>>>Thank you for the pointer, Marcia. I will try to calm down and stop being so emotional.
>>>
>>>No, I am not drinking again. Thank you so much for asking. FWIW, probably little, I do not consider what I said that venomous. You seem to be reacting from the current conservative playbook: be against everything, latch onto every little thing and figure out a way to attack it. What I would really like to hear is what the Tea Partiers are FOR.
>>
>>They are FOR showing the growing disdain by Americans in their elected representatives and a beurocracy in Washington that does nothing but guzzle dollars. It is a form of peaceful revolt spoken of by our founding foathers. I believe more drastic measures are necessary, but the tea-parties are a start.
>
>That's not for, John. What are you for? Do you have a positive agenda? It's easy to criticize from the bleachers.



Is Cindy Sheehan's protesting the war by desecrating funeral services for servicemen killed in the war postive? I bet as a liberal you'd say that was probably ok.

Tea Parrties are for:

reduced government
reduced spending
a proactive congress
less beaurocracy
lawful demonstration, etc.

By using these means, they are showing their current disdain for our government leaders.

You don't need a positive agenda, you need an agenda that will catch the eyes of those serving you... the congress critters, as you call them, are supposed to work for the people not the other way around. But again, that shade of meaning is lost on the liberal fringe.

I rejoiced this morning seeing that Brown had defeated the liberal windbag wishing to carry on as usual in "Kennedy's Seat". Maybe now Pelosi, et.al and the progressive whackos will take notice that its not business as usual, even for liberal voters, when you piss off enough of them by tying to force an agenda down their throats.