Don't hold your breath, Brad. They're all a bunch of ignorant hypocrites.

I like run of the mill parliamentary systems, where ordinarily no single party can dominate and must find coalition partners through various compromises in order to govern, with no party totally without influence. I think it's time for a constitutional convention. I believe Ron Paul should clearly have a national voice, even though some of his positions force me to see him as warranting quarantine until he is demonstrably rabies-free. I say, Bring him on!

OK, I've watched more than the first clip. I'd be mortified if I were to see such mindless lemmings pursuing me. Who could possibly want to govern and represent such morans?

On behalf of so many of us who fought to get the Constitutional Candidates (Dr. Paul and Dennis Kucinich) a fair shot at the same access and coverage as the rest of the corporate-friendly candidates - THANK YOU, BRAD.

Just amazing to re-visit those videos and be reminded of the hoards of people they all ignored, belittled, and DISENFRANCHISED. (**)

This underscores Karen from Illinois' astute and largely unexplored point re: the recent TEABAG convention in Memphis with only 600-1,000 attendees getting round-the-clock play on FOX and CNN, with regular updates from MSNBC and non-stop coverage of Palin's sloppy, awkward, high school SCA pitch written on her hand splashed all over HuffPo.

REAL Constitutionalists (formerly Ron Paul / Tea Party Patriots) are not as involved in the nasty neocon TEABAGGING EXPRESS fighting factions as the Republicans and the lying, corporate media would have you believe. (A real danger this scary false meme, setting up the false narrative potentially designed to make a manipulated election in their favor more palatable / easier to accept.)

This was evidenced by the "boos" heard from the CPAC Grinchy elders when the results of CPAC Straw Poll was announced. Five'll get you ten that the Birch Society / CPAC people didn't see it coming and used hand counted paper ballots.

(**Ron Paul's numbers were consistently manipulated throughout the Primaries, and were caught on tape as early as the IOWA STRAW POLL where delegates for ROMNEY and McCAIN were being allowed to vote multiple times, and large swaths of RP delegates were kept from voting at all. I believe there were also some allegations of "vote flipping" from the...Sequoias Voting Systems used? Mighta been Diebold. I could be off, going from memory. But after that, my MUCH SMARTER than the TEABAGGERS Paulites did not need to be schooled on election fraud. They schooled themselves. There is a UNIVERSE of difference in the intellect quotients / collective reasoning / reading and comprehension levels / organizational capacity between the original groups seen marching above and this Bastardized Army of Delusional Retirees. This is rarely addressed or explored or reported. Thank you again, Brad.**)

OT but gaining traction today:

A Tale of Two Babies by Sarah Palin.
http://theimmoralminorit...bies-by-sarah-palin.html

MUSICAL TRIGS?
http://breepalin.blogspo...10/02/musical-trigs.html

PALINGATE
http://palingates.blogsp...5954617#comment-35954617

First of all, I am a gay man - in a stable relatinoship. I deeply resent your homophobia in using an anti-gay slur to describe people with whom you disagree. Do you call blacks "jigaboos" or "jungle bunnies" when you disagree? Why not just call us fags and queers and have done with it? I think you owe a sincere apology to gays everywhere for this stunning and shocking attack on our sexuality.

The other is to ask you what I missed in terms of court rulings on the constitutionality of torture. Last I heard no less an authority than Alan Dershowitz wrote that there is no such constitutional ban, so long as the information gained from such actions are presented in court, at which time a judge would have no choice but to rule that informtion unconstitutional... the information, not the methods used to extract it. Very important difference.

What have you read in the consitution that the great constitutional scholar from Harvard missed?

While you are at it perhaps you could indicate what it is that you are calling "torture", or are you just devaluating the horror of the concept for the sake of minimizing the suffering of those poor souls currently being tortured in regimes around the world?

You have my personal email but I would greatly appreciate seeing a published response, following a public apology for your intolerance and judgemental condemnation of a vast percentage of the human race.

Charles @ 6 wrote:

I deeply resent your homophobia in using an anti-gay slur to describe people with whom you disagree.

It wasn't an anti-gay slur.

What have you read in the consitution that the great constitutional scholar from Harvard missed?

For a start, perhaps, Article 6, which reads in part:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land

I'm sure you and Prof. Dershowitz are well-familiar with the Torture Treaty signed by Ronald Reagan. There are other aspects of the Constitution and Rule of Law violated by the Bush/Cheney torture regime, but the above should give you enough to chew on for a while.

While you are at it perhaps you could indicate what it is that you are calling "torture", or are you just devaluating the horror of the concept for the sake of minimizing the suffering of those poor souls currently being tortured in regimes around the world?

No, I'm calling things like waterboarding torture, just as this country did when it actually tried Japanese soldiers after WWII for War Crimes that included waterboarding and put some of them to death in the bargain. Or are you just devaluating the horrors of torture for the sake of minimizing the war crimes carried out by the politicians you voted for and who betrayed and lied to you?

You have my personal email but I would greatly appreciate seeing a published response, following a public apology for your intolerance and judgemental condemnation of a vast percentage of the human race.

You have my published response, and no, you will not be getting an apology for anything. Happy tea bagging!

For Charles at #6,

There is no specific ban on torture contained within the constitution. However, constitutional authority banning torture is derived from treaties we, as a nation, have signed, thereby giving them the full weight of American law.

We are signatories here:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

http://findarticles.com/...is_n2137_v88/ai_6742034/

The following google search is of the key words "Constitution" and "Treaties" and offers discussions on how treaties affect the law here in America. (Treaties do NOT trump the constitution, but they DO define legal standing.

http://www.google.com/se...mp;aq=f&aqi=&oq=

As for the use of the phrase TeaBaggers, please research it's history in this context, as the group that morphed from the Ron Paul patriot movement actually chose that name for themselves.

Sorry Brad, not intending to step on toes...

Charles is apparently new and thinks issues like this are partisan.

They are not.

I do hope that Charles continues to explore this site. There is much to learn.

I think Trevor Lyman and his teaparty07.com had something to do with this. Watch him explains the stuff here: http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded

At least we wouldn't have to worry about voter fraud like the damn dems http://bit.ly/9lA48i

Hal, that candidate accused of harvesting votes?

Has no impact whatsoever on shitty and unverifiable and totally hackable electronic voting or Breitbart and his sidekick being total liars either.

So, what is your point? Please do come back and join us. And learn to fight for democracy and renounce 1 party rule forever.

Thank you Brad. Thank you for telling me what does not and what does constitute hate speech directed at an entire class of people. Please tell me if I am also wrong about fagot, queer, fister, tight-end and any of the others?

It must be then that the term "teabaggers" is not an attempt to dehumanize your opponents by using the word? I am curious, what is a teabagger to you? If you are talking about gentle ladies having high tea in Rittenhouse Square that would be a very different thing.

With apologies to Dan in PA, I do not think that Brad means anything other than a homosexual act in the use of the term. Nor do I believe that he (and his Brown Shirt fans who also posted) have any intent beyond projecting their own hate for gays onto people who simply hold different ideas.

On revisiting this site to see if a response or comment was posted I was shocked to see not only the defense of a homophobic and dehumanizing epithet, and then the restating of that same hate speech in the form of a demeaning attempt at making a joke my sexuality and my feelings of being offended.

I will not be coming back to "explore" this site, what I will be doing is contacting the Stonewall Democrats Club in which I am active and discuss with them where to go from here, without giving you the pleasure of being the object of a mainstream media news story.

You so-called Born Again Christion bigots make me sick with your constant hate speech and that you oppose some idea so much simply means that idea must be dangerous to you. If it is dangerous to people like you then it can only be good for the rest of us.

Screw you Hal why don't you join those Frauds with Medina and hope more people crash into buildings, look at her talking about the next day http://bit.ly/9XKLH4

First of all, Charles - from your first comments: What does it matter whether you were in a stable relationship or not? Does that somehow make you better than homosexual men who are not in a stable relationship? Or is it your own bias showing through - that you think people who are in stable relationships somehow have more credibility than those who aren't? I think you are bigoted against single people.

Second, the term "teabagging" does NOT apply strictly to a homosexual act. To think that male homosexuals somehow "own" that term is yet another representation of your own bigotry against straight women.

Third, where did you get the idea that anyone here is a Born-Again Christian? I don't believe any of us regulars have claimed to be such (I know a few of us have claimed atheism, and I know Brad isn't a B.A.C.) You are stereotyping Born-Again Christians, though, and showing yet another side of your intolerance. (Feel free to continue that, though.)

Fourth, PLEASE direct the Stonewall Democrats here. We could use their assistance in getting the word out on election fraud and other assorted malfeasances committed by BOTH major political parties and the mainstream media.

Word.

Fifth...Fuckin' Relax dude! There's real work to be done. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Whacky Charles @ 13 said:

Thank you Brad. Thank you for telling me what does not and what does constitute hate speech directed at an entire class of people.

Actually, unless I'm missing something, you seem to be the only one who did that.

Please tell me if I am also wrong about fagot, queer, fister, tight-end and any of the others?

You're the only one who used those words, too.

It must be then that the term "teabaggers" is not an attempt to dehumanize your opponents by using the word?

Since u seem to need some help (in more ways than one), here's some for ya. This photo was taken by Washington Independent's David Weigel on 2/27/09...

It's what the Tea Baggers called themselves before they realized what a stupid mistake that was for them.

With apologies to Dan in PA, I do not think that Brad means anything other than a homosexual act in the use of the term.

Don't believe I've ever described it at all. But I'm pretty certain it doesn't require homosexuals.

Nor do I believe that he (and his Brown Shirt fans who also posted) have any intent beyond projecting their own hate for gays onto people who simply hold different ideas.

Yes, we hate gays here. (Um, are u insane, btw?)

I will not be coming back to "explore" this site

Don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya! (Unless that's a gay term, too!)

You so-called Born Again Christion bigots make me sick with your constant hate speech

Ah, yes, that answers it. You are insane.

Charles...

I don't believe you. You're a troll. Only a troll would have a fake hissy fit over a silly issue.

The term "teabagger" is all over the blogosphere...yet you choose to have a midol moment at Bradblog....it's all too convenient...

Get a grip...as it were

Charles!
I am so not a homo sexual and love Tea Bagging
Since when did this become a "Gays" only act? I'm lost here, missed that memo!

My promise to "Tea Partiers" (the phony ones, not the real Ron Paul ones who were legitimately Tea Partying long before you Tea Baggers even began to completely misunderstand what the Boston Tea Party was about):

#6: I don't believe you're gay.

Anyone that starts with: "I'm gay and....", "I'm a lawyer and..." is a shill. Seen it before. Been there, done that.

And anyway, how dare someone come on and start demanding apologies, gay or not? Do you think the world revolves around YOU? Did you go on the million other sites saying "TeaBagger" and demand apologies from them? Who do you think you are?

Charles can't be gay, Big Dan. All gays have a sense of humor. Everyone knows that.

...plus, he misspelled "faggot."

The RNC is just as or more scared by Ron Paul than they are of any Democrat. Their media shills have been clued in to never say the name of "He who must not be named". Revisit the Jon Stewart interview with Bill O'Reilly and note when Stewart brings up Ron Paul, Riley quickly makes a dismissive joke and changes the subject, but can't even bring himself to say Ron Paul's name.

The last of message didn't come through @20:

Thanks for distinction Brad!

I was very suprised to see Brad feeding this troll. And, as a result, we got off and away from Brad's original message, which was to call the teabaggers on their hypocracy and single-mindedness.

Teabaggers don't THINK, they simply follow their emotional responses as programmed by their Fox News commentators.

Thank you, Brad. I had forgotten ho much fun I had needling my neo-conned friends and aquaintences about the tyrannies of Bush and the true alternative Paul offered.

Where the wheels of Tyranny are spinning and grinding up the wealth, lives, and liberty of the People may God grant me the vision to see the stick He has provided, the wisdom to lift it, and the courage to plunge it into the spokes of that wheel.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Why does Brad need the Tea Party crowd to speak up? Liberals have total control. It seems to me Brad should direct his fire towards those who actually have the power to launch an investigation into the Bush years and are doing NOTHING!

During a hometown visit recently, my sister tried to bait me into a liberal vs conservative debate by announcing that she was the member of the Indiana teabaggers. I had to ignore her comment and confession because I wasn't prepare with counter arguments. Brad, could you please do a post outlining a list of counter arguments for their nonsense. Thanks.

"Democrats share some of the views of the Tea Party movement" Nancy Pelosi

Imagine that, Nancy's a teabagger! Next thing you know Brad Friedman is going to be demanding the government cut spending.

Lisa, let me help you out here. Just tell her that you stand firmly agaisnt fiscal responsibility, cutting our $ 12 trillion debt and stand firmly for monetizing interest with more interest and accelerating this nation's default on it's debt.

ha ha...Brook. So you're one of them?

ur damn skippy, i'm one of them. I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes and 3 out of the 4 governments i pay taxes to are deep in the red. this b.s. is going to stop now, and we're going to stop it.

I understand the desire to throw the SOBs out of office. But turning to the GOP for salvation is absolutely insane.

All of the major problems right now were either created by the Republicans or made much worse by them. The banking crash happened because of LACK OF REGULATION.

The war in Iraq is a Bush–Cheney special.

In every case the Republicans go for what is best for richest part of the population with no regard for the remaining 98%.

GOP support for greedy insurance companies is just one example of priorities contrary to public interests.