2012 election the year that proved the TEA party is a sham

[bigrebnc1775]

What we've noticed is how desperate turds like you are to use anything you can to discredit the TEA Party.

You still FAILed.

Turds like me? You are so fucking anyone but obama bullshit I am fed up with it. god damn you fucking hacks don't get it Newt and Romney have the same god damn agenda obama does. but you fucking support the rino's to get obama out to replace him with the same of fucking shit.

Truly fucking pathetic people.

Are you a paul supporter?

He's the best person running that has some of the values I have. Romney doesn't and newt a flip flopper one time big government guy, but happen to change those views this election cycle, So he's out.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who are you going to vote for, Ron Paul?

I've got news for you: Ron Paul can't win.

We can only for one of the candidates that is actually running. If you want perfection, you're on the wrong planet.

Getting better candidates has to start years and years before the primary season. It isn't going to happen this election, so just live with it and quit your whining.

Do you really want 4 more years of Obama?

Ahhh, the old "can't win" thing that we are sold by the corporate media.

Well obviously if everybody voted for Paul he would win, that is a gimme, it's just that Paul cannot get enough people crazy enough to buy into his foreign policy ideology, so therefore being that mathematically he cannot get the votes he cannot get the win. It's simple really.

So only crazy people want a Constitutionally controlled government?

 

[grunt11b]

Turds like me? You are so fucking anyone but obama bullshit I am fed up with it. god damn you fucking hacks don't get it Newt and Romney have the same god damn agenda obama does. but you fucking support the rino's to get obama out to replace him with the same of fucking shit.

Truly fucking pathetic people.

Are you a paul supporter?

He's the best person running that has some of the values I have. Romney doesn't and newt a flip flopper one time big government guy, but happen to change those views this election cycle, So he's out.

Dont get me wrong, I love pauls domestic agenda, but the foreign policy non-interventionist agenda scares the shit out of me. In this day and age you have got to do something about terrorist supporting countries like Iran building nuclear weapons. Now I say that only in the case that if we have factual evidence then we must act on it.

 

[grunt11b]

Ahhh, the old "can't win" thing that we are sold by the corporate media.

Well obviously if everybody voted for Paul he would win, that is a gimme, it's just that Paul cannot get enough people crazy enough to buy into his foreign policy ideology, so therefore being that mathematically he cannot get the votes he cannot get the win. It's simple really.

So only crazy people want a Constitutionally controlled government?

I would love to have a constitutionally controlled government, but it's not going to happen at the presidential level, it has to happen in congress first. The president cannot do anything that the house and senate does not give him permission to do. unless he is Obama of course and commits impeachable acts that noone seems to care enough to impeach him for.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Are you a paul supporter?

He's the best person running that has some of the values I have. Romney doesn't and newt a flip flopper one time big government guy, but happen to change those views this election cycle, So he's out.

Dont get me wrong, I love pauls domestic agenda, but the foreign policy non-interventionist agenda scares the shit out of me. In this day and age you have got to do something about terrorist supporting countries like Iran building nuclear weapons. Now I say that only in the case that if we have factual evidence then we must act on it.

He would defend this country he would do it with the authorization through congress. He would not send troops to god knows where just because he could.

Now about Iran we only know what we are told about them through our media and our government. The same thing we were told about Iraq how did that work out?
10 years later we lost men and women and our due process, and right to privacy

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well obviously if everybody voted for Paul he would win, that is a gimme, it's just that Paul cannot get enough people crazy enough to buy into his foreign policy ideology, so therefore being that mathematically he cannot get the votes he cannot get the win. It's simple really.

So only crazy people want a Constitutionally controlled government?

I would love to have a constitutionally controlled government, but it's not going to happen at the presidential level, it has to happen in congress first. The president cannot do anything that the house and senate does not give him permission to do. unless he is Obama of course and commits impeachable acts that noone seems to care enough to impeach him for.

It's a start.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Well obviously if everybody voted for Paul he would win, that is a gimme, it's just that Paul cannot get enough people crazy enough to buy into his foreign policy ideology, so therefore being that mathematically he cannot get the votes he cannot get the win. It's simple really.

So only crazy people want a Constitutionally controlled government?

I would love to have a constitutionally controlled government, but it's not going to happen at the presidential level, it has to happen in congress first. The president cannot do anything that the house and senate does not give him permission to do. unless he is Obama of course and commits impeachable acts that noone seems to care enough to impeach him for.

The president can do a lot. He controls troop deployment and enforcement of unconstitutional law.

 

[grunt11b]

So only crazy people want a Constitutionally controlled government?

I would love to have a constitutionally controlled government, but it's not going to happen at the presidential level, it has to happen in congress first. The president cannot do anything that the house and senate does not give him permission to do. unless he is Obama of course and commits impeachable acts that noone seems to care enough to impeach him for.

The president can do a lot. He controls troop deployment and enforcement of unconstitutional law.

I hope you are not using obama as a reference to a president controlling unconstitutional law. If so, that would be a bad example.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would love to have a constitutionally controlled government, but it's not going to happen at the presidential level, it has to happen in congress first. The president cannot do anything that the house and senate does not give him permission to do. unless he is Obama of course and commits impeachable acts that noone seems to care enough to impeach him for.

The president can do a lot. He controls troop deployment and enforcement of unconstitutional law.

I hope you are not using obama as a reference to a president controlling unconstitutional law. If so, that would be a bad example.

No what I think he's saying is that is the Presidents job as in any president.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I would love to have a constitutionally controlled government, but it's not going to happen at the presidential level, it has to happen in congress first. The president cannot do anything that the house and senate does not give him permission to do. unless he is Obama of course and commits impeachable acts that noone seems to care enough to impeach him for.

The president can do a lot. He controls troop deployment and enforcement of unconstitutional law.

I hope you are not using obama as a reference to a president controlling unconstitutional law. If so, that would be a bad example.

I never liked Obama.

 

[grunt11b]

The president can do a lot. He controls troop deployment and enforcement of unconstitutional law.

I hope you are not using obama as a reference to a president controlling unconstitutional law. If so, that would be a bad example.

I never liked Obama.

You and I both. It's not that I dont like him, I dont like his ideology or his policies or his blatant disregard for our constitution.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I hope you are not using obama as a reference to a president controlling unconstitutional law. If so, that would be a bad example.

I never liked Obama.

You and I both. It's not that I dont like him, I dont like his ideology or his policies or his blatant disregard for our constitution.

When the corporate media started pimping him before he threw his hat in the ring I knew there was something wrong with him.

And it turned out to be. He was selected for us and sold to us like a bag of chips.

 

[grunt11b]

I never liked Obama.

You and I both. It's not that I dont like him, I dont like his ideology or his policies or his blatant disregard for our constitution.

When the corporate media started pimping him before he threw his hat in the ring I knew there was something wrong with him.

And it turned out to be. He was selected for us and sold to us like a bag of chips.

Generic chips, with the taste of mold.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

But that's just it, they have not thrown there support behind neither gingrich nor romney. I am not sure where you got that info reb but it's simply not true, just because people voted for one or the other does not mean they endorse them as far as the ideology goes. People have to vote, and they simply are voting there concience on who is left that can win this election.

Look at the poll I provided.

So they are supposed to sit at home and not vote? Paul has no chance, and santorum just is not getting the message out there. Obviously people are going to vote for whom they think can win against Obama, even if it sours there mouths doing so.

Which is why ultimately the TEA Party won't have a voice in the long term direction of the GOP. If you're willing to line up behind anyone the GOP puts up, why should they listen?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Look at the poll I provided.

So they are supposed to sit at home and not vote? Paul has no chance, and santorum just is not getting the message out there. Obviously people are going to vote for whom they think can win against Obama, even if it sours there mouths doing so.

Which is why ultimately the TEA Party won't have a voice in the long term direction of the GOP. If you're willing to line up behind anyone the GOP puts up, why should they listen?

Exactly

 

[Dr.Traveler]

So they are supposed to sit at home and not vote? Paul has no chance, and santorum just is not getting the message out there. Obviously people are going to vote for whom they think can win against Obama, even if it sours there mouths doing so.

Which is why ultimately the TEA Party won't have a voice in the long term direction of the GOP. If you're willing to line up behind anyone the GOP puts up, why should they listen?

Exactly

I wouldn't feel too bad though. It happened to the Moral Majority, the hippies, the environmentalists, Code Pink, etc. It's going to happen to the OWS movement. As long as there's a two party system, you'll get the exact same choice for President.

Take a look at what Newt has stood for in the past. Take a look at what Romney stood for in the past. Can you honestly tell me they'll be any different than Obama?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which is why ultimately the TEA Party won't have a voice in the long term direction of the GOP. If you're willing to line up behind anyone the GOP puts up, why should they listen?

Exactly

I wouldn't feel too bad though. It happened to the Moral Majority, the hippies, the environmentalists, Code Pink, etc. It's going to happen to the OWS movement. As long as there's a two party system, you'll get the exact same choice for President.

Take a look at what Newt has stood for in the past. Take a look at what Romney stood for in the past. Can you honestly tell me they'll be any different than Obama?

The OWS movement wasn't started by people with good intentions the people who started got people with good intentions. The people behind the movement are not good people. If you get my meaning.

 

[ClosedCaption]

lol @ u believing the tea party stood for something other than GOP

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Bush had a Democratic controlled congress. and Bushj wasn't a conservative he was the beginning of obamaII

bush ii had a republican controlled congress for awhile.

Yes he did but he did not go away from his Conservative Facade until the democrats came to town.

so the democrats "made" him do it?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

lol @ u believing the tea party stood for something other than GOP

The core of the TEA Party are folks that were protesting under Bush. They were often thrown under the bus by the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity flavor of "New Conservatives", but they were there. They've always stood for less Federal Government, Tighter Immigration, and less Military Action Overseas. They always hated Medicare Part D and the massive debt incurred by Iraq.

The problem is after Obama was elected the GOP essentially started working to hijack that movement. And now they've obtained what they want from the TEA party, they're getting thrown back under the bus.

That's going to keep happening while you have a two party system. Like some of the posters on those board love to point out: Is a TEA Party supporter going to vote for a Democrat?

If the answer is no, the next tactic is to paint any third party option as a "Vote for the Democrats." So then TEA Party supporters are trapped.

The EXACT same thing happened to the Moral Majority and practically every single "movement" on the Left that had any kind of legitimate gripe with the system. The exact same argument with the exact same result. Until it becomes possible in US politics for a third party candidate to have a chance, it'll keep happening.