laugh.

 

[DukeLaCrosse]

Premium Link Upgrade



Well, now... another brain dead liberal from Hollywood that can't say anything nice and has to go on the extreme Liberal MSNBC and cry.

Premium Image Content

Upgrade to Premium to view all images in this thread

Upgrade to Premium

As well, she has ABSOLUTELY no freaking idea what the teaparties were about. She just has to make a story up and scream about it as loud as she can, which I'm certain is what Libs do anyway.

I believe if she keeps this rhetoric up, her head will explode....

... and then I will be happy.

the washington times is pure right-wing propaganda. only an idiot reads this crap

 

[Will E Worm]

your an idiot

You leave Georges alone. :nono:

He's correct. Obama had an empty slogan and people fell for it.
It's not like McCain was going to do any better.
But, Obama's "change" will not be something real American's want or like.

 

[Philbert]

the washington times is pure right-wing propaganda. only an idiot reads this crap

your an idiot

You need to make a compilation of all your Talk section posts, and get them published in the Washington Times...you have a subscription, don't you? C'mon, 'fess up...

I mean...the **** avatar; the short, usually profane, ignorant comments reflecting your primal-level hatred of those different from you (most of the human race, fortunately); I hear a Right-Wing extremist inside that closet!
C'mon out!

 

[bodie54]

"real americans" :rofl:

 

[Will E Worm]

"real americans" :rofl:

I wasn't addressing you. :tongue:

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: It's all over ...

The DHS, the wiretapping, the other things, people are starting to get scared.

What it looks like what the Obama administration is "gearing up for" is an ****** on any "alleged racists." The DHS paper disclosed by the Washington Times scared the **** out of me.

Premium Link Upgrade

There is a real pattern developing here. It's no longer about international calls by Americans, or people caught in Afghanistan. It's about using the same laws to push domestic agendas.

I hated Clinton for his Executive Orders in 1998 and W. again for pushing laws to expand that to fight ******. Because somewhere along the line, people forget what those laws were enacted for, and expand them into areas they were never intented.

Wiretapping wasn't initiated by Obama; that was Bush. All of the major changes in Homeland Secruity were also Bush. What Obama is doing is nothing new, yet, people want to criticize Obama and make him out to be the Devil.

Also, the wiretapping bill isn't so the government can spy on Joe Blow. It's a measure of national security. It's not like some government official is going to be tapping into your or my phone, listening in on our conversations about what we watched on TV last night or when we order a pizza.

People get all riled up about the stupidest **** that doesn't even concern them and their personal lives. All they want to do is complain about how "warrantless wiretapping" is against the law and unconstitutional, while completely ignoring the fact that valuable information that can be intercepted by doing such a thing, potentially saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives by preventing a terrorist ******.

We live in a country full of crybabies that are never happy.

 

[bustybbwlover]

Re: It's all over ...

People get all riled up about the stupidest **** that doesn't even concern them and their personal lives. All they want to do is complain about how "warrantless wiretapping" is against the law and unconstitutional, while completely ignoring the fact that valuable information that can be intercepted by doing such a thing, potentially saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives by preventing a terrorist ******.

We live in a country full of crybabies that are never happy.

i don't know i always thought our bill of rights was a bit important. altho i do agree with your point that the government won't be listening to the average folk, however, we've all read 1984 so i think people are more worried about the potential all this type of surveillance allows.

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: It's all over ...

i don't know i always thought our bill of rights was a bit important. altho i do agree with your point that the government won't be listening to the average folk, however, we've all read 1984 so i think people are more worried about the potential all this type of surveillance allows.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are important and the true laws of this country. The surveillance is a ********* of our right to privacy and just lets the government intrude more on our lives.

 

[stampede2873]

the washington times is pure right-wing propaganda. only an idiot reads this crap

Is Garofalo your auntie?

You tend to spill the same incoherent nonsense she does.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: It's all over ...

i don't know i always thought our bill of rights was a bit important. altho i do agree with your point that the government won't be listening to the average folk, however, we've all read 1984 so i think people are more worried about the potential all this type of surveillance allows.

Our government already has the technology and capability to monitor everything that we're doing. So, why be riled up over wiretaps?

 

[Facial_King]

Re: It's all over ...

Our government already has the technology and capability to monitor everything that we're doing. So, why be riled up over wiretaps?

So, are ya saying that we should really be bothered by the whole thing, or do you just not like the focus on the wiretaps??

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: It's all over ...

Our government already has the technology and capability to monitor everything that we're doing. So, why be riled up over wiretaps?

Because they are both ******* and against the Constitution and our rights.
Just because the government does it doesn't make it right.

So, are ya saying that we should really be bothered by the whole thing, or do you just not like the focus on the wiretaps??

I guess we should all just be good little sheep and do as we are told.

Think again. :hatsoff:

 

[Facial_King]

Re: It's all over ...

All of the major changes in Homeland Secruity were also Bush. What Obama is doing is nothing new, yet, people want to criticize Obama and make him out to be the Devil.

Bush isn't just behind "all of the major changes in Homeland Security" - he created the entire agency, itself a melding of several pre-existing agencies.

Also, the wiretapping bill isn't so the government can spy on Joe Blow. It's a measure of national security. It's not like some government official is going to be tapping into your or my phone, listening in on our conversations about what we watched on TV last night or when we order a pizza.

That's almost certainly not true. The old-school phone-tapping is no longer even necessary. Actually, all of your communications are most likely monitored and/or recorded, but perhaps not by an actual person. And how can you be sure that nobody here is or would be "of interest" to legitimate authorities with due cause and a reasonable suspicion? Today's Timothy McVeighs are almost certainly utilizing the internet, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't take interest in boobies with some political discussion on the side. Anyway, once again, Chef, it looks like you've turned off your skepticism switch. It sounds like you've accepted what the Bush administration and their lackeys have fed the public - "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about!" See here for a hint to how much that's pure b.s.:
Premium Link Upgrade

(from the article linked to):
"Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer.

"Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News.

Faulk said he joined in to listen, and talk about it during breaks in Back Hall's "smoke pit," but ended up feeling badly about his actions.

"I feel that it was something that the people should not have done. Including me," he said."

Also, see this:
Premium Link Upgrade

Excerpt:
"Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA," Klein's wrote. "And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens."

But not Chef - if authorities tell him he's not being listened to, well that settles it!

People get all riled up about the stupidest **** that doesn't even concern them and their personal lives. All they want to do is complain about how "warrantless wiretapping" is against the law and unconstitutional, while completely ignoring the fact that valuable information that can be intercepted by doing such a thing, potentially saving thousands upon thousands of innocent lives by preventing a terrorist ******.

We live in a country full of crybabies that are never happy.

That's a ridiculous attitude, frankly, especially coming from someone who is usually so forthright about being pro- "law and order". If someone breaks the law, they break the law, and should face the appropriate punishment....RIGHT? If we're talking about speeding, stealing a Snickers, or snatching a purse, you'd be first to call for the culprit's head, but here, I guess, breaking the law is just no big whoop? Not to mention the little "unconstitutional" whoopsie. If the cops just broke your door down and started rooting through your ****, saying it was for "public safety" reasons, would you just step aside? Wait, don't answer that....

I'd also recommend this to anyone who's a fan of the "If you have nothing to hide..." kind of arguments - actually, I think it's an ESSENTIAL read! :thumbsup::
Premium Link Upgrade

and here's a considerably longer, and more thorough, analysis:
Premium Link Upgrade

Not wanting to be trampled by tyrannical, over-reaching authorities doesn't make one a "crybaby." What would you have said about the ORIGINAL tea partiers in colonial America.... I **** to guess...

 

[Elwood70]

the washington times is pure right-wing propaganda.

....and The Washington Post is the same for the left.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Re: It's all over ...

So, are ya saying that we should really be bothered by the whole thing, or do you just not like the focus on the wiretaps??

I just don't like how people cry about everything. Recently (for the past few years), our country has been going through this phase of rebellion. No matter what our government does, right or wrong, the public has this strong dislike of what is going on.

When our banks started tanking, people cried for help. When the government offered help, those same people cried about how the government was getting involved with businesses and their financing. It's just really annoying to live in a country full of people who are never happy. They just complain about everything that happens, even if it's what they've been asking for.

Because they are both ******* and against the Constitution and our rights.
Just because the government does it doesn't make it right.

You obviously have no idea how national security works and how it protects people like you and I from getting ******.

Bush isn't just behind "all of the major changes in Homeland Security" - he created the entire agency, itself a melding of several pre-existing agencies.

Very true. So, what Obama is doing isn't anything new.

That's almost certainly not true. The old-school phone-tapping is no longer even necessary. Actually, all of your communications are most likely monitored and/or recorded, but perhaps not by an actual person.

You're right...the government does monitor a lot of things on a regular basis. Our purchases, our travel records, our spending habits, DVD rentals, our school performance, our job choices, etc.

People who are upset over wiretapping are upset over nothing new. The government monitors the public's internet usage (search engines, website hits, IP addresses, downloads, etc), so how is wiretapping any different? The answer: IT'S NOT. Yet, people want to get all pissed, just because it involves a phone.

And how can you be sure that nobody here is or would be "of interest" to legitimate authorities with due cause and a reasonable suspicion?

My comment wasn't to be taken as a "nobody here (at FreeOnes) is a potential terrorist" or something like that. My comment was to point out that the government isn't going to be randomly wiretapping Joe Blow, who has absolutely no reason to be wiretapped. They're going to do their research, find out who could provide valuable information and who could be a serious, potential threat to our country, and then wiretap them.

Anyway, once again, Chef, it looks like you've turned off your skepticism switch. It sounds like you've accepted what the Bush administration and their lackeys have fed the public - "If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about!" See here for a hint to how much that's pure b.s.:
Premium Link Upgrade

My *** works for the Department of Homeland Security. I know a lot more about what really goes on than what you are reading in a newspaper or seeing on the internet.

That's a ridiculous attitude, frankly, especially coming from someone who is usually so forthright about being pro- "law and order". If someone breaks the law, they break the law, and should face the appropriate punishment....RIGHT? If we're talking about speeding, stealing a Snickers, or snatching a purse, you'd be first to call for the culprit's head, but here, I guess, breaking the law is just no big whoop? Not to mention the little "unconstitutional" whoopsie. If the cops just broke your door down and started rooting through your ****, saying it was for "public safety" reasons, would you just step aside? Wait, don't answer that....

People are using the argument that it's "unconstitutional" a lot when it comes to this wiretapping issue (and plenty of other issues). Every single person in the United States has a different interpretation of The Constitution. To act as if wiretapping potential threats to our country is unconstitutional or unlawful is all a matter of personal interpretation. There is no place in The Constitution where it says that wiretapping somebody's phone is unlawful, so why is everybody, all of a sudden, becoming an amateur expert in governmental law?

And, if the police broke down my door and starting going through my ****, and they had a justifiable reason to be doing so (IE - public safety, national secruity), who the fuck am I to get mad about that? Seriously, who the fuck am I to put personal inconvenience or annoyance in front of the safety of my fellow countrymen on the level of importance? Actually, who the fuck is anybody to do that?

That's the problem with a lot of the so-called "patriotic" Americans now-a-days: they want a better America...but, just as long as they don't have to sacrifice anything or be inconvenienced, even in the slightest degree.

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: It's all over ...

You obviously have no idea how national security works and how it protects people like you and I from getting ******.

That's almost certainly not true. The old-school phone-tapping is no longer even necessary. Actually, all of your communications are most likely monitored and/or recorded, but perhaps not by an actual person. And how can you be sure that nobody here is or would be "of interest" to legitimate authorities with due cause and a reasonable suspicion?

:tongue:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. Benjamin Franklin