I could get behind a party that professes to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But every Tea Party candidate on the ballot right now is extremely socially conservative, so if actions speak louder than words, the Tea Party clearly isn't it. They have no plan for cutting federal spending. They've promised not to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, the war on terror, or defense spending, which make up most of the federal budget. So it's hard to take them seriously. Let us not forget many of the things they are most upset about -- bank bailouts, auto industry bailouts, most of the deficit, most of the high unemployment, etc -- happened before Obama was even inaugurated. This isn't anything new. It's a group of lifelong Republicans (96% of them voted for McCain) who are angry as hell, and deservedly so. There's a lot to be angry at Obama for. But many, through a campaign of misinformation combined with only paying attention to politics recently, are being manipulated by the Republican power structure into voting back in the exact same *** responsible for a great deal of this mess in the first place.
How do you explain the Christine Odonald support then? Republicans won't donate money to her for the most part. Karl Rove thinks she's an idiot.
"The final age of this world is to be a time of troubles. Men will love nothing but money and self; they will be arrogant, boastful, and abusive; with no respect for parents, no gratitude, no piety, no natural affection . . . They will be men who put pleasure in the place of God, men who preserve the outward form of religion, but are a standing denial of its reality."—2 Timothy 3:1-5
How do you explain the Christine Odonald support then? Republicans won't donate money to her for the most part. Karl Rove thinks she's an idiot.
Rove was forced to back off, apologize, and support her after Limbaugh called him out on it. Republicans won't donate to her because she has no chance in hell of winning, and the money would be wasted. Not because they don't support her.
Leviathan.Chaosx said:
Can we all at least agree on the fact that the auto industry and the banks shouldn't have been bailed out?
I agree, but it's important to remember who was in the White House when both of these went down.
The bank bailouts were created and signed off on by Bush. Same with the auto industry bailouts, although on the latter, Obama arguably could have stopped Bush's plan from being executed and didn't.
I really do sympathize with the Tea Party. I would love a legitimately fiscal conservative party. But Republicans aren't it. There is no relationship - none - between federal spending and which party controls the Presidency / Congress. There is also no relationship between the parties and taxation. It's a myth on both sides.
The Tea Party is legitimately angry at federal spending, but their anger is being manipulated into voting back in the same group of *** (Boehner, et al) that caused a great deal of this mess to begin with. They're being told through outright lies (it was only a couple years ago guys, and it's one wikipedia click away) that the bank bailouts, the massive deficit increase, the auto industry loans, TARP, etc were all Obama's fault, when they were all signed off on under Bush.
There are legitimate reasons to be angry at Obama. You might not like health care or the financial regulation bill. But at least be angry at him for the things he's actually responsible for.
It's really sad that their legitimate anger is being harnessed and manipulated this way to preserve the status quo.
"The final age of this world is to be a time of troubles. Men will love nothing but money and self; they will be arrogant, boastful, and abusive; with no respect for parents, no gratitude, no piety, no natural affection . . . They will be men who put pleasure in the place of God, men who preserve the outward form of religion, but are a standing denial of its reality."—2 Timothy 3:1-5
The bank bailouts were created and signed off on by Bush. Same with the auto industry bailouts, although on the latter, Obama arguably could have stopped Bush's plan from being executed and didn't.
The trouble with the Tea Party is that because most are blinded by anger and only paying attention to politics recently, manipulative Republicans lawmakers can claim both were Obama's fault and people retroactively accept it as truth.
The bank bailouts were created and signed off on by Bush. Same with the auto industry bailouts, although on the latter, Obama arguably could have stopped Bush's plan from being executed and didn't.
I don't think that linking to pages that can easily be edited by anyone is a good way to get your point across.
The bank bailouts were created and signed off on by Bush. Same with the auto industry bailouts, although on the latter, Obama arguably could have stopped Bush's plan from being executed and didn't.
I don't think that linking to pages that can easily be edited by anyone is a good way to get your point across.
Lame excuse is lame.
Any other card to play on wiki? As far as general information goes, it is more or less undisputed. Specifics might be inaccurate but your reasoning as to why wiki isn't worth a damn is ludicrous.
I don't think that linking to pages that can easily be edited by anyone is a good way to get your point across.
Oh for the love of God.
Google it yourself if you want. There's literally thousands of pages out there confirming the timing of this. Or if you want, look up the actual bills themselves in the Congressional record.
The bank bailouts were created and signed off on by Bush. Same with the auto industry bailouts, although on the latter, Obama arguably could have stopped Bush's plan from being executed and didn't.
I don't think that linking to pages that can easily be edited by anyone is a good way to get your point across.
For every one person to give incorrect information on wiki, there's one person to correct it.
I try to explain these things to my parents, who are Tea Party protestors, but they don't seem to understand it. Constantly trying to "convert" me, like this is a *** religion or something.
Both sides are more interested in "winning" than the substance of what they win on.
Blatant lies? Retroactive historical revisionism? Doesn't matter. Just train your guys to scream "BIAS!" and stick their fingers in their ears when confronted with opposing information.
When both sides suck *** and have no plan, the only strategy left is to make your mindless followers so pissed off at the other guys, they'll vote you into power because they feel they have no other choice.
I mean, tell a Tea Party supporter than $290B of the $780B "stimulus package" was tax cuts, and they'll tell you that you're full of ***. Link them to it and they'll scream "BIAS!" and run the other way.
This is the problem with political discourse in the US these days. Like opposing sports teams, 24/7 news channels have become politics as entertainment. It's like watching ESPN.
At this point in time it is about stopping one party from having enough of a majority to make changes as they please, to pass laws that THEY want passed.
At this point in time it is about stopping one party from having enough of a majority to make changes as they please, to pass laws that THEY want passed.
...isn't that called Representative Democracy?
You can disagree with whatever party is in power, but... beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is.
At this point in time it is about stopping one party from having enough of a majority to make changes as they please, to pass laws that THEY want passed.
i always thought it was about sitting on their thumbs and only agreeing that television commercials shouldn't be too loud...
voting doesn't work on a federal level anymore IMO.
indecision and hidden agendas all day long.
The whole notion of political parties is flawed. Deciding where you stand on issues in any way other than on a case-by-case basis is foolish. The idea of picking a side or joining a group which has a stance on multiple issues shows a lack of individual thought (or hypocrisy if you disagree with the group's stance on anything).
If American politics is going to evolve, I really hope it isn't by the addition of new parties. I'd much rather see the public think about issues for themselves to an extent that forces the current parties to degenerate and lose their influence.
The Tea Party is the party of lost childhood fantasies and stark paranoia.
People who think things "used to be better when I was younger", when in reality, things only "used to be better" for white Christian men.
Modern Americans, in general are self-loathing creatures, but too proud to admit their self-hatred. It's easier and more comfortable to misdirect one's anger at someone else, and the easiest "target" for such misguided anger is someone who is "different" from oneself (insert here: immigrants, non-whites, Muslims, gays, etc.).
The Tea Party is the cesspool of this collective anger and hatred.
At this point in time it is about stopping one party from having enough of a majority to make changes as they please, to pass laws that THEY want passed.
...isn't that called Representative Democracy?
You can disagree with whatever party is in power, but... beyond that, I'm not sure what your point is.
Honestly I don't know what to think anymore. During the Clinton years work was good, I made a good living for my family. During the Bush years work was good, I made a good living for my family. During the Obama years I've been laid off twice, I struggle to pay bills, I've seen many businesses go under or leave the county. I watch my own daughter (who is an adult and does not listen to me) apply for government school grants, take the money blow it wait one year and rinse repeat. It all makes me sick, its give, give, give, no one has to earn anything anymore. I am currently 46 years old, I've had a job of some kind since I was 11, nobody GAVE me anything I earned it. Government bail outs and hand outs are ruining this county and it has to stop.
I don't group myself into any specific party because people are unique and you can't group yourself 100% as a Democrat or a Republican. There will always be at least 1 little thing here or there with that group that you completely disagree with. It's human nature to disagree.
I will say that I'm very PRO Capitalism and very ANTI Socialism...
Here's a short video I suggest watching. Many of you may not even know who Phil Donahue is, but seeing him mostly speechless during this interview with this Economist that was generally against his own views is priceless.
What is everyone's opinion on this movement? I'm socially liberal, financially conservative republican and I think they're a bunch of mindless idiots who have no understanding of the economy.
I'm just curious what most people think of them and why.
