TEA? No Thanks.

You are so biased, I feel pity for you.

The TEA partiers are a group of people who care about the future of America, just like you. Just because you try to insult someone you disagree with doesn't make you right. We are right, you are wrong and that is the end of the story (Andrew Wilkow).

The TEA partiers are center of the road to right. They are not all far right, just like your party is not all socialists.

We want: Constitutional conservatism

Less Federal government

More personal and governmental financial responsibility

Accountability in all things, especially politicians

More state control

More freedom

You want:

Liberal Constitutional interpretation or ignoring the document altogether

More federal governmant

Less personal and governmental financial responsibility

No accountability for actions

Less state control

Less freedom

I'm sure you think you're cute by talking about the Pacers, but the fact is every professional team is given tax incentives and stadiums in order to draw the financial investment to a city. The agreement happened a day after the agreement for the Colts and requires no tax increases. It will however have a huge return on the investment unlike the Bush and Obama "stimulus giveaways". A $3.3 million per yer rent agreement with the Pacers sounds like a great bargain to me and anyone else that reads the books. However, Pelosi said we should pass the Healthcare bill without reading it so we could find out what is in it later. Clueless!!!

The bottom line is, you are comparing your mole hill to the range of mountains created by this current administration and Congress.

This electoral body is a joke and they are gone in November.

Even though you don't enjoy tea parties, that doesn't mean you are knowledgible about their motives.

We are sick of the elite snobs of Pelosi, Reid and Obama living by a different standard than America.

You can not pull up the reciepient class by tearing down the provider class. Chavez and Castro could tell you about that.

The only negative people in the meeting were you and the grouch that kept rambling on for 10 minutes. You are better off in a party of negative thinkers,socialists, and tax evaders...stay where you are and enjoy your next 75 days.

Cow Rancher feeling pity for someone's bias. Give me a break. The TEA party, who is supposed to be for the constitution, now wants to toss out both the 14th and 1st amendments.

RDK - I am one of your whooooole lot of people. Well said.

And let's just see who is trying to turn this great nation over to corporations. Is it Dan Coats or Brad Ellsworth?

Dan Coats is.

Who do you think Coats is going to represent in the Senate if he wins, Hoosiers or BP, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America?

Dan Coats is the man to sell this country to his corporate interests. Coats has come under fire for having lobbied for multinational corporations and financial institutions like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and AMGEN. But he's also lobbied for foreign governments, including India and Yemen.

Coats and King & Spalding, the lobbying firm Coats works for, are trying to take the United States away from "We the People," and turn the U.S. over to corporations, Foreign and Domestic.

Coats is a lobbyist who has been trying to turn the people of this great country into second class citizens and make corporations, Foreign and Domestic, into first class citizens who control the country.

Maybe its time that "We the People, rise up and overthrow the corporations, Foreign and Domestic, who control this country and the politicians who support the corporate take over.

Don't forget the preamble to the Constitution says "We the People" not we the corporate interests. We live in the United States of America not the United Corporations of America.

So Drew, I guess you missed the part about how the two of the speakers were former democrates and how all of the speakers were against what BOTH the republicans and democrates have done for the LAST four years. As far as your question about the Pacers, Cowboy is right, anyone would have know your were trying for a gotcha moment and I thought Mr Mourdock did a very good job in answering it. You certainly did not do a very good job at keeping a low profile, we saw you the moment we walked in, and by your attitude, we knew you DID not come with an open mind, so please do not pretend to have one.

Imagine my confusion and others' that someone who attends a TEA Party is not a TEA Party activist, since it is so often used interchangeably by... others. (TEA Party attenders, TEA baggers, etc.) Therefore I mistook your current usage. And of course you would find the ideology off. No offense but our mindsets are near to 180 degrees. Your statement: "I just wanted to take pictures of the posters, of the people serving snacks, and any other outrageous things I saw, and then leave." (not very open minded) Sorry, but I can't jump on your wagon of thought.

Outrageous. Really? What have you been reading? Do you really think that people without a higer education are just gullible lemmings?

Regardless of the historical "factualness" (yes I know spell check doesn't like the word but I do) it still points to the concern of many TEA Party "attenders" as I stated earlier.

Sorry, I didn't see Mr. Rolling Stones talk to you previous to your question but I probably would have taken a closer look and recognized you. Aside from the note pad and shuffling walk, the t-shirt kind of grabs the attention.

I can't remember all that I read about the Pacers' ordeal but I thought that with your obvious concern you would know the answer from one of the many articles written on it. So I can't help but think that you were baiting. Personally I couldn't care less if they moved but they do bring in some money for the community. I guess that's why they are being lured... and were originally lured here from the coast.

PS: Figures, I would comment for the first time in months and draw your attention. Gotta learn to read it and move on, but since I was there I had to speak.

notgreenenative -sorry you got that out of my statement but I am sure you were looking for something. Glad that was all you are trying to spin. Thankfully though, my "credibility" still stands. (didn't know I had any, thanks!) Now focus on the subject at hand.

notgreenenative

You took what I said to be about him being out of place for his long hair. I meant that his pic shows short hair. His hair was longer than in the pic. I have never seen him in any other setting. The difference was enough for my simple mind for me not to recognize him. The length of his hair was nothing to do with perceiving his political affiliation. That connection was due to his being Drew... If you are thin skinned about your hair then re-think your choice. Otherwise please do not read that into my statement. Please do not make the commenting section of this blog about hair. I was merely teasing him, trying to lighten the conversation so that I would not be taken as harsh or venomous. I sometimes do that so that the conversation can continue without getting hateful. Sorry for causing such a sidetrack. Can we now move past this and back onto topic? Gotta go to work now. Please be kind and on topic.

No one is biting, Drew. Guess everyone is tired of the political baiting you seem to draw inspiration from each installment. Might be time for an original thought or idea, one that actually will test your skill as a writer and researcher and not just an instigator. Sorry.

Mtvsportswriter I also don't want the mosque, but I will at least be honest for my reasons. You call the man involved a "radical Muslim" is this the same man that has been seen many times with Condalezza Rice? Quote. "But such characterizations don't square with the project's mission -- or the career of its spiritual leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. (Rauf heads up the Cordoba Initiative, the organization sponsoring the center.) Rauf was considered moderate enough during the Bush years to lecture FBI agents about Islam. And he is targeted on theological grounds by the same militant Islamists that mosque opponents claim he represents.

Rauf was sent by the State Department on several speaking tours in the Middle East under President George W. Bush. He also attended a U.S.-Islamic World Forum with close Bush adviser and then-Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes".

How would a "radical Muslim" be that close to Geo. Bush and his Cabinet? As I stated, I also am not in favor of the Mosque, but not because of the Muslim faith, just because I think it should be considered Sacred ground.

Zoning issue? Indeed. On what grounds? The fact that an old Burlington Coat Factory building is a "historic site?"

There are other churches in the area including two other mosques that have been there for years. If you are going to zone the area as not allowed for churches, then you would have to include those as well. That would include the Catholic Church that is a block closer to Ground Zero than the proposed Muslim center and mosque.

If you are going to zone a single building as not allowed for religious purposes based only on the fact that you disagree with Islam, then that is simple religious intolerance and will not stand up in any court. Sorry, even Justices Scalia and Roberts will not side with an obviously prejudicial stance as that one.

Are you suggesting that we modify the First Amendment to say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; except when we feel like it?"

The Muslim society has the legal right to build wherever they can get the permits to do so. Is it wise to build their religious center on or close to where a Muslim group perpetrated such destruction, probably not.

But the zoning argument will simply not hold water. Is this a popular stance? No.

I suppose, had President Lincoln checked the polls first, he would have never issued the emancipation proclamation.

Oracle Granite: A question for you:

"As I stated, I also am not in favor of the Mosque, but not because of the Muslim faith, just because I think it should be considered Sacred ground."

I agree that the site itself should be a memorial. How far should this disctinction extend?

Anyone who has ever been in lower Manhattan would know that in the vicinity of the actual WTC site, there are literally thousands of businesses as well as social and religious activities.

How many of these would would be forbidden? What would you do with the existing churches that have been there for hundreds of years?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

Lil' Hahn I was just trying to show that I also can look at both sides of an argument. But this is one reason I also hate Zoning, this is what will happen if Greene County does go to Zoning. No one has stated who would buy this land that is already owned by the people that want to build the Mosque either. Hell if they really don't want the Mosque, offer them a better piece of ground and see if they take it, lets face it, this is a Political effort on the part of the Republican party, yes I know the party that supposedly wants to always go by the Constitution, other than I live in Arizona and they want to change the 14th and 1st amendments.

Cow Rancher: Your statement indicates that you are indicting all 1.1. billion Muslims for the crimes of Usama bin-Ladin and Al-Queda? Or are simply admitting that it is your religious bias and prejudice, and that alone, is your reason for not wanting this mosque to be built? My guess is that the answer to both is yes, your intolerance is showing.

I think that President George W. Bush may disagree with you, look at his statement on the subject of Islam:

*"Ours is a war not against a religion, not against the Muslim faith. But ours is a war against individuals who absolutely hate what America stands for, and hate the freedom of the Czech Republic. And therefore, we must work together to defend ourselves. And by remaining strong and united and tough, we'll prevail."

Press Conference by President Bush and President Havel of Czech Republic

Prague Castle, Prague, Czech Republic

November 20, 2002

*"Some of the comments that have been uttered about Islam do not reflect the sentiments of my government or the sentiments of most Americans. Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America."

Remarks by President George W. Bush in a statement to reporters during a meeting with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan

The Oval Office, Washington, DC

November 13, 2002

Oracle Granite: Understood.

Cow Rancher you have again proved what every one thought. You have stated over and over that you belong to no Political party, but as you just stated,"I hope every democrat in the House and Senate stands behind this mosque. Then they can be added to todays' 500,000 new unemployment recievers". So that is the words of an independent, try being honest for once. Name me one Democrat that the Tea Party is financially backing.

Cow Rancher: I have read the long and concensed versions of your explanation, and rest assured, I did not mis-interpret either.

Cow Rancher, so should I take this to mean that you feel that at least 90% of the Republicans should be voted out of office for voting NO to the Health care bill without reading it, that is about the % that said they had not read it before voting, or is it OK to vote no, just not yes. I am still waiting for you to name a major democrat candidate that the Tea Party is financially backing, after all I remember you stating that the Tea Party is not partisan, they just want to back the best candidate. And why did we not have a Tea Party when Geo. Bush took a surplus and ran it into a deficit.

What an ignorant comment to say that people who voted against the bill didn;t read it either...duh....of course not!

The Patriot Act is only 342 pages long. One could read that in an evening. However the Obamacare bill is over 2400 pages long (eight times longer). I knew we were in trouble when Harry Ried said "we won't use reconsiliation to pass the healthcare bill." Nancy Pelosi said, "we will know what is in the bill after we pass it." Harry lied and Nancy told the truth. What a bunch of crooks. Our children will pay the price.

Predictions:

Republicans will retake the House on Nov. 2.

Democrats will retain the senate, narrowly.

The mosque at 911 site won't be built there.

Obama will be gone in 2012

America will recover like she did after Jimmy Carter.

cow rancher, how would you know you didn't want to vote for a bill if you didn't read it, and you call me ignorant.

Some very good points from Ron Paul:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20...

"The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.

"Instead, we hear lip service given to the property rights position while demanding that the need to be "sensitive" requires an all-out assault on the building of a mosque, several blocks from "ground zero."

"Just think of what might (not) have happened if the whole issue had been ignored and the national debate stuck with war, peace, and prosperity. There certainly would have been a lot less emotionalism on both sides. The fact that so much attention has been given the mosque debate, raises the question of just why and driven by whom?

"In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.

"They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars. A select quote from soldiers from in Afghanistan and Iraq expressing concern over the mosque is pure propaganda and an affront to their bravery and sacrifice.

"The claim is that we are in the Middle East to protect our liberties is misleading. To continue this charade, millions of Muslims are indicted and we are obligated to rescue them from their religious and political leaders. And, we're supposed to believe that abusing our liberties here at home and pursuing unconstitutional wars overseas will solve our problems.

"Many fellow conservatives say they understand the property rights and 1st Amendment issues and don't want a legal ban on building the mosque. They just want everybody to be "sensitive" and force, through public pressure, cancellation of the mosque construction.

"Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.

Refreshing views.

If someone reads a bill, then votes, they are then held to account. The constituents will decide if they are representing them or not.

The only names I label people are far-left liberal, progressive liberal, democrat, moderate, tea partiers, Constitutional conservative, moderate republican, far right republican and maybe some specialized catagories, like "socialist", "cows" or "sheriff", etc... These really aren't meant to be name-calling but catagorizing from the represented points of view. Drew is a progressive liberal. I am a Constitutional conservative.

Again, I don't know anyone (the democrats are making it a talking point issue when it naver was an issue to begin with) who is questioning the first ammendment rights of the mosque builders, but the majority of Americans question the intention and lack of compassion. I only read a comment, decide the point of view then agree or disagree, the same as you.

oracle, you said, "How does one know they don't want to vote for it if they don't read it?"

Thank you for admitting that. You agree with me.

If you are so thin-skinned to think that you are being "name-called", then I apologize if I made you think that.

Good grief, one more time. I am saying congressmen should vote "NO" until they have a chance to read it. If they vote either way, yes or no, then they are playing "Let's make a deal." What is behind door number 2, I don't know, but I'm voting for it. Again , thank you for agreeing that one must read the bills first before voting on them.

I did not call you names. I catagorized your behavior and comments into a metaphor. If I was going to call you a name, it would be something like "genius", for example. You see the name "genius" would be taking the place of your real name. But don't worry, I will not call you that name.

I did apologize if you thought I called you a name, but you never accepted my apology, will you now. If not, then you don't understand repentance, either.