Actually, the comment wasn't aimed at you or this piece. Since you and I were able to have a respectable debate without resorting to namecalling, I was hoping you could explain to SimnoeHill how it much better a debate works that way.

"First: semantics. Who's Big Brother? The administration that wants to provide health care to all American citizens, or the Administration that said torture is okay, if we think you're a terrorist?"

Big brother is just what I use to refer to the government. And healthcare is man-made service, so it cannot be a right as there can be no right to enslave (anyone who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave), plus where in the Constitution is government given any say in healthcare? And if you read the Geneva convention, it outlines what is required to be considered a POW and thus protected, and the terrorists we're fighting violate every part of it.

"generalizations. People in the 60s protested publicly for human rights issues, like voting, anti-discrimination laws, women's lib, and sound environmental policy.
Today, I see birthers, secessionists, and gun collectors likening the President to Hitler because of minor political differences."

And in most cases, their protests resulted in damage to public and private property and injury to the police, whereas the Tea Party protests are generally peaceful and require little if any intervention by the authorities.

And for your education, I present the definition of fascism from the American College dictionary: a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.).

Look at how much Obama has grown the government, look at how much he plans to grow it more, look at how he and his supporters react to those who oppose him (remember that national security memo that came out right after he was elected, suggesting that anyone who pretty much disagreed with him was a potential right-wing terrorist?) and tell me he doesn't fall under that definition.

"Third: History. I remember from history class two times the National Guard was called out. The first was to desegregate southern schools and protect black students from the kind of racists who today think Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the country."

LOL, thank you so much for showing the "tolerance" that Obama encourages. I seem to recall, during the Bush administration, that dissent was called the highest form of patriotism by the very party that is now in office. How nice of you to demonstrate said party's hypocrisy. Oh, and if racism means holding both black and white presidents to the same standards, then I wear that title with pride.

"The other was Kent State, where the National Guard shot and killed 4 students, who were peacefully protesting the invasion of Cambodia."

Do reread your history and learn why the National Guard was called out in the first place and exactly how "peaceful" the protests were:

[link]

"If the National Guard hasn't been called out "this time" it might be because Tea Partiers, are, for the most part, middle-aged and white. It's much easier, politically, to point guns at ethnically diverse college students with crazy long hair."

Or, as rational people would say, perhaps it is because they are peaceful protests.

"Fourth: examples. I do believe that the fellow who shot a security guard in the Holocaust museum last year wasn't a Democrat."

He wasn't a republican either. He was an INDIVIDUAL. You just essentially said racism is wrong. Well, explain to me the difference between saying all blacks are inferior because a few of them are criminals and saying all Republicans are guilty because of the action of a few radicals?

"Neither was the guy who brought a machine gun to an anti-Obama rally."

LOL again, it was a semi-automatic rifle (automatic weapons are illegal). Please my friend, ignorance and hysteria are not the way to win a debate. And last I checked, there's no law forbidding that (in fact, there's a law that allows such an act called "open-carry". Many states have them).

"Oh, and the fellow who crashed his plane into the IRS building? The same kind of Libertarian that tea parties attract."

Why don't you read the whole letter of "the fellow who crashed his plan into the IRS building." (By the way, if you believe only right wingers are anti-government, look up Ho Chi Minh, Che, Fidel Castro, and Mao Zedong. All of them launched violent campaigns against governments) By the way, in light of your support for collective guilt, do I get to blame you for all crimes committed by your political group, gender, and/or race?

"Ditto the fellow who shot two security guards outside the Pentagon last week."

You mean this fellow:

[link]

[link]

"And to give you a mulligan, I won't name all the acts of violence and discrimination made against gay folk for the past sixty years."

So those were wrong, yet there's nothing wrong with labeling gun owners as right-wing terrorists, gun nuts, killers, etc and going after them everytime there's a shooting?

"The Final Burn: the entire bloody point of the piece is that the Tea Party is based on empty fury, and a notable absence of facts. Politicians who ally themselves with misinformed kooks will find themselves on the short end of the stick, every time."

Fact: The Tenth Amendment clearly states that any powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the people or the states.

Fact: There is nothing in the Constitution granting the government authority to bail out banks or businesses and there is nothing in it giving government any say in healthcare.

Fact: The Tea Partiers are protesting against out of control government growth and based on the above two facts, their protests are more than justified.

Rebuttal served.