Where does the tea party come from? Activist Republicans, study shows.

[ClosedCaption]

Where were the t-publicans when Bu$h II was continuously putting in huge "emergency supplementals" (off-budget/unpaid-for requests) for Iraq?

Defending him. I remember watching the swtich from defending to.tossing under a bus. It was right before obama was elected.all of a sudden bush became the "hold your nose" guy.

The tea party in a nut shell is an extension of the GOP.
They consist mainly of white male and female voters.
some that happen to be racist but not all. Most are highly relgious and want a mix of bible and social law.
they are about 20-25 million in numbers. Which is about the gop base.( the dems have a base around the the same %)
lastly for the most part they tend to contradict themselves if given enough rope on the issues at hand.they like entitlements as.much as.the next person, they just want it run better for the money. They tend to be neocons on foreign policy. They will nannystate on certain issues.

They are the gop, but will fight tooth and nail to avoid being labeled as such.they want to feel like they are fresh, important and on the rise as if they speak for the american people(they dont).

They are simple to figure out, but hard to combat with their overly simple messages. Normally context kills them, but people have a short attention span so they tend to win the debates.

 

[Google]

Who here thinks that the TP would be anything but a very minor fringe group if McCain had been elected?

Who here thinks that the anti-war left would be anything but a very minor fringe group if Obama had been elected...wait never mind.

 

[Google]

Defending him. I remember watching the swtich from defending to.tossing under a bus. It was right before obama was elected.all of a sudden bush became the "hold your nose" guy.

The tea party in a nut shell is an extension of the GOP.
They consist mainly of white male and female voters.
some that happen to be racist but not all. Most are highly relgious and want a mix of bible and social law.
they are about 20-25 million in numbers. Which is about the gop base.( the dems have a base around the the same %)
lastly for the most part they tend to contradict themselves if given enough rope on the issues at hand.they like entitlements as.much as.the next person, they just want it run better for the money. They tend to be neocons on foreign policy. They will nannystate on certain issues.

They are the gop, but will fight tooth and nail to avoid being labeled as such.they want to feel like they are fresh, important and on the rise as if they speak for the american people(they dont).

They are simple to figure out, but hard to combat with their overly simple messages. Normally context kills them, but people have a short attention span so they tend to win the debates.

Pure and Simple Bullshit! Some Tea Party are Social Conservatives, most are Fiscal Conservatives and that is what makes us different than the regular Republican Party seeing as there is no Tea Party only a Tea Party Movement. Most are Christan but not Social Conservatives.

No they really are not fiscal at all.sure it sounds nice but i see the same people who claim they are fiscal defend things that bush promoted.
look dont get me wrong, the teaparty idea is a good one. The execution is severly sinple and therefore damaging.

The teaparty and the evengilical (sp) have blended so much yhey have become yhe same thing. (As if they where ever separate to begin with)

What you dont have in the teaparty from wht ive seen are religous leaders speaking for them. Thats why the connection isnt made so easily.

All one has to do is listen and watch what they talk about.

These are fair assesments of what i have seen.

Brilliant. Simply genius. Fair assessments based on your incredibly shallow and limited perspective. Is that everything you learned from MSNBC?

 

[uscitizen]

IAll of the TP member I personally know are ex bush supporters. And would vote for him again if they could.
Several of them even went to the Beck Palin Rally in DC and thought it was just wonderful.

I'm sure you know a slew of Tea Party people

I live in a county that elected Palin/McCain and Bush twice.
Most voters here are agressivley stupid.

 

[MarcATL]

When you have a group of individuals who swear that things suddenly got terrible under Obama and refuse to acknowledge the previous Administration's role in the financial disaster and how they brought the country to the brink of total financial collapse, you have an ignorant group of individuals that need to be stopped at all costs before the finish destroying what's left of the country.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is spending four times more than Bush ever did. That's one reason the Tea Party wasn't out in full force then as they are now.

Wise up!

BS!

Spending has ALWAYS, almost exponentially gone up with each new President/Administration/term...nothing new here.

They were practically SILENT during Bush. Moreover, they were the SAME individuals that staunchly SUPPORTED the buffoon.

 

[bigbull]

BS!

Spending has ALWAYS, almost exponentially gone up with each new President/Administration/term...nothing new here.

They were practically SILENT during Bush. Moreover, they were the SAME individuals that staunchly SUPPORTED the buffoon.

So then hope n change was bullshit, right? It should've been nope n same.

Obama's on track to spend more in one term than Bush did in two. Face it, he failed.

 

[Google]

When you have a group of individuals who swear that things suddenly got terrible under Obama and refuse to acknowledge the previous Administration's role in the financial disaster and how they brought the country to the brink of total financial collapse, you have an ignorant group of individuals that need to be stopped at all costs before the finish destroying what's left of the country.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is spending four times more than Bush ever did. That's one reason the Tea Party wasn't out in full force then as they are now.

Wise up!

BS!

Spending has ALWAYS, almost exponentially gone up with each new President/Administration/term...nothing new here.

They were practically SILENT during Bush. Moreover, they were the SAME individuals that staunchly SUPPORTED the buffoon.

It is indigenous to sit there and brush off the fact that deficit spending and the national debt has increased far faster under this administration than any other before. America has faced its first credit down grade, the economy is in glacial growth--AND THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS HELD CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY.

New national debt data: It's growing about $3 million a minute, even during his vacation - latimes.com

It's all racism. The 54% of Americans that disapprove of his job performance. The 78% that disapprove of his handling of the economy.

You are just a simplistic person. I still would like to know what you intend to do to stop the Tea Party, at any cost. Your posts sound like what would be reported on the news after some nut job shoots up a Tea Party event or something.

I'm sure you will be the first to set Atlanta aflame when Obama loses in 2012. Better keep it inside 285 we are armed heavily out here in suburbia.

 

[Google]

No they really are not fiscal at all.sure it sounds nice but i see the same people who claim they are fiscal defend things that bush promoted.
look dont get me wrong, the teaparty idea is a good one. The execution is severly sinple and therefore damaging.

The teaparty and the evengilical (sp) have blended so much yhey have become yhe same thing. (As if they where ever separate to begin with)

What you dont have in the teaparty from wht ive seen are religous leaders speaking for them. Thats why the connection isnt made so easily.

All one has to do is listen and watch what they talk about.

These are fair assesments of what i have seen.

Brilliant. Simply genius. Fair assessments based on your incredibly shallow and limited perspective. Is that everything you learned from MSNBC?

So you have no argument then?
I dont watch cable news.
If this was your idea of bringing intelligence to the forum, you failed.

Oh yes and your posts "mainly white and female voters, some are racist some are not"--that is intelligent.

 

[uscitizen]

Rampant agressive stupidity.

 

[daveman]

[Today’s Tea Party supporters are disproportionately white social conservatives, who, Campbell and Putnam say, “had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and still do.”

Was "Did you have a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barak Obama was President?" one of the questions on the survey or was this an assumption on the part of Campbell and Putnam? If it was not one of the questions, to what authority and reference do they make this make this claim?

Who knows? Until I see the questions presented to the respondents, I'm going with "They're racist because we say so."

 

[Google]

They were "being patriotic" supporting every. single. one of our then President's abysmal policies.


Spot on!

This resentment and hatred toward the Tea Party is hypocritical and quite frankly simplistic.

The Democrat party consists mainly of white and female voters. Some happen to be morons but not all.

The logic behind this post is laughable, but you think it's spot on.

This is all the left really has is insulting and denigrating the Tea Party.

Hate? I dont hate the teaparty. But we have had signs made and emails full of racism come up.
does that make the teaparty as a whole racist? No, but some are and no matter how badly you spin it, some is a logical label to put.

You will have a hard time defending the teaparty as not racist at all. But you will have an easy time defending it if someone said all of the teaparty is racist.

If this is all you have you are going to loose.
Some dems are morons. Why would i argue against that?its logical and factual.

Jesus Christ, and yes we normally judge a group by an extreme minority. Some in the anti-war left burnt the American flag, held signs praising the deaths of American service members.

Do you see the absurdity in your logic? "Some are racist", yeah and some Democrats are retarded--you will have a hard time defending the Democrats as not retarded at all.

Also, not to nit pick, but get spell check or something.

 

[daveman]

As in Are you going to accept the will of Obama as President?

Republicans: HELL NO!

That's because this isn't a monarchy.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When you have a group of individuals who swear that things suddenly got terrible under Obama and refuse to acknowledge the previous Administration's role in the financial disaster and how they brought the country to the brink of total financial collapse, you have an ignorant group of individuals that need to be stopped at all costs before the finish destroying what's left of the country.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is spending four times more than Bush ever did. That's one reason the Tea Party wasn't out in full force then as they are now.

Wise up!

BS!

Spending has ALWAYS, almost exponentially gone up with each new President/Administration/term...nothing new here.
They were practically SILENT during Bush. Moreover, they were the SAME individuals that staunchly SUPPORTED the buffoon.

So that makes it ok?

Damn you're stupid!

The Tea Party People consist of democrats and libertarians as well as republicans. Take your blinders off or take your head out of Obama's ass and wise the fuck up!

When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.

Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year — or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.

And none of this even takes into account Obamacare, which the Congressional Budget Office says would increase spending by more than $2 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023) — and which, even under very rosy projections, the CBO says would increase the national debt by $341 billion by the end of 2019.

This from the liberal NPR

 

[uscitizen]

When you have a group of individuals who swear that things suddenly got terrible under Obama and refuse to acknowledge the previous Administration's role in the financial disaster and how they brought the country to the brink of total financial collapse, you have an ignorant group of individuals that need to be stopped at all costs before the finish destroying what's left of the country.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is spending four times more than Bush ever did. That's one reason the Tea Party wasn't out in full force then as they are now.

Wise up!

Ok no. The teaparty didnt really start gaining traction till after ron paul ran in 08. People had no qualms about bushes spending. Then the matket crashed and big money was being tossed around.people didnt understand it and didnt like it. What was the real kicker though was them loosing in 08. Which ia why you saw a huge push by them in 10. The dems where caught off guard or.just bent over and took it. Either way they lost.
but lets be honest here, spending was never really the issue. There was never really a peep( outside of a rp supporter) with medicare part d, homeland sec. Or no child left behind.
But i did see a lot of defending on those issues form so.called fiscal cons....

Lets not forget that 44 of those TP members in congress voted to keep and expand the Partiot Act.

 

[MarcATL]

It is indigenous to sit there and brush off the fact that deficit spending and the national debt has increased far faster under this administration than any other before. America has faced its first credit down grade, the economy is in glacial growth--AND THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS HELD CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY.

............

You know by this logic one can argue that because the Republicans were in control during 9/11 they TOTALLY and COMPLETELY failed to protect us at every and all levels humanly possible.

Right?

 

[Google]

When you have a group of individuals who swear that things suddenly got terrible under Obama and refuse to acknowledge the previous Administration's role in the financial disaster and how they brought the country to the brink of total financial collapse, you have an ignorant group of individuals that need to be stopped at all costs before the finish destroying what's left of the country.

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is spending four times more than Bush ever did. That's one reason the Tea Party wasn't out in full force then as they are now.

Wise up!

Ok no. The teaparty didnt really start gaining traction till after ron paul ran in 08. People had no qualms about bushes spending. Then the matket crashed and big money was being tossed around.people didnt understand it and didnt like it. What was the real kicker though was them loosing in 08. Which ia why you saw a huge push by them in 10. The dems where caught off guard or.just bent over and took it. Either way they lost.
but lets be honest here, spending was never really the issue. There was never really a peep( outside of a rp supporter) with medicare part d, homeland sec. Or no child left behind.
But i did see a lot of defending on those issues form so.called fiscal cons....

And the financial collapse of 2008 didn't change anything. It had nothing to do with it. Nor did the Republicans losing the Congress. Nor did the disastrous effects of the Obama administrations polices.

You act like things haven't fundamentally changed since 2006--that if the financial collapse had occurred in 2004 and Congress continued to increase the deficit and debt the same conservative sentiment wouldn't have swept the country. Like you are F-ing Miss Cleo with a crystal ball.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama is spending four times more than Bush ever did. That's one reason the Tea Party wasn't out in full force then as they are now.

Wise up!

BS!

Spending has ALWAYS, almost exponentially gone up with each new President/Administration/term...nothing new here.

They were practically SILENT during Bush. Moreover, they were the SAME individuals that staunchly SUPPORTED the buffoon.

It is indigenous to sit there and brush off the fact that deficit spending and the national debt has increased far faster under this administration than any other before. America has faced its first credit down grade, the economy is in glacial growth--AND THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS HELD CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY.

New national debt data: It's growing about $3 million a minute, even during his vacation - latimes.com

It's all racism. The 54% of Americans that disapprove of his job performance. The 78% that disapprove of his handling of the economy.

You are just a simplistic person. I still would like to know what you intend to do to stop the Tea Party, at any cost. Your posts sound like what would be reported on the news after some nut job shoots up a Tea Party event or something.

I'm sure you will be the first to set Atlanta aflame when Obama loses in 2012. Better keep it inside 285 we are armed heavily out here in suburbia.

 

[Google]

It is indigenous to sit there and brush off the fact that deficit spending and the national debt has increased far faster under this administration than any other before. America has faced its first credit down grade, the economy is in glacial growth--AND THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS HELD CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY.

............

You know by this logic one can argue that because the Republicans were in control during 9/11 they TOTALLY and COMPLETELY failed to protect us at every and all levels humanly possible.

Right?

Really? Deficit spending and terrorist attacks are completely the same. Did the Republicans put 911 in the expenditure? Congress IS responsible for their spending. Use that logic, go with it....

Perhaps you should look up the word logic and try to apply it a little more astutely.

 

[MarcATL]

It is indigenous to sit there and brush off the fact that deficit spending and the national debt has increased far faster under this administration than any other before. America has faced its first credit down grade, the economy is in glacial growth--AND THE FUCKING DEMOCRATS HELD CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY.

............

You know by this logic one can argue that because the Republicans were in control during 9/11 they TOTALLY and COMPLETELY failed to protect us at every and all levels humanly possible.

Right?

Really? Deficit spending and terrorist attacks are completely the same. Did the Republicans put 911 in the expenditure? Congress IS responsible for their spending. Use that logic, go with it....

Perhaps you should look up the word logic and try to apply it a little more astutely.

It's official...you're a certified whack-job.

LoLing @ your usage of the word "logic"

 

[uscitizen]

armed suburbanites?
LMAO.