Gee, only 14 Stupid Tea Party Threads since Yesterday

[California Girl]

Oh good grief. Might I suggest that those who think the TEA Parties are the harbinger of a Fascist USA should refer back to the pathetic coverage of the previous 'regime'.... yea, the left wing media call the previous administration.... and those self same media are now spitting dirt because some of the right refer to the Obama administration as a 'regime'.

Are none of you capable of looking at both sides of this and seeing how utterly, utterly laughable it is? Every accusation that the left felt was perfectly justified during the previous 8 years, is now being thrown back at them. And now... those who say these things are harbingers of fascism and racists. Can none of you see how totally ludicrous this is?

 

[California Girl]

i dont think we should pretend 9/11 never happened nor do i think we should make all decisions based on 9/11...

when facism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross...sinclair lewis

the tea party seems a good example of this guote....

Good post. Given that the tea partiers want to do away with the results of free and fair elections and some want to decide who is allowed to vote...

I rest my case.

And it is a damned good case, tiger.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i dont think we should pretend 9/11 never happened nor do i think we should make all decisions based on 9/11...

when facism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross...sinclair lewis

the tea party seems a good example of this guote....

You're equating the Tea party movement with fascism? Care to give us your definition of fascism?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

And no one seems to care about the Murrah Buidling 15th annivesary and it can have only one thread.

Funny that the tea party is far more important even on the one day we honor the victims.

For you and hacks of your ilk, it's a day of celebration.

 

[tigerbob]

Good post. Given that the tea partiers want to do away with the results of free and fair elections and some want to decide who is allowed to vote...

I rest my case.

And it is a damned good case, tiger.

What, that the people's right to protest policy with which they disagree implies a desire to overthrow a democratically elected government? Yes, I thought so too.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=oM8l3X_7Hkg]YouTube - LEAVE BARACK ALONE![/ame]

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=LvUNFmB7Jl8]YouTube - Leave Barack Obama Alone![/ame]

 

[Zona]

Hot topic

Especially on the anniv. of the OK city bombings. So many similarities.

 

[Zona]

Here is the deal righty's. You dont like whats happeneing in the white house, vote. We did two novembers ago and it turned out great for us.


You vote, we counter and the one with the most votes wins. Woohooo. Isn't America great!







Whiny little bitches.

 

[midcan5]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

How many bullshit talking points can be in one post?

Though not a tea partier myself, here's what I see and have seen.

These are people who DID protest Booooosh, by voting the Dems control of Congress, then voting for hope and change. When hope and change didn't happen and instead it was just alot more of the same, they took to the streets.

Of course, the greatest fear those in power have is that these people will actually vote in great numbers. That's the entire problem had with the tea parties. They are energizing and engaging people to get involved.

Yes, you miss the heyday of sheep in the electorate. Can't blame you for that.

 

[tigerbob]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

I can't speak for others, but I didn't live in the US at the time so it wasn't my tax dollars they were spending.

I realize that's a bit of a copout, so I'll tell you that I supported the invasion of Iraq. But I'm unfamiliar with the "squandering a surplus to make the rich richer' contention. Is this fact or hyperbole?

If he squandered a surplus to make the rich richer than I am against it. I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as that, but I stand willing to be corrected.

 

[Care4all]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

I can't speak for others, but I didn't live in the US at the time so it wasn't my tax dollars they were spending.

I realize that's a bit of a copout, so I'll tell you that I supported the invasion of Iraq. But I'm unfamiliar with the "squandering a surplus to make the rich richer' contention. Is this fact or hyperbole?

If he squandered a surplus to make the rich richer than I am against it. I suspect it's not quite as clear cut as that, but I stand willing to be corrected.

We had a projected 10yr budget surplus of $5.6 trillion when president Bush took office....he said, the gvt should not keep that and gave a tax cut, the wealthiest getting the most money....the cons said they deserved more of a tax break and deserve their money back that they pay in income tax....thus the tax breaks favoring the wealthy.

The problem with all of that, IS THAT the $5.6 trillion dollar estimated 10 year surplus was Social Security Surplus, NOT INCOME TAX SURPLUS.....

So President Bush, TOOK from the working class who pays social security on every dime they make, and primarily gave it in tax cuts to where the wealthiest got the most of it, to who did not pay a dime in SS taxes over their first 100k.....

Reverse Robinhood.....for the most part.

Then instead of a surplus we ended up with the biggest deficits in our history, at the time....even with using all of the surplus social security to pay for what INCOME TAXES should have been paying...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

Hey stupid, one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

 

[Care4all]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

Hey stupid, one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

I don't know about that....

unemployment was about 8.25% as a high under Bush 1, and it hit 8.6% under president gw bush....

that's only about a percent higher for what it is now....

Was nearly 1/6th of the nation really not in peril under President Bushes? Not even during President Bush 1's Housing crisis and Savings and Loan scandal/bailout?

Probably not, as you state but to PRETEND that this mess or the economy in jeopardy is NOT something inherited from gwb and was not trending towards more and more Peril under GWB is intellectually dishonest....if that is what you are implying Lonestar?

 

[Care4all]

and Reagan's unemployment rate went to 9.8% under his presidency, with no inheriting an economic crisis.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

Hey stupid, one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

I don't know about that....

unemployment was about 8.25% as a high under Bush 1, and it hit 8.6% under president gw bush....

that's only about a percent higher for what it is now....

Was nearly 1/6th of the nation really not in peril under President Bushes? Not even during President Bush 1's Housing crisis and Savings and Loan scandal/bailout?

Probably not, as you state but to PRETEND that this mess or the economy in jeopardy is NOT something inherited from gwb and was not trending towards more and more Peril under GWB is intellectually dishonest....if that is what you are implying Lonestar?

Right now the unemployment rate is at 10.4 percent.

What I'm saying is one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

•While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.

•The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.•In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
•The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
•The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

Obama?s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

 

[Wry Catcher]

To paraphrase Pogo, T's are the people are parents warned us against

 

[Care4all]

Hey stupid, one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

I don't know about that....

unemployment was about 8.25% as a high under Bush 1, and it hit 8.6% under president gw bush....

that's only about a percent higher for what it is now....

Was nearly 1/6th of the nation really not in peril under President Bushes? Not even during President Bush 1's Housing crisis and Savings and Loan scandal/bailout?

Probably not, as you state but to PRETEND that this mess or the economy in jeopardy is NOT something inherited from gwb and was not trending towards more and more Peril under GWB is intellectually dishonest....if that is what you are implying Lonestar?

Right now the unemployment rate is at 10.4 percent.

What I'm saying is one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

•While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
yes, president Bush's 2009 budget was increased by obama...but just as Clinton's 2001 budget was increased by president bush's actions...it still is president bush's budget deficit and in 2001, the fiscal budget still gets given to Clinton.

so 2009 budget IS the fiscal budget of president bush

•The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.•In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.

2009 is president bush's budget

•The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.

it is what it is....he only has the 2009 budget to work with as a starting point...

•The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

what is the public national debt vs the National debt? when president bush took office the National debt left him was $5.6 trillion, when he left office, it was $11.4 TRILLION? so what is this public debt figure they are pulling out?

Obama?s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

lonestar

first...unemployment in february and in march was 9.7% NOT 10.4 as you stated....

president bush used EVERY DIME of our hundreds of billions in SS surplus revenues to PAY for his budget, still leaving him with hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollar deficits, his last year.

president obama does NOT have that LUXURY! We are no longer collecting Social security surplus taxes for the president to USE in his budget to pay for what income taxes should have paid.

In addition to this, more seniors have applied for their retirement and have left the workforce than planned due to the recession and no jobs out there for them....and because less seniors are working...being taxed and now are drawing SS, which draws from the treasury...

NO MATTER WHO is in the position of President, even if it was mccain, they would be faced with the same dficits that obama is faced with in these long term charts....if there is a new president in 2012 they will be faced with them as well and if you look at these projections and take out any legislation done by obama that will affect them and look at it projected from when Bush was in office, those same humongous deficits are there as well...

also, less people working means less revenues being brought in, less taxes being collected to pay these bills....so less money is coming in to pay the bills than there was under Bush, thus a big part of the higher deficits....again, no matter who became president, this is what the new president INHERITED.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I don't know about that....

unemployment was about 8.25% as a high under Bush 1, and it hit 8.6% under president gw bush....

that's only about a percent higher for what it is now....

Was nearly 1/6th of the nation really not in peril under President Bushes? Not even during President Bush 1's Housing crisis and Savings and Loan scandal/bailout?

Probably not, as you state but to PRETEND that this mess or the economy in jeopardy is NOT something inherited from gwb and was not trending towards more and more Peril under GWB is intellectually dishonest....if that is what you are implying Lonestar?

Right now the unemployment rate is at 10.4 percent.

What I'm saying is one sixth of our economy wasn't in jeopardy under Reagan or Bush.

•While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
yes, president Bush's 2009 budget was increased by obama...but just as Clinton's 2001 budget was increased by president bush's actions...it still is president bush's budget deficit and in 2001, the fiscal budget still gets given to Clinton.

so 2009 budget IS the fiscal budget of president bush

•The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.•In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.

2009 is president bush's budget

•The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.

it is what it is....he only has the 2009 budget to work with as a starting point...

•The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.

what is the public national debt vs the National debt? when president bush took office the National debt left him was $5.6 trillion, when he left office, it was $11.4 TRILLION? so what is this public debt figure they are pulling out?

Obama?s Tripling of the National Debt in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

lonestar

first...unemployment in february and in march was 9.7% NOT 10.4 as you stated....

president bush used EVERY DIME of our hundreds of billions in SS surplus revenues to PAY for his budget, still leaving him with hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollar deficits, his last year.

president obama does NOT have that LUXURY! We are no longer collecting Social security surplus taxes for the president to USE in his budget to pay for what income taxes should have paid.

In addition to this, more seniors have applied for their retirement and have left the workforce than planned due to the recession and no jobs out there for them....and because less seniors are working...being taxed and now are drawing SS, which draws from the treasury...

NO MATTER WHO is in the position of President, even if it was mccain, they would be faced with the same dficits that obama is faced with in these long term charts....if there is a new president in 2012 they will be faced with them as well and if you look at these projections and take out any legislation done by obama that will affect them and look at it projected from when Bush was in office, those same humongous deficits are there as well...

also, less people working means less revenues being brought in, less taxes being collected to pay these bills....so less money is coming in to pay the bills than there was under Bush, thus a big part of the higher deficits....again, no matter who became president, this is what the new president INHERITED.

I included a link that showed the unemployment rate to be 10.4.

The reason Bush surplus is a myth.

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Here you are admitting that Obama will have less tax money (less revenue), so why is he spending like a drunken sailor? And why don't you care?

 

[Zona]

I still wanna know where the tea party was when Reagan and Bush created the current deficits? Were they annoyed that Bush Jr squandered a surplus by giving the rich even more money? Or were they annoyed that Bush spent a billion a week on an illegal invasion? No nada, why was that one wonders? Can you say hypocrite.

How many bullshit talking points can be in one post?

POint by point, please show how these are talking points...? Are you just going to say that without backing it up? Where did he lie?