Who Would Have Thought, Tea Party Folks Don't Back Republicans

[nodoginnafight]

A more cynical poster might conclude that extensive posts rebutting a peripheral comment on climate change, Sotomayor, birthers, death panelers, terrorist sympathizer while failing to address a repeated request to provide a source for numbers is a dodge and attempted diversion.

I'll withhold my judgement on that. But afterall, this thread was created to discuss the impact of the Tea Party movement on the GOP. So that is what I'm trying to discuss. I'll agree to disagree on the other other issues for here and now, but I'll be happy to discuss any and all our disagreements in greater detail in a more appropriate forum.

So - any source for those numbers? As I said, they seemed counterintuitive from the outset. After having read the posts that have been offered here - I find them even more hard to believe. But I am certainly willing to listen - I'll check back.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you're a birther, a death paneler, a paling around with terrorists believer, a climate change denier, (I've done quite a bit of research on my own already - and have reached the conclusion that I disagree with all of your conclusions).

So having the Tea Party movement embrace these types of things - in your estimation - does nothing to limit its appeal. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I am entitled to disagree.

So - those numbers you previously posted - could you help me research THOSE on my own? What's the source?

Well open your mind and read this, BTW, you are now showing your true colors, and I am betting that you are not fiscally conservative either. I am not a birther, a death paneler, etc. As I have stated I am a Reagan conservative.

Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online

" The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." George Bernard Shaw.

I was responding to Ted_Esq, not you. Suspect whatever you would like to.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But I am still VERY interested in seeing the source of those numbers.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So you're a birther, a death paneler, a paling around with terrorists believer, a climate change denier, (I've done quite a bit of research on my own already - and have reached the conclusion that I disagree with all of your conclusions).

So having the Tea Party movement embrace these types of things - in your estimation - does nothing to limit its appeal. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I am entitled to disagree.

So - those numbers you previously posted - could you help me research THOSE on my own? What's the source?

So what part of me saying that I was not a birther did you not get? My point was even if there is something there, it's a loser argument. As to the facts, who the hell knows? And, since it's a loser argument, who cares?

As to the rest of it, you're a name-caller. Showing the depth, or lack there of, of your intellectual capacity. I provided links in my posts where I cited things with specificity. If I didn't it was opinion, my point of view.

Maple is right, you have exposed yourself though.

 

[Maple]

A more cynical poster might conclude that extensive posts rebutting a peripheral comment on climate change, Sotomayor, birthers, death panelers, terrorist sympathizer while failing to address a repeated request to provide a source for numbers is a dodge and attempted diversion.

I'll withhold my judgement on that. But afterall, this thread was created to discuss the impact of the Tea Party movement on the GOP. So that is what I'm trying to discuss. I'll agree to disagree on the other other issues for here and now, but I'll be happy to discuss any and all our disagreements in greater detail in a more appropriate forum.

So - any source for those numbers? As I said, they seemed counterintuitive from the outset. After having read the posts that have been offered here - I find them even more hard to believe. But I am certainly willing to listen - I'll check back.

Hey, you are the one who brought those issues to the forfront on this thread, it was not me. As I have stated the two common concerns of the tea partiers is the deficit and the constitution. PERIOD.

You have bought into the myth of global warming even though there is amble evidence that the earth is in a cooling pattern and something that is being witnessed everyday by everyday Americans. Has it been cooler in your state this summer? or have you not stepped outside to see for yourself. Are you content to just beleive what you believe without ever experiencing a real tea party or the real temperature right out your front door???

" A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on." Winston Churchill.

 

[saveliberty]

Your "undeniable" fact is denied by science.

So it seems I wouldn't fit in with Tea Partiers after all. The Blue Dog Democrats are actually more closely aligned with my own views- fiscal conservatism (without the need to ignore science and social justice). But since they too push for a balanced budget and fiscal restraint, the two groups may be able to work together on certain issues.

Here's some science for you nodoginnafight:

climate

U.S. and global Temperatures are in decline

*According to the US National Climate Data Center 2008 temperatures in the USA were below the 115 year average for most of the country link.US Summer temperatures were cooler than average, the 34th coolest since 1895 link
*Global temperatures according to the UAH for June 2009 were only .001 deg. C above the 30 year average and cooler than 1979. link July and August temperatures were up somewhat due to a return of a cool El Nino link

*NASA announced that 2008 global temperatures were significantly cooler than 2007, the coolest since 2000 and below the average of the last 30 years link

*temperatures that were once rising are now falling rapidly according to the NOA link, 1998 was a warm year but the eleven years since have each been cooler, global temperatures have dropped an average of .6 degrees F in this period (according to UAH) link. Three agencies responsible for tracking global climate show temperature decreases since 2002 link

The Blue Dog Coalition describes itself as a group of moderate-to-conservative Democrats committed to financial and national security, favoring compromise and bipartisanship over ideology and party discipline. That working for you?

 

[Polk]

C'mon folks - this isn't a trick question. You have presented very specific numbers on the political affiliation of Tea Party participants.

Ted_Esq:

If you look at the break down of political affiliation of late, it's about 35% Dem, 35% Repub and about 30% "Independent" whatever that means.

Dive Con:

actually, thats changing
last i saw it was about 38% dem 27% gop and 35% "other*"

All I am asking is where those numbers come from. I've looked for them myself and I can't find anything on it. Where did you guys find these numbers?

No idea where this idea that the number of Republicans is shooting up, the number of independents is rising.

Pollster.com: National Party Identification (ALL ADULTS)

 

[Polk]

I think the Perot Split hurt Bush more than Clinton.

It was six in one, half dozen in the other. If you look at the exits and assume Perot voters would have split in the same proportions they did otherwise inside each demo, it did slightly more harm to Bush, but not enough to swing the election.

 

[Polk]

And look at the other thread and attached video of "Tea Party activists" taking Lindsey Graham to task over voting along with Democrats on climate change legislation (a position I happen to agree with the Democrats on) and on voting to accept Sotomayor as SCOTUS justice (a position I also happen to agree with Democrats about).

Were they lying when they linked these people to the Tea Party folks?

No, probably not, but I certainly do not agree with climate change, because the world is in a cooling pattern while Co2 emmisions have increased. That's a undeniable fact.

As far as Sotomayer, she did state, that an hispanic female could probably make a better court decision than a white male. That's something to be concerned about because it is a racist statement and something that if you are a white male should really concern you.

So yes, I disagree with Lindsey Graham, but that does not mean that we disagree on fiscal policies and that's why the tea parties represent a broad range of views, pro-life, pro-choice, climate change differences, but we all agree about the ever growing deficit and the problems it poses to our nation.

The world isn't in a cooling pattern. It's slightly lower than recorded maximums because of a decline in solar activity, but even those levels are significantly elevated.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you're a birther, a death paneler, a paling around with terrorists believer, a climate change denier, (I've done quite a bit of research on my own already - and have reached the conclusion that I disagree with all of your conclusions).

So having the Tea Party movement embrace these types of things - in your estimation - does nothing to limit its appeal. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I am entitled to disagree.

So - those numbers you previously posted - could you help me research THOSE on my own? What's the source?

Well open your mind and read this, BTW, you are now showing your true colors, and I am betting that you are not fiscally conservative either. I am not a birther, a death paneler, etc. As I have stated I am a Reagan conservative.

Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online

" The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." George Bernard Shaw.

So what would lead you to bet that I am NOT a fiscal conservative. Didn't you say that Tea Partiers come in all different shapes, sizes and political leanings - that the ONLY common denominator is fiscal conservatism. And yet based on my more liberal social and environmental stances you doubt my fiscal conservatism.You have trouble believeing that such an animal exists? Why? In those 35% to 38% Democrats who are attending tea Parties NONE of them held any views that were more liberal on social or environmental issues? Is it because you really haven't run into someone like me at your Tea Parties in spite of your protestations to the contrary. Very telling - very telling indeed. It tends to undermine the claim of "broad-based" support for the Tea Party cause as does the general intolerance I've found here among Tea Partiers for more liberal social and environmental positions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So you're a birther, a death paneler, a paling around with terrorists believer, a climate change denier, (I've done quite a bit of research on my own already - and have reached the conclusion that I disagree with all of your conclusions).

So having the Tea Party movement embrace these types of things - in your estimation - does nothing to limit its appeal. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I am entitled to disagree.

So - those numbers you previously posted - could you help me research THOSE on my own? What's the source?

So what part of me saying that I was not a birther did you not get? My point was even if there is something there, it's a loser argument. As to the facts, who the hell knows? And, since it's a loser argument, who cares?

As to the rest of it, you're a name-caller. Showing the depth, or lack there of, of your intellectual capacity. I provided links in my posts where I cited things with specificity. If I didn't it was opinion, my point of view.

Maple is right, you have exposed yourself though.

So Now - FINALLY - you are admitting that you have no links to support your "personal opinion" that Tea Parties are made up of 35% Republicans, 35% Democrats and 30% independents. You just pulled that bit of feces out of your ass to support some propaganda about "Broad-Based" support when in reality there is none. And Dive Con - what does that sday about YOU - "updating" these fictious numbers with "more recent" fictitious numbers?

Couple THAT with your insistence that the third party route is not a viable option and that the goal is to ... how did you put it .... provide operational majorities for the Republican Party.
So you value party above ideology.
Which puts you squarely in the corner of those who would like to manipulate the movement to suit the needs of the Republican Party.

And I suppose I have exposed myself as well - I've exposed myself as being one who is not bound to a party - as one who can spot the load of crap being dished out no matter how carefully the purveyor tries to hide it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well, we've successfully dispensed with the claim that Tea Parties represent a wide range of political views whose only common denominator is spending, taxation, and deficits. So the counter-claim - that the Tea Parties represent an astro-turfed effort by the radical right to sling anything that may have a chance at sticking in the direction of their political opponents - remains unchallenged a bit stronger for the revelations made here.

I'll continue to re-evaluate as new evidence comes to light. Because no matter what some folks find believable, I am fiscally conservative.

Now, as to the climate change issue - you can rely on the politicians and the political magazines, websites and political commentators to provide your scientific interpretations for you if you like.

I prefer peer-reviewed scientific journals myself as any attempt to politicize the data or conclusions is quickly spotted, derided, and laughed off the pages.

So what do the scientists who have opted to submit their work to peer-reviewed journals have to say on the issue. Well .... take a look at Beyond the Ivory Tower - a piece examining the scientific consensus:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

 

[Intense]

I think the Perot Split hurt Bush more than Clinton.

It was six in one, half dozen in the other. If you look at the exits and assume Perot voters would have split in the same proportions they did otherwise inside each demo, it did slightly more harm to Bush, but not enough to swing the election.

No Perot, Bush would have cleaned up.

 

[saveliberty]

I prefer the raw data which shows your point of view is wrong concerning climate. No filter of scientist on government grant programs. Even these sources are government run (NASA and NOA). Certainly no proof that Tea Party memebers are ALL radical right. Quite a false test if not A then it must be B. That what you call science? No wonder you having a failure.

 

[DiveCon]

Well, we've successfully dispensed with the claim that Tea Parties represent a wide range of political views whose only common denominator is spending, taxation, and deficits. So the counter-claim - that the Tea Parties represent an astro-turfed effort by the radical right to sling anything that may have a chance at sticking in the direction of their political opponents - remains unchallenged a bit stronger for the revelations made here.

I'll continue to re-evaluate as new evidence comes to light. Because no matter what some folks find believable, I am fiscally conservative.

Now, as to the climate change issue - you can rely on the politicians and the political magazines, websites and political commentators to provide your scientific interpretations for you if you like.

I prefer peer-reviewed scientific journals myself as any attempt to politicize the data or conclusions is quickly spotted, derided, and laughed off the pages.

So what do the scientists who have opted to submit their work to peer-reviewed journals have to say on the issue. Well .... take a look at Beyond the Ivory Tower - a piece examining the scientific consensus:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

no you havent

 

[Intense]

So you're a birther, a death paneler, a paling around with terrorists believer, a climate change denier, (I've done quite a bit of research on my own already - and have reached the conclusion that I disagree with all of your conclusions).

So having the Tea Party movement embrace these types of things - in your estimation - does nothing to limit its appeal. You are certainly entitled to that opinion. As I am entitled to disagree.

So - those numbers you previously posted - could you help me research THOSE on my own? What's the source?

Well open your mind and read this, BTW, you are now showing your true colors, and I am betting that you are not fiscally conservative either. I am not a birther, a death paneler, etc. As I have stated I am a Reagan conservative.

Global Cooling Chills Summer 2009 by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online

" The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it." George Bernard Shaw.

So what would lead you to bet that I am NOT a fiscal conservative. Didn't you say that Tea Partiers come in all different shapes, sizes and political leanings - that the ONLY common denominator is fiscal conservatism. And yet based on my more liberal social and environmental stances you doubt my fiscal conservatism.You have trouble believeing that such an animal exists? Why? In those 35% to 38% Democrats who are attending tea Parties NONE of them held any views that were more liberal on social or environmental issues? Is it because you really haven't run into someone like me at your Tea Parties in spite of your protestations to the contrary. Very telling - very telling indeed. It tends to undermine the claim of "broad-based" support for the Tea Party cause as does the general intolerance I've found here among Tea Partiers for more liberal social and environmental positions.

Sounds like you need to go check out a Tea Party for yourself. Document what you find. Try for what draws you most, just not 2000 pictures of the same misspelled sign.

The problem with being a Bastardized Liberal is not at all what one does with their own Voice or Resources, it is the taking of the property of others, unjustified, without consent or respect to private property. There is no value for value in exploitation or mandate. Conservative in respect to private property, is neither rich or poor, giving or miserly, it is merely about respectfulness towards others. Be not Greedy or Stubborn, when you can make a difference Jealousy and Envy are just as mean and Evil..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ayup. Intense, and by extension divecon, just got his butt kicked.

 

[DiveCon]

Ayup. Intense, and by extension divecon, just got his butt kicked.

nope
only in your demented mind

 

[Polk]

I think the Perot Split hurt Bush more than Clinton.

It was six in one, half dozen in the other. If you look at the exits and assume Perot voters would have split in the same proportions they did otherwise inside each demo, it did slightly more harm to Bush, but not enough to swing the election.

No Perot, Bush would have cleaned up.

That was my guess until I really looked at the numbers. Then it becomes pretty clear Perot took about the same amount from everyone. The largest group of Democrats are people who describe themselves as moderates. According to the exits, Perot took 15 percent of this group. The largest Republican group are conservative Republicans. Perot took 13 of this group. Perot took larger percentages of liberal and moderate Republicans than he did of liberal and conservative Democrats, but he also took a huge chuck of independents, which were much more inclined to vote for Clinton (Bush won conservative independents 53-17, but they were only 7 percent of voters, Clinton won liberal and moderate independents by almost 20 points and they made up 19 percent of voters).

 

[Polk]

Well, we've successfully dispensed with the claim that Tea Parties represent a wide range of political views whose only common denominator is spending, taxation, and deficits. So the counter-claim - that the Tea Parties represent an astro-turfed effort by the radical right to sling anything that may have a chance at sticking in the direction of their political opponents - remains unchallenged a bit stronger for the revelations made here.

I'll continue to re-evaluate as new evidence comes to light. Because no matter what some folks find believable, I am fiscally conservative.

Now, as to the climate change issue - you can rely on the politicians and the political magazines, websites and political commentators to provide your scientific interpretations for you if you like.

I prefer peer-reviewed scientific journals myself as any attempt to politicize the data or conclusions is quickly spotted, derided, and laughed off the pages.

So what do the scientists who have opted to submit their work to peer-reviewed journals have to say on the issue. Well .... take a look at Beyond the Ivory Tower - a piece examining the scientific consensus:

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

no you havent

Not conclusively, but since those making the claim that the group represented a diverse group of political views have failed to provide supporting evidence, their claims have to be taken as suspect at this point.