In other words, you are insisting that your labels are correct, only because you say they are. Whenever anyone else suggests a label that you disagree with - regardless of factual support for it - you tell them that they are not "in good faith" or other such silliness, even though they supported the label vastly more so than you. In other words, your argument is hypocritical.
Now you're entering into fustakrakich realms of blindness to the degree to which your arguments apply to yourself, which is 100%.
Have you read the words I wrote, or the words you just wrote? It is unquestionably correct that there is absolutely nothing about President Lawnchairs actions that in the least bit resemble communism, yet you insist that to be an accurate label just because you say so. Similarly, his actions are overwhelmingly conservative, yet you claim the opposite in spite of the facts.
What is really amusing about this is the fact that you should actually proudly accept him as a conservative. Under the Lawnchair Administration we have seen unemployment go down, federal deficits go down, and tax rates go down (on your favorite "earners", at least) as well. Those are all things that conservatives like, no? These have happened while he has continued to sign off on the most conservative federal legislation we have ever seen.
And you're still incorrect about #SillyHashTag
This strange way that you are using "incorrect" is strange.
Were he conservative, for example, conspiracy conspiracy conspiracy
I would love to know how that conspiracy connects to reality. I can count on you to not bother telling us.
counter-factual label that connects to nothing at all
different conspiracy, with fun kinky overtone, that does not connect to anything
Indeed this does not connect, either.
conspiracy that counters earlier conspiracies
Where are you going with this?
And all of the Tea Party criticisms will stand vindicated.
Only in showing that the Tea Party is critical against reality.