[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

That request would have to have been made by the group organizing the event. Not the fault of local law enforcement.

Somebody dropped the ball. His office knew of the death threats. Did he council the congresswomen to have protection and she refused or did he neglect to protect. One of the 2 didn't see the death threats as worrysome.

Originally Posted by Stimpy

All of it very minor stuff. The most he would have received during those contacts was a citation and possibly a misdemeanor charge. Not enough to demand a psych eval, especially in a state where the Republicans have stripped out all money relating to health care. There just isn't money in the budget to order evaluations like you suggest.

Gregory Lee Giusti(one of your suppose tea party affiliates) was give a mental evaluation for threatening Nancy Peolski(sp). If the Sheriff bothered to bring charges against this guy a judge could have ordered a mental assessment.

Originally Posted by Stimpy

How do they know it was Tea Party members? Do you bother to read any of the links provided or do you just continue to practice projection bias? The people that were threatened knew some of those people who threatened them or had information that confirmed their affiliation.

Ok I went back and read your links. After that I googled them because your choice of news sources are frankly garbage. Here's what I've found:

Two of your examples were registered democrats. One of them was also a self professed White Supremacist.

One of the other White Supremacists was killed be his wife before he could act. He had filled out an application to join the National Socialist movement just before he was killed.

The third White Supremacist shot three police officers who came to his home to evict him. His mother had called and wanted him out of the house.

You listed an anti-government militia who has yet to go to trial so they are presumed innocent right? They have been in existance since before the Tea Party and like most of your other examples have no link to the tea party.

The lone black man in these links apparently had been listening to Glen Beck and decided to kill some Tide foundation members. He was picked up driving drunk before he ever got there. He apparently confessed to his intentions.

None of the articles I read referenced one thing Beck said that encouraged violence. This fellow came up with the idea himself. Having been convicted of armed bank robbery twice this guy might have acted on his plans. For the record: Although Glen Beck has spoken out against the behaviour of banks he has never told his viewing audience to rob one.

None of the links you provided(or I read) could point to any of these people attending a Tea Party meeting, giving them money, working as a volunteer for the Tea Party, or owning any of their literature. None of them were even identified as registered Republicans.

Only one of your examples were even threats against politicians and it was just a threat which prompted the mental evaluation.

Im sorry I missed the letter bombs. The one that was mailed to the Home Land Security director contained no clue to why. The other three directed to State politicians were because one guy was offended by some signs in his State that encouraged reporting suspicious observations to Home Land Security.

Originally Posted by Stimpy

How do you know what Americans are mad about? Most Americans don't even know what they are mad about. I don't see your argument holding much water. Look at the issue instead of the talking points.

Im not going to dig up the surveys. They're easy enough to find on line. Arguing the merits of their opinions is too far off topic for me. The point is: Whether or not you believe their beefs have merit they do know what they are mad at. Last November was an example of that anger being exercized in a healthy manner. You can credit the Tea party as well as many right wing commentators for that expression of democracy

Originally Posted by Stimpy

I want to know if the Tea Party is so up in arms about debt and the cost of government then why are they so firmly behind the Bush tax cuts? All those tax cuts do is add to the debt and increase the cost of government. Holding firm on those, which the Tea Party supports in spades, will add almost a trillion dollars to the debt and increase the service load. This is the contradiction of the Tea Party. They don't know what they are mad about and have no idea how to fix things, but they are good at being mad and making a lot of noise.

Debt is increased by spending money you don't have. The solution needs to be reduced spending. Increasing the tax burden on the productive members of society isn't fair and can be counterproductive during hard times.

Our governments should concern themselves with our protection and law and order. Wealth distribution should be determined by the creativity, resourcefulness, and sweat of the population. It is not the place of government to determine how much is too much and then take the surplus away.