Tea Party topples its first incumbent.

[Dinner]

Yes, Think Progress reported the tea bagger making that claim but that has zero baring on if the claim made by the tea bagger was true or not. Give how frequently tea baggers are wrong about everything it is not surprising that the evidence proves the guy wrong.

This isn't rocket science, Drake, so even you should be able to figure it out.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, Think Progress reported the tea bagger making that claim but that has zero baring on if the claim made by the tea bagger was true or not.

No, ThinkProgress reported that "Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) triumphed in his long-shot campaign for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts with the help of Tea Party activists" and "the Tea Party Express PAC spent nearly $300,000 backing Brown", you ****.

[Dinner]

OK, you're never going to admit the truth. The whole thing was based on one tea bagger making a wild and unsupported claim as several people have pointed out. You know you're wrong, I'm not the only one who has pointed out that you are wrong, but you're clearly just going to keep posting and never admit it.

[Drake Tungsten]

You're delusional.

[HalfLotus]

Scott Brown flip-flopped on a number of issues after he was elected. Tea Partiers immediately called him out on it, and plan to organize against him next election.

They got him elected on TP rhetoric. When he turned out to be a RiNO, they removed their support.

And I like how the lefties here flip out when a right-wing source is posted (regardless of its content), then turn around and post from ThinkSoros.

[giblets]

Do the teabaggers really think a hardline conservative representing Massachusetts is a viable goal? A moderate Republican that flip-flops from time to time seems to be the best they could hope for in that situation.

[Elok]

Do you really think they're interested in being practical or concentrating on what is possible, bearing in mind their long-term goal? That would be "politics as usual."

[Guynemer]

One word: smegma.

You'd figure a doctor would be more conscientious about his personal hygiene.

It has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with reminding you of your proper place in the order of the universe, mendicant.

[Heraclitus]

Someone mentioned poor people starving if there was no welfare state.


Suppose that is the case, why don't the poor people just eat cake or something if they can't buy bread on welfare?

[Imran Siddiqui]

They got him elected on TP rhetoric. When he turned out to be a RiNO, they removed their support.

Tea Partiers are morons. Scott Brown was always, quite clearly, a moderate Republican. In fact many editorials were written about TP expanding to support moderates instead of wacky far right wingers.

[Heraclitus]

About the only functional "Welfare States" that come to mind are the Israeli Kibbutz and the Amish Communities.

Also, though dependence is not the answer, outside of bringing back debtors prisons, expanding the perview of sanitariums and asylums to once more handle the poor, or use capital punishment as a deterrent, I just don't see a feasible way to completely get rid of the culture of dependence.

Why not go Wall Street on them? When you are born 70% of your labour belongs to you 10% belongs to the state if the state provides schooling and public healthcare and 20% belong to your parents as a repayment of their investment and a guarantee for their old age.


You can in hard times sell stock. If you go below 50% you loose the right to control your own time. You can still use your income to buy back parts of your earning your right to being your own CEO once again.

If you go like below 10% and your parents don't love you, the owners have a right to endanger your health for profit in nontrivial ways.


Problem solved!

Edit: I wonder how much my stock would be worth? That reminds me I want to buy some KrazyHorse stock, his earning potential has increased quite a bit in the past year!