Sloanfeld
Banned
Paul, party of one.
The Tea Party Movement
- Thread starter Scat
- Start date
Paul, party of one.
I agree completely. I would much rather see a Conservative candidate lose the election than have a RINO.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
My big beef is where were these tea party folk when we decided to spend trillions of our tax dollars for nation building?
I thought we wanted more freedom? Yet they were silent when a former President decided that the government could now read our text messages.
If their intentions truly were noble, then why were they missing in action all these years?
If they want to be considered a "serious" movement, then take out the racial slurs, eliminate Palin, sell your stuff to a wider range of Americans and not just a bunch of pissed off old farts in the south, and actually come up with some solutions. And no, freedom, liberty, and uhhh freedom and liberty and... Freedom and Liberty...
Aren't solutions. we need specifics. We've been all ears now for a while, yet they continue to beat that freedom and liberty. Oh yeah, and don't tread on me.
I thought we wanted more freedom? Yet they were silent when a former President decided that the government could now read our text messages.
If their intentions truly were noble, then why were they missing in action all these years?
If they want to be considered a "serious" movement, then take out the racial slurs, eliminate Palin, sell your stuff to a wider range of Americans and not just a bunch of pissed off old farts in the south, and actually come up with some solutions. And no, freedom, liberty, and uhhh freedom and liberty and... Freedom and Liberty...
Aren't solutions. we need specifics. We've been all ears now for a while, yet they continue to beat that freedom and liberty. Oh yeah, and don't tread on me.
It's why I could never vote for them. However, Tom Tancredo, illegal immigration extrodinarre, is running for Governor in Colorado as an American Consitution Party candidate, because the Tea Party candidate Dan Maes won the Republican candidicy and, to put it mildly, he might be the worst politician I've ever seen with no hope in winning. And Tancredo is for pot legalizaiton, as much of a nutjob he is on many other issues. I can almost see myself voting for him.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
It has really been shady since Clinton. He supposedly used accounting principles to make it look like he balanced the budget. Bush took over and spent spent spent. People really got tired of it at the end of the Bush Presidency with the TARP bailout. Then they found out about the Obama Stimulus and went irate. I don't think this has to do with race. There are some crazies in every group but most of the others are good people who want less government spending and less taxes or getting rid of the IRS altogether and adopting a consumption tax.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'm glad you have such a robust definition for what makes a Democrat. Does this mean that you think that "liberalism" means "spender"? LOL
The fiscal future of this country is an awesome smokescreen.....while the aristocracy tries to pull the wool over your eyes. Unfair labor practices...... bad faith bargaining ..... the state of labor in this country..... get to the real material reality of **** and stop huffing and puffing about the abstract "economy". Once you do, you'll see that all you are doing is getting distracted by somebody jangling their keys.
Just to be clear: I don't think either party is doing a good job. I support neither. But the suggestion that the Tea Party has the right vision and a winning stride is ridiculous.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
ah, c'mon, man! Don't bother him with that **** that says the wealthiest 1% should pay more!!!!!!!!! Don't bother telling him that their production is tied to the labor of everybody else and that they don't make their money in a vacuum!!!!! It's his goddamn money. period.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656
You were saying? Look closer. They still didn't balance the budgets. Just some nice accounting tricks.
TheMulletMutilator
Member
Unfair labor practices... LOL, I guess you are a big Union supporter. Glad to hear it.... There was a time for Unions and that was long ago. Now not only do they want the entire companies profit, but they want to own a piece of the company. Who in their right mind thinks someone working on the production line at GM with a high school diploma in most cases at best deserves north of 40 dollars an hour? Must be really tough to push a button. Unions are one of the reasons we now own a lot of GM. As for your Tea Party comment; I never said they were the end all right way of doing things. They supported a RINO and fake Conservative in John McCain at Sarah Palin's urging. But at least for the most part they aren't going out there are supporting losers and criminals. I see Charlie Rangel just won his primary and will again likely be back in the house. Lovely how that works.......
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You're right, why should something like "labor" be important when we are talking about "productivity"? God, sorry I missed the boat so thoroughly.
And, yeah! Why should a laborer own any stake greater than the ability to sell his own labor for a wage!
EDIT: BTW, the union that I'm a member of is asking for a 1-7% raise for the employees. A 1% raise would be about $1.17 million dollars in a $20 billion dollar budget. Are we going to get it? It's hard to say because they refuse to communicate with us. And, this union has organized 2 or 3 initiatives that would actually SAVE the company money (because they spend much of it in ridiculous ways), but they just must be anti-Union because they refuse to budge or show any sign of weakness to us. BTW, we are educators.... you know, doing that kind of "button pushing" work.
that's why in both those states the GOP acknowledges that they have very little chance of winning. Aren't they actually refusing to support the winner in Delaware?
anyhow, my feeling about the Tea Party movement is that they're a "style over substance" type of organization, big on clichés over meaningful content. I think they originated in opposition to some very concrete issues (TARP, Healthcare overhaul, the Reinvestment & Recovery act, etc) but now they're allowing those with a social agenda, rather than an economic agenda, to dictate more of their issues.
Congratulations! You win the cliche award for this thread. Can you tell me where you got all these talking points from?
Yes, let's completely stop paying any attention to economic reality and listen only to windbags huffing and puffing for more and more and more control. Economic illiteracy is great! Look where it's gotten us.
I'm sure you're going to rant about a service lead economy next, and follow that up with cost of living nonsense.
Just to be clear, in the article you referenced, the claim in the article you quoted is that the budget *was* balanced while Clinton was President, but that Congress did it despite Clintion. No mention of accounting tricks. So, I wonder if you bothered to read what you quoted.
The Tea Party is just a new name for the far right. They are still against gay marriage, immigration, and abortion etc etc. They still want to spend on the military. It's not only about fiscal responsibility, and spending less. You cannot have Sarah Palin be one of your national spokesmen if that was your goal. It's still about the Christian religion, immigration, and the extreme right's "values". When you vote for Tea Party backed candidates you are still getting Republicans. A new party and new movement worth a damn would not include religious zealots, and conservative radio celebrities as figure heads.
Ron Paul was the closest thing to a revolution we've seen from the right. It seemed like he was more for less government, along with giving all beliefs fair respect than anyone in the Tea Party.
The extreme religious right does not want religious freedom in the country. They cannot tolerate anything but their belief. That is the hump they must get over if they want to go back to the old
way of conservatism.
If you truly want a government that spends less, and stays out of your business you'll have a movement that will go down in history. This is nothing but a backlash, like we saw in the previous elections that were because of Bush.
Let's face it this is all setting up Palin for a run up against Obama in '12.
Ron Paul was the closest thing to a revolution we've seen from the right. It seemed like he was more for less government, along with giving all beliefs fair respect than anyone in the Tea Party.
The extreme religious right does not want religious freedom in the country. They cannot tolerate anything but their belief. That is the hump they must get over if they want to go back to the old
way of conservatism.
If you truly want a government that spends less, and stays out of your business you'll have a movement that will go down in history. This is nothing but a backlash, like we saw in the previous elections that were because of Bush.
Let's face it this is all setting up Palin for a run up against Obama in '12.
candrew
Well-Known Member
Laughable - it's bad enough you counter a non-partisan website with an uber-partisan group; you reference an article written by Stephen Moore who is currently riding a "Dimaggio-like" streak of making himself look like a jackass on any show with an open forum for debate.
candrew
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I don't believe this for a moment. If you look at who is behind The Tea Party Movement as well as The Birthers as well as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as well as the "Impeach Clinton" and "Vince Foster was murdered" groups; it's all the same people. The ultra rich trying to make sure that the trend of the rich getting richer which started during the Reagan Administration continues on indefinitely
All the other issues: gay marriage, family values, immigration, abortion...it's all just window dressing for the masses.
Exactly.
There are some articles out there that describe it as accounting tricks, but that isn't one of them.
Before I posted the fact check article I went out and read a couple of arguments that it was an accounting trick. Those arguments are largely premised on various theories about how social security was counted in the calculation.
I specifically picked the fact check article because a) they are painfully non-partisan and b) the article goes out of its way to explain that the budget was balanced regardless of how you count social security.