Network News touting Dem momentum?

[MDC 7,677]

So: your sample is about 20 posters on here that you deem hold opposing opinions to yours. Great.

 

That, and the fact that the very first "tea party" occurred within two weeks of Obama taking office, leads me to believe that most of these complaints are just garden variety partisanship rather than a new movement.

 

Demographic breakdown of the Tea Party - according to Gallup.

 

Interesting. Tea Party membership is fairly mainstream, MDC. Make stuff up, much? The Tea Party has little to do with social conservativism, instead focusing on making Federal Government smaller.

 

If all the arguments you use to defend your position are wrong, wouldn't it stand to reason that your position is wrong, too?

 

Yes - yes it would.

 

According to Gallup about 80% of tea partiers call themselves Republicans and they're backing candidates on a GOP ticket.

 

Really? Most of the Tea Party candidates have mentioned little to nothing about religion or culture, instead focusing on fiscal policy. You made a claim, now prove it, MDC.

 

Here's a Google link which makes my case perfectly: the very first link is a progressive site trying to make an issue out of Tea Party candidates religious affiliation (an argument offered by the antagonistic left, as though that will be effective ), and the rest of the links displaying what the Tea Party candidates are actually focusing on: Spending, Jobs and Taxes.

 

The defacto leader of the party is an evangelical Christian who has argued for military action against Iran on Israel's behalf and requested $750 million in special federal funding as governor of Alaska, including $400 million for the "bridge to nowhere."

 

If the Tea Party really is about spending, jobs and taxes, why is Sarah Palin the keynote speaker at the tea party convention and the de facto face of the party? Why are the other tea party candidates mostly anti-immigration or evangelicals? Why did they wait until '09 to begin complaining about spending?

 

I acknowledge both. You apologize for Obama because his massive spending plans haven't kicked in yet - as though that somehow forgives his massive spending plans.

 

My point, which you seem to concede, is that debt has nothing to do with Obama's "massive spending plans" despite the constant complaints of the tea party.

 

Yes, yes I do.

 

Is it time for you to start sobbing about how everybody here is a big meanie yet?

[swamp dog 0]

Good luck on that. We've never had a guy fock up this bad either. train wreck! Ain't it great?

 

lol...you must not 1) be very old 2) read much history. obama isn't even close to the worst top-3 presidents in the last 100 years. and everyone in that list is republican.

[phillybear 366]

lol...you must not 1) be very old 2) read much history. obama isn't even close to the worst top-3 presidents in the last 100 years. and everyone in that list is republican.

 

James Buchanon is the worst President in U.S. history. Obama is #2. You could argue Andrew Johnson or Jimmy Carter #3.

 

Try reading history books, not the fun time kids menus at your local Denny's. I hope your pencil has an eraser so you can try completing the maze correctly this time.

[swamp dog 0]

James Buchanon is the worst President in U.S. history. Obama is #2. You could argue Andrew Johnson or Jimmy Carter #3.

 

Try reading history books, not the fun time kids menus at your local Denny's. I hope your pencil has an eraser so you can try completing the maze correctly this time.

 

no george the second on your list? you don't even have to read to get that one down, dumbass. i hope your pencil has a big eraser and you shove sideways up your ass.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

My point, which you seem to concede, is that debt has nothing to do with Obama's "massive spending plans" despite the constant complaints of the tea party.

 

 

 

 

Um, yes it does. Despite your blind love for everything Obama, his spending has added $3 TRILLION to the debt in under two years.

 

So what was your point again?

[IMMensaMind 462]

That, and the fact that the very first "tea party" occurred within two weeks of Obama taking office, leads me to believe that most of these complaints are just garden variety partisanship rather than a new movement.

 

Does it. I say: whatever. The point is that Obama was recognized by many as a Huge Government Socialist - and he's proven those who recognized him as such correct. Who really cares if a movement is partisan? Any strongly ideologically based political movement is going to be partisan. Duh. It's partisan against your boy. Yes. We get it.

 

According to Gallup about 80% of tea partiers call themselves Republicans and they're backing candidates on a GOP ticket.

 

That's my own link, so I'm aware. Again I say: so? The people who believe in small government are certainly not going to skew leftist, are they? Are you surprised? These people are not fringe, is the point - in that same link. Notice, btw, that Conservatives are the largest segment of the public.

 

The defacto leader of the party is an evangelical Christian who has argued for military action against Iran on Israel's behalf and requested $750 million in special federal funding as governor of Alaska, including $400 million for the "bridge to nowhere."

 

There is no leader. That is the beauty of the Tea Party. Whine all you want; attempt to marginalize all you want. All your bases are belong to us.

 

If the Tea Party really is about spending, jobs and taxes, why is Sarah Palin the keynote speaker at the tea party convention and the de facto face of the party?

 

She's been a speaker. The de facto leader part you added on your own. It's funny how you demand a political leader of the Tea Party which doesn't support any sort of spending at all, while simultaneously defending the large spender in our country's history. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You are also attempting to add a nifty buzz word to your vernacular: Evangelical. I got news for you, bub: most of the country is religious. You're going to lose that argument.

 

Why are the other tea party candidates mostly anti-immigration or evangelicals? Why did they wait until '09 to begin complaining about spending?

 

They don't have to explain themselves to you; I don't have to defend them. This is a strong movement going about the business of radically reshaping this government to return to its formerly shrunken state. All. Your. Bases. Are. Belong. To. Us.

 

My point, which you seem to concede, is that debt has nothing to do with Obama's "massive spending plans" despite the constant complaints of the tea party.

 

It's idiotic to attempt to claim that Obama pushing for incredibly expensive programs will not seriously impact the debt. Where the debt is now is bad enough - so what is your point? I've already told you that prior spending sent it skyrocketing as well. So what's your point? Why are you arguing against me and not joining me in the effort to end that ridiculous trend now?

 

Because you're arguing dishonestly.

 

Is it time for you to start sobbing about how everybody here is a big meanie yet?

 

What? People insult, and I choose not to, but instead point out how useless it is? Don't mistake my refusal to fire back idiotic insults as weakness in any way. It is the opposite, and the proper mature reaction.

[IMMensaMind 462]

no george the second on your list? you don't even have to read to get that one down, dumbass. i hope your pencil has a big eraser and you shove sideways up your ass.

 

Grow up.

[MDC 7,677]

Does it. I say: whatever. The point is that Obama was recognized by many as a Huge Government Socialist - and he's proven those who recognized him as such correct. Who really cares if a movement is partisan? Any strongly ideologically based political movement is going to be partisan. Duh. It's partisan against your boy. Yes. We get it.

 

 

 

That's my own link, so I'm aware. Again I say: so? The people who believe in small government are certainly not going to skew leftist, are they? Are you surprised? These people are not fringe, is the point - in that same link. Notice, btw, that Conservatives are the largest segment of the public.

 

 

 

There is no leader. That is the beauty of the Tea Party. Whine all you want; attempt to marginalize all you want. All your bases are belong to us.

 

 

 

She's been a speaker. The de facto leader part you added on your own. It's funny how you demand a political leader of the Tea Party which doesn't support any sort of spending at all, while simultaneously defending the large spender in our country's history. You are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. You are also attempting to add a nifty buzz word to your vernacular: Evangelical. I got news for you, bub: most of the country is religious. You're going to lose that argument.

 

 

 

They don't have to explain themselves to you; I don't have to defend them. This is a strong movement going about the business of radically reshaping this government to return to its formerly shrunken state. All. Your. Bases. Are. Belong. To. Us.

 

 

 

It's idiotic to attempt to claim that Obama pushing for incredibly expensive programs will not seriously impact the debt. Where the debt is now is bad enough - so what is your point? I've already told you that prior spending sent it skyrocketing as well. So what's your point? Why are you arguing against me and not joining me in the effort to end that ridiculous trend now?

 

Because you're arguing dishonestly.

 

 

 

What? People insult, and I choose not to, but instead point out how useless it is? Don't mistake my refusal to fire back idiotic insults as weakness in any way. It is the opposite, and the proper mature reaction.

 

I can see you're the kind of guy who'll go back and forth point by point ad nauseam and frankly I don't care enough to be bothered to do this much more, so I'll just leave it at this:

 

You acknowledge that most of the debt has nothing to do with new spending proposals and was mostly inherited by Obama and made worse by the economy, but you keep complaining about the debt anyway. You admit that the Teabagger party is overwhelmingly the same Republicans who sat on their hands while Bush doubled the debt and engaged us in his mammoth nation-building boondoggle in Iraq, but insist that they're angry about spending and not just having a partisan hissy fit. You claim they have no leadership but helpfully ignore the fact that their chosen candidates are evangelicals, neocons, former witches, and the type of guys who send bestiality videos to their coworkers. You make all sorts of assumptions and impugn my motives, then climb up on your high horse and congratulate yourself for taking the "proper mature reaction."

 

Mainly I think you're here to blow a lot of hot air and troll.

[swamp dog 0]

I can see you're the kind of guy who'll go back and forth point by point ad nauseam and frankly I don't care enough to be bothered to do this much more, so I'll just leave it at this:

 

You acknowledge that most of the debt has nothing to do with new spending proposals and was mostly inherited by Obama and made worse by the economy, but you keep complaining about the debt anyway. You admit that the Teabagger party is overwhelmingly the same Republicans who sat on their hands while Bush doubled the debt and engaged us in his mammoth nation-building boondoggle in Iraq, but insist that they're angry about spending and not just having a partisan hissy fit. You claim they have no leadership but helpfully ignore the fact that their chosen candidates are evangelicals, neocons, former witches, and the type of guys who send bestiality videos to their coworkers. You make all sorts of assumptions and impugn my motives, then climb up on your high horse and congratulate yourself for taking the "proper mature reaction."

 

Mainly I think you're here to blow a lot of hot air and troll.

 

just like sho. it's a strangely packer-fan/gop-apologist thing.

 

they'll never let it go and they'll pick to death the most mundane and tedious technicality until, well, you get bored like a dog with a used up toy and just walk away.

 

they can't be rehabilitated. they're ruined. let it go.

[IMMensaMind 462]

just like sho. it's a strangely packer-fan/gop-apologist thing.

 

they'll never let it go and they'll pick to death the most mundane and tedious technicality until, well, you get bored like a dog with a used up toy and just walk away.

 

they can't be rehabilitated. they're ruined. let it go.

 

 

And through all of that self-congratulations and hand-wringing, the ones throwing the insults are you guys.

 

[The Elevator Killer 659]

It is the opposite, and the proper mature reaction.

 

We don't play that here.

[Greedo 13]

Fox is far and away certainly more fair than the assh0les in charge at CNN (Rick Sanchez) and NPR (Juan Williams)

 

Let's agree none are balanced and leave it at that. Fox and fair in the same sentence is just silly.

 

The debt is due to spending. A revenue shortfall affects the budget deficit. We're talking about two entirely different things.

 

There is no recovery; you're just regurgitating a Dem talking point. There is no evidence of a recovery; there are indications of the opposite.

 

The debt is the sum of all deficits. A revenue shortfall can affect the debt.

 

The definition of an economic recovery has already been satisfied - the recession has officially ended. It may not feel much better, but it is a fact that the recession is over.

 

 

Gridlock will continue when Obama gets landslided out of office by a dead ferret or any other opponent thrown out there against him. The Repub/TeaParty/Independents might lost seats and maybe the Senate, but they will gain the WH again and we might get gridlock again. Maybe, just maybe, both parties could figure out how to work together to fix stuff. Ah, who am i kidding? Yeah, right.

 

Also, if you keep informing that voting public that all your ideas are being vetoed, that will loom very badly for Obama in 2 years.

 

Problem is, your fix and my fix may not be the same. I might rather have gridlock than your fix, and vice versa. Most people don't really want anyone to work together. Most want their own fix, or nothing.

 

Good luck on that. We've never had a guy fock up this bad either. train wreck! Ain't it great?

 

Worst presidents in history:

1) Richard Nixon

2) George Bush

3) U S Grant

4) Andrew Johnson

 

No one can really touch these 4.

 

 

Let's not play funny money: some TARP has been repaid using TARP itself. I do not call TARP a success; I call it accounting churning designed to further inculcate US Government into the private sector, using our own money.

 

I've posted discussions by the outgoing comptroller of the currency regarding TARP. Pretty sure his economic credentials surpass yours. Fortunately for you, you never have to find out what would have happened if TARP hadn't been enacted.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

The definition of an economic recovery has already been satisfied - the recession has officially ended.

 

Thank you, Joe Biden Jr.

 

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahah!

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

Let's agree none are balanced and leave it at that. Fox and fair in the same sentence is just silly.

 

That is an assertion that you can choose to prove, or choose to retract. Your opinion is meaningless wrt to your interpretation of the fairness of Fox.

 

The debt is the sum of all deficits. A revenue shortfall can affect the debt.

 

Non sequitur. The debt and the deficit are two different things. Just because you add 3 eggs to the mix to make a cake does not make an egg synonymous with a cake.

 

The definition of an economic recovery has already been satisfied - the recession has officially ended. It may not feel much better, but it is a fact that the recession is over.

 

Sophistry. A cancer patient's illness is over when they die as well. What matters is the quality of the recovery; as all recessions end. Can you establish whether Obama's policies aided, or shunted the recovery? How do you know?

 

Problem is, your fix and my fix may not be the same. I might rather have gridlock than your fix, and vice versa. Most people don't really want anyone to work together. Most want their own fix, or nothing.

 

I agree - but what is your point? The fact is that there is a landslide brewing because enough people have finally been awakened to the dire idiocy in Washington regarding insane levels of spending, while not making our lives better.

 

If this is played correctly, and those who attain office continue to educate the public on the proper course, some long-lasting changes can hopefully be made. Not the Hope and Change BS Socialism that we've been fed recently. I'm talking about taking an axe to Government.

 

Worst presidents in history:

1) Richard Nixon

2) George Bush

3) U S Grant

4) Andrew Johnson

 

No one can really touch these 4.

 

A list with no reasoning is just a list. Means nothing. Any "worst" list which does not include Jimmy Carter - the asshat who nearly single-handedly destabilized the Middle East by being responsible for deposing the Shah - is a sham of a list.

 

I've posted discussions by the outgoing comptroller of the currency regarding TARP. Pretty sure his economic credentials surpass yours. Fortunately for you, you never have to find out what would have happened if TARP hadn't been enacted.

 

Ah. The old "appeal to authority" fallacy. How about this: those 4 Presidents have executive credentials which far surpass yours. Sorta makes your objection to them as "worst" hollow, doesn't it? That is...if we're to follow the logic of "appeal to authority"...

 

BTW: outgoing comptroller is a Keynesian - which means that the term "economic credentials" is an oxymoron.