Why Do The Liberals Fear The Tea Party Movement

[MaggieMae]

Hell, a significant chunk of Democrats want to GO BACK to Bush policies.

What's your point?

The entire nation is against Democrats right now. Are you one of the 2 percenters?

Of course you're dead wrong on BOTH of your points.

It's more like half approve/disapprove of Obama policies, consistently, as per ALL THE POLLS here.

Obama: Job Ratings

Congress is despised by nearly everyone, but that was true when Bush was president too.

 

[Meister]

Hell, a significant chunk of Democrats want to GO BACK to Bush policies.

What's your point?

The entire nation is against Democrats right now. Are you one of the 2 percenters?

Of course you're dead wrong on BOTH of your points.

It's more like half approve/disapprove of Obama policies, consistently, as per ALL THE POLLS here.

Obama: Job Ratings

Congress is despised by nearly everyone, but that was true when Bush was president too.

Are you talking about Obama's policies? Or, Obama's job approval ratings? Two entirely different subjects.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, I noticed she had nothing to say about an honest post, but tried to impugn me. I guess when she has nothing, she still needs to say something.

Which "honest post" would you be talking about? The one about drinking the Kool-aid made against someone who clearly knows a helluva lot more history than you do? Or the initial question "Why do liberals fear the TP movement"?? I can't recall if I answered that here, but I certainly have elsewhere. And the answer to your dumb question is that no one (including me) "fears" the tea party. They have every right to form whatever "movement" they want. It's also my "right" to laugh at the lack of intelligent thought that most of their candidates possess. I've seen more posters right on this board who support the tea party who have more brains and the capability of rational discourse.

Are you talking about the president getting a blowjob in office is okay these days, or the lie about 600,000 innocent civilians getting killed by our troops. You really are that stupid to feed into the lie....pathetic

It would be helpful if you were smart enough to actually POST what the fuck you want answered.

No, blowjobs in office aren't okay. Huh? It wasn't okay for Clinton either. What the FUCK does THAT have anything to do with ANYTHING? Get over it and move on, idiot.

The civilian war dead will never be accurate for a variety of reasons. The Iraqis bury their dead as soon as possible, without reporting deaths, so for the most part only estimates could be provided. Second, thousands became refugees arriving in bordering and often hostile countries, so no one knows what happened to all of them once they arrived. There were reports that many were jailed or kept in camps.

The Bush Administration relied on this report, which is incomplete (Gaps in recording and reporting suggest that even our highest totals to date may be missing many civilian deaths from violence:

Iraq Body Count

While Richard was probably relying on the Lancet report.

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths - CNN

Somewhere between the numbers quoted in each is more accurate, but it is still a travesty. I shudder to think of all the Iraqi children who grew up knowing nothing but war, and who are now entering adolescence or teens, and guess which country they will blame for their despair? Iraq remains ripe for al-Qaeda recruiting.

 

[MaggieMae]

I think they are the conservatives, and not just the republicans.

Considering the bulk were bush supporters that does not make sense.

Considering you don't know what your talking about.....now that makes sense.
I think most people in the prior two elections before Obama voted for the lesser of two evils, Curve. Most republicans couldn't stand Kerry, or Gore, plain and simple. I feel most on the right voted for the person who they felt would do the least amount of damage.
Most conservatives were not too keen with Bush, I being one of them.

Most conservatives, before the 2000 election, would have been against Gore simply because he was Clinton's vice president and for NO OTHER REASON. Once the USSC decided the 2000 election, it was the beginning of partisan gridlock and it hasn't stopped since. By 2004, the Democrats could have put up Jesus Christ himself, and not won that election against the Rove Machine. Ironically, even in spite of the midnight hour nonstop attack by the Swiftboaters against Kerry, he still gave ol' Junior a run for his money.

 

[MaggieMae]

which you can't answer.

Thank ewe!

"Can't" implies I don't know the answer, stupid. "Won't" would have been more appropriate, stupid. No, I don't work for the government. But what if I did? Would that answer make your day? If so, that's why it was a stupid question.

Looks like maggie has her panties all in a bunch today. I think they're going to get a whole lot more twisted in the coming days leading up to the election. View attachment 11876

I do wake up somedays shaking my head over the abject ignorance of the people who post here sometimes. And that's why, to your second point, I'm anxious for the Republican sweep. I'm seriously interested in seeing just how they think they're going to solve all our problems. It's a fucking joke.

I do enjoy annoying you, however. It's always intriguing how I can get under your skin because for every point you make, I have a counterpoint. Which makes you NEVER "all right" (correct), all the time, and I know that must shatter your ego, big time.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hell, a significant chunk of Democrats want to GO BACK to Bush policies.

What's your point?

The entire nation is against Democrats right now. Are you one of the 2 percenters?

Of course you're dead wrong on BOTH of your points.

It's more like half approve/disapprove of Obama policies, consistently, as per ALL THE POLLS here.

Obama: Job Ratings

Congress is despised by nearly everyone, but that was true when Bush was president too.

Are you talking about Obama's policies? Or, Obama's job approval ratings? Two entirely different subjects.

His approval ratings are even higher!

Obama: Favorability

 

[Meister]

Of course you're dead wrong on BOTH of your points.

It's more like half approve/disapprove of Obama policies, consistently, as per ALL THE POLLS here.

Obama: Job Ratings

Congress is despised by nearly everyone, but that was true when Bush was president too.

Are you talking about Obama's policies? Or, Obama's job approval ratings? Two entirely different subjects.

His approval ratings are even higher!

Obama: Favorability

You were talking about policies, and yet you bring no polls on his policies, Maggie.

 

[Meister]

"Can't" implies I don't know the answer, stupid. "Won't" would have been more appropriate, stupid. No, I don't work for the government. But what if I did? Would that answer make your day? If so, that's why it was a stupid question.

Looks like maggie has her panties all in a bunch today. I think they're going to get a whole lot more twisted in the coming days leading up to the election. View attachment 11876

I do wake up somedays shaking my head over the abject ignorance of the people who post here sometimes. And that's why, to your second point, I'm anxious for the Republican sweep. I'm seriously interested in seeing just how they think they're going to solve all our problems. It's a fucking joke.

I do enjoy annoying you, however. It's always intriguing how I can get under your skin because for every point you make, I have a counterpoint. Which makes you NEVER "all right" (correct), all the time, and I know that must shatter your ego, big time.

Trust me, maggie....there is nothing a internet stranger could say that would shatter my ego.

 

[Meister]

Considering the bulk were bush supporters that does not make sense.

Considering you don't know what your talking about.....now that makes sense.
I think most people in the prior two elections before Obama voted for the lesser of two evils, Curve. Most republicans couldn't stand Kerry, or Gore, plain and simple. I feel most on the right voted for the person who they felt would do the least amount of damage.
Most conservatives were not too keen with Bush, I being one of them.

Most conservatives, before the 2000 election, would have been against Gore simply because he was Clinton's vice president and for NO OTHER REASON. Once the USSC decided the 2000 election, it was the beginning of partisan gridlock and it hasn't stopped since. By 2004, the Democrats could have put up Jesus Christ himself, and not won that election against the Rove Machine. Ironically, even in spite of the midnight hour nonstop attack by the Swiftboaters against Kerry, he still gave ol' Junior a run for his money.

Sounds like spinning to me, maggie. Kerry, and Gores personalities are what killed their chances.

Remember John Kerry buying a "Huntin' license"? My God, he couldn't relate to anyone but his base.

 

[k2skier]

Best bumper sticker ever for the TPers

 

[MaggieMae]

Are you talking about Obama's policies? Or, Obama's job approval ratings? Two entirely different subjects.

His approval ratings are even higher!

Obama: Favorability

You were talking about policies, and yet you bring no polls on his policies, Maggie.

Go to the pollingreport.com home page, and you'll see a variety of categories you can click on. They don't "do" polls as a rule; they report the results of all the polls, including all the Q&As. You can also keep scrolling to the bottom and bring up previous years within any topic, going back at least to 1999 or 2000, and possibly before. I can't remember.

 

[MaggieMae]

Considering you don't know what your talking about.....now that makes sense.
I think most people in the prior two elections before Obama voted for the lesser of two evils, Curve. Most republicans couldn't stand Kerry, or Gore, plain and simple. I feel most on the right voted for the person who they felt would do the least amount of damage.
Most conservatives were not too keen with Bush, I being one of them.

Most conservatives, before the 2000 election, would have been against Gore simply because he was Clinton's vice president and for NO OTHER REASON. Once the USSC decided the 2000 election, it was the beginning of partisan gridlock and it hasn't stopped since. By 2004, the Democrats could have put up Jesus Christ himself, and not won that election against the Rove Machine. Ironically, even in spite of the midnight hour nonstop attack by the Swiftboaters against Kerry, he still gave ol' Junior a run for his money.

Sounds like spinning to me, maggie. Kerry, and Gores personalities are what killed their chances.

Remember John Kerry buying a "Huntin' license"? My God, he couldn't relate to anyone but his base.

Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. As for Kerry, he no way would have been my first choice, but again, in spite of his not being a natural good ol' boy, he came very close to denying Bush43 a second term like Bush41. Were it not for the voting shenanigans in Ohio, I still believe Kerry would have won.

People that will actually vote depending on a candidates slipups or insignificant faux pas is just plain dumb. I feel the same way about people who will vote based on a person's good looks, like that has anything to do with the way he/she might govern.

 

[MaggieMae]

Looks like maggie has her panties all in a bunch today. I think they're going to get a whole lot more twisted in the coming days leading up to the election. View attachment 11876

I do wake up somedays shaking my head over the abject ignorance of the people who post here sometimes. And that's why, to your second point, I'm anxious for the Republican sweep. I'm seriously interested in seeing just how they think they're going to solve all our problems. It's a fucking joke.

I do enjoy annoying you, however. It's always intriguing how I can get under your skin because for every point you make, I have a counterpoint. Which makes you NEVER "all right" (correct), all the time, and I know that must shatter your ego, big time.

Trust me, maggie....there is nothing a internet stranger could say that would shatter my ego.

I apologize for the ego remark. I have a confession to make. When I wrote that, for some reason I was thinking I was responding to Manifold, not Meister. I know you don't have an ego problem, whereas he does.

Senior moment!

 

[CurveLight]

I think they are the conservatives, and not just the republicans.

Considering the bulk were bush supporters that does not make sense.

Considering you don't know what your talking about.....now that makes sense.
I think most people in the prior two elections before Obama voted for the lesser of two evils, Curve. Most republicans couldn't stand Kerry, or Gore, plain and simple. I feel most on the right voted for the person who they felt would do the least amount of damage.
Most conservatives were not too keen with Bush, I being one of them.

Voted for the one they thought would do the least harm? Then they should not have voted for the one that sent our Troops to invade two nations that never attacked us, the one that utterly failed to protect one single American on 9/11, the one that used Signing Statements to avoid Federal law, the one that condoned torture and proudly proclaimed to the world the US operates secret international prisons, the one that fucking made a press corps joke out of not finding wmd, the one that said "Bring it on!"

The tea party is nothing more than a corporate funded orgy of psyhological incest among the ignorant Nationalists who cheered the Liberal policy of Nation Building that directly lead to two separate Islamic Theocracies being installed.

 

[CurveLight]

I do wake up somedays shaking my head over the abject ignorance of the people who post here sometimes. And that's why, to your second point, I'm anxious for the Republican sweep. I'm seriously interested in seeing just how they think they're going to solve all our problems. It's a fucking joke.

I do enjoy annoying you, however. It's always intriguing how I can get under your skin because for every point you make, I have a counterpoint. Which makes you NEVER "all right" (correct), all the time, and I know that must shatter your ego, big time.

Trust me, maggie....there is nothing a internet stranger could say that would shatter my ego.

I apologize for the ego remark. I have a confession to make. When I wrote that, for some reason I was thinking I was responding to Manifold, not Meister. I know you don't have an ego problem, whereas he does.

Senior moment!

Everyone has an ego problem but not everyone is honest about it.

 

[Samson]

Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. .

Yeah, but I'm glad Slickwillie Stainmaker is back on the campaign trail:

 

[CurveLight]

Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. .

Yeah, but I'm glad Slickwillie Stainmaker is back on the campaign trail:

You demonize clinton for getting a blowjob but praised bush for needlessly killing our Troops. At least your jealousy is consistent.

 

[MaggieMae]

Nothing "killed" their chances except Bush got a few more votes, period. Frankly, I didn't particularly like Gore's style, but I didn't want to see the Clinton golden years come to a screeching halt. .

Yeah, but I'm glad Slickwillie Stainmaker is back on the campaign trail:

Your postings on Clinton's sexcapades have set a record, especially considering it was 15 years ago!! Get some help, man.

 

[Sallow]

I dunno.

I like gettin blowjobs from chicks.

Maybe Samson is a little "different".

 

[JamesMorrison]

It is abundantly clear that you have no respect whatsoever for working people. A an arrogant distain for working people who stand up for themselves.

I would suggest this abundance of clarity only arises in your mind but if not, I invite you, and those that agree with you, to simply point out in my comments those posts (anywhere)which might suggest your claim is actually true.

It is also clear that you like to play the "French card", oh the French are all bad, anything French is wrong. In fact, the French are our greatest allies historically, espouse political values closest to the values of the American founding fathers- in some ways more so than Americans. After all wasn't it Thomas Paine that authored the French "Rights of Man"?

Two points here: First I would ask where did I say "oh the French are all bad, anything French is wrong"? Second: I do not consider the French "our greatest allies" and you might want to consider the "special relationship" that the U.S. has with the British (However much President Obama's returning the WH bust of Winston Churchill and an embarrassingly ungracious gift of an i-Pod to the Queen of England by our current President might argue otherwise). The French's help was a long time in coming (I assume you are referring to the American Revolution here). French help, secured in 1778, was not until almost two years after the Battle of Trenton (The Xmas/Hessian/Washington crossing the Delaware thingy). But even then, it is no historical secret that the French/American Alliance was a Balance of Power move by the French to weaken England. Not that there is anything wrong with Richelieu’s concept of raison d’etat, mind you. Another fact that might be mentioned is that this "great" American ally was running around the international scene shortly before the Iraq/Saddam War actively lobbying nations not to join in backing up American demands of Saddam to stand down. Given that France, and Europe in general, would have suffered more and before the U.S. had Saddam decided to go Iran-like, the French Prime Minister's and President's actions remind one of the confused and conflicted foreign policy mechanizations of Emperor Napoleon III. Many expert foreign policy experts simply labeled this as the French leaders' futile attempt to, somehow, regain past "glories" and/or attain mere international relevance.

In fact you are entirely ignorant (or shall we say, just plain full oof shit?), when you compare the American Conservatives to the founding fathers. NOT!

Word of advice here: Loose the ad Ad Hominem
attacks...They are red flags to look for regarding a weak argument or, often, just desperation.

The current American Conservative movement (as it has for the past 50 years), represents the philosohy and interests of the British Conservatives and Europe Royalty.

No, as I said in my initial post to this thread American Conservatism closely follows Classical Liberalism which is what the founders proposed and then codified in the U.S. Constitution. You can, of course, look it up. But here is John C. Goodman:

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

But you have brought up an excellent point that shows further that you, and many others, feel that European/British Conservatisim equates with that of American conservatism. The proof of your confusion is that you co-join “British Conservatism” with "Europ[ean] Royalty. Frankly, I remain unconvinced. You seem to be suggesting that American Conservatives are Monarchists. Such an argument simply must be fleshed out more appropriately.

Further, if you look at European history (British history excepted) any practical real world government representation of classical liberalism is non-existent. Excepting tribalism and feudalism the only types of political constructs are nationalism, socialism (and its perversion communism), and European Conservatism. But European Conservatism, up to and slightly past Bismarck, was simply an aversion to liberalism's perversion… socialism and specifically to the unrest that it provoked. The long and short of European Conservatism is simply the upholding of law and order. This conservatism, was in direct opposition to the tide of 'liberal revolutions' seen in Europe circa 1848 especially in France (see: French Revolution of 1848, European Revolutions of 1848, Spring of Nations, Springtime of the Peoples, or Year of Revolution). That liberalism we currently see in America today can be traced to this period in Europe. It is also the basic starting point of full blown socialism. There is nothing like American Conservatism (Classical Liberalism) in Europe's history regarding actual governance, nothing. Thus the term "American Exceptionalism"

This is especially evident in the anti-government, pro-wealthy sentiment of the American Conservative movement. Since the inception of modern government, the Europen Royalty had yearned for and worked for the destruction of these governements, so that they can resume absolute totalitarian power - especially that of absolute economic control.

Both charges in your first sentence need some evidence to back them up. Other than extreme libertarian groups out in Montana, say, what American Conservative movement expresses anti-government or pro-wealthy sentiment to the exclusion of other economic groups? Even these groups just cited are more, passively, “get out of my life” than actively “anti-government” Such charges call for quotes and links to buttress your claim. Again, are you trying to, somehow, link the American Conservatives with European Royalty? The Tea party recognizes the need for smaller less intrusive government but not No government. They, additionally call for strict constitutionalism which explicitly proscribes Royalty. Tea partiers are overwhelmingly middleclass why would they promote the exclusive rights of your 'wealthy'? Your "resume absolute totalitarian power" sounds more like the actions of the present Obama administration which American conservatives, including the Tea Party and many independents, are presently protesting. Oh, and what exactly is so bad about the wealthy? True conservatives here are more concerned about individual rights for everyone and equal opportunity for all so that they themselves have a chance to become 'wealthy’. Government picking favorites destroys this effort for all but those so favored.

While you accuse the Democrats of existing for a tiny group of patrons, each and everyone of these patrons represents the interest of common Americans. It is also true that the Democrats have supported the interests of the vast majority of Americans - through labor laws, Union support, Social Security, Medicare, industrial regulation, consumer protections. etc...

In fact, the Democrats have been the party "by the people and for the people".

My accusations are born out in the latest actions of the Democratic Party itself. One merely has to be open to the facts after seeking them out and then analyzing Dems intent via their actual actions. Note what they do, not what they say they will or, supposedly, want to do. It is important, however to point out that the problem is not with Union members but lies with their leaders. I would have much less of a problem with unions overall if their members were able to determine whether or not they wanted to give for political purposes and, then, direct that part of their dues to a specific candidate. That is not presently the case. Only Union leaders can make that choice. Would you agree with such an individual liberty? Alternatively, are you more of a Card Check type of guy? Public employee unions (SEIU, AFSCME, etc) have the additional power where they actually have the ability to elect their Bosses (Democratic Politicians) and then 'bargain' with them for increased benefits. Let's not forget, also, that, during the 2008 election cycle Wall Street is proported to have given 63 % of the entire amount of political contributions by those firms to the Dems. This in addition to the Union's 400 million (USD) given to the Dems in the same election.

Honestly, your view of the Democratic Party is naïve, at best. It has been taken over by statists who strive to either receive or to redistribute wealth that they have not earned. President Clinton came from a now defunct arm of the Democratic Party that was wary of the Unions. The Dems 'Blue dog' caucus is gone as is the 'right to life' arm of the Dems. The Democratic Party that is 'for the people' is no longer. Obamacare and its statist proponents such as Pelosi and Obama have destroyed any remaining remnants of the party that might agree with, at least some, conservative ideals.

Come January of 2011 President Obama will have to demonstrate, by actions and not rhetoric, to the American people that his concerns are inline with a center right America and that he can work with them and not a leftist socialist Democratic party. The House will be overwhelmingly GOP that, in turn, will be influenced by American conservatism. If Reid loses his seat and the Dems keep a rump majority in the upper house its majority leader will think long and hard before bucking any conservative effort. That is simply the best situation the Dems will face come the seating of the 112th Congress

JM