I've seen next to nothing with you making up derogatory terms for those in the anti-war movement, criticizing other members and other groups on this forum for not doing like you, etc.
They are doing the exact same type of "hypocritical" thing that you're accusing the Tea partiers of doing, simply in reverse, but you do not spend nearly the same amount of time on them.
I don't know Catz, are you just a hypocrite that's only making big noise about groups you dislike and the groups you actually side with you don't rant about as much? Wow, that seems so hugely hypocritical of you catz. You should go about and make a nickname for yourself that people can use derogatorily towards you like "tea baggers" since if someone's a hypocrite and does something more for one group than another group despite them being relatively equal they're worthy of non-stop insulting.
I mean, going by your twisted logic on this point, that seems to be the point.
You rail, CONSTANTLY, against the tea partiers to the point of continually stopping to the level of a "libtard" esque childish slur. Yet you next to never speak about the hypocrisy of the anti-war movement in the country.
No, you haven't been an Obama balls licker. You've been a solidly left leaning moderate that likes much of what he's doing and dislikes other portions of it strongly, who goes out of her way continually and relentlessly to slander, insult, and distort one group she dislikes while continually and repeatedly gives a pass to another group that you identify more with.In other words, Zyph, you see what you want to see, because it's damn sure that I haven't been licking Obama's balls, either.
Essentially, you do the exact same thing you accuse the Tea Partiers of doing.
I'm tired of dealing with a bunch of childish kindergardeners that can't have a legitimate political discussion without acting like 5 year olds calling each other doo doo heads. I'm tired of seeing otherwise reasonable people look like immature fools. And I'm tired of watching people hypocritically screaming continually about hypocracy.beyond that, you seem kinda tense and defensive. What's that about?
I don't know, perhaps go to a college campus, I know tea bagging happens often with the immature drunk freshmen. I'm sure you could volunteer to help them engage in it while you're taking your study.If you were there, great. but I strongly suspect that the majority of teabaggers weren't, and are simply rabidly partisan Republicans.
However, if you're speaking of the Tea partiers, I would strongly suggest you're absolutely wrong. Considering recent other polls it appears close to 50% aren't even Republicans (Independents, Libertarians and Democrats). So what you're saying is that the 50% of Republicans that make up the Tea Party movement needs to be almost ENTIRELY of the rabidly partisan Republican types to be able to legitimately say they make up a "majority" of them. That simply strains credibility and logic to assume that essentially EVERY republican identifying Tea Party member MUST be a hyper partisan Republican that NEVER had issues with what Bush did.
Yes, a large portion of them likely didn't say anything loudly about Bush. A portion of that group likely had issues with Bush but didn't make a huge deal out of them for the reasons I stated above (human nature, political intelligence, etc). To use that as a reason to lambast them continually is hypocritical in and of itself unless you're lambasting humanity as a whole for every time they are more apt to speak more softly about someone not close to them doing something than they would someone they dislike doing the same thing only worse. However to claim is a majority doesn't jive with reality of the variety of polling information or common logic.
Actually, its NOT substantiated by the statistics of the OP. But nice slant.the which is substantiated by the statistics from the OP.
Your OP in no way states that the majority of Tea Partiers are the "Hyper Partisan" type republicans or the extreme republicans or the staunch republicans. Simply that the majority "lean" republican, which in no way denotes anywhere near the severity of their blind following as you attempt to suggest with no evidence other than pointing to an OP that doesn't provide any evidence.
Second, the OP again is not necessarily checking the party affiliation of the Tea Parties but the leans of the regions that their data basing of Tea Party members are most often appear in. However correlation does not mean causation. Tea Parties being large in Republican leaning areas could mean it could be all Republicans, or it could mean there's a larger base for the sentinment to grow and thus has more oppertunity to expand out to others.
Third, you can't look at polls in a vacuum nor have you shown ANY reason at all that your suggested poll is somehow concrete while the previous poll denoting the amount of self identified Tea Partiers that were not Republicans is somehow wrong. Taking them both together it appears that the majority of Tea Partiers lean republican, something that's not going to shock anyone, however shows that it reaches across to independents, some democrats, big L libertarians, and moderate conservatives as well.
Hardly a "majority" of "hyper partisan republicans" who likely never voiced issues with George Bush.
You, and Stekim, both are hypocrites, just as much as you claim the Tea Partiers are. You lambast them but give other groups no where near your vitriol and attention in your postings. You bash tea partiers for doing actions, being louder when the other side is in power and being louder when the other side is doing the things you dislike WORSE than your guy was doing it, that both parties have done for decades upon decades yet you previously almost never and currently almost never lambast others for their actions of it currently or in the past. You put them on the spit for "hypocrisy" that is present in every human being.
Tell me Catz, lets be honest here...
You've never excused a flaw in a friend that you're criticized in an aquaintence or someone you didn't like?
You've never given a freind or family member more rope when it came to a situation of trust then you've given someone you barely knew or disliked?
You've never perhaps as a sports fan complained about another teams actions or choices but complained FAR less and quieter when your team did something akin to it?
You've never railed about Parents needing to take better care and pay more attention to their children yet find that at times you don't do a 100% perfect job of it yourself?
You've never complained loudly about the hypocricy or the wrongness of one group but given a pass or complained much less about another group that did something arguably similar?
I can say, with 100% certainty, if you answer yes to everyone of those you're a bold faced pathetic liar just as I'd say to someone that says they've never lied before in their life. It's human nature to be more understanding, more forgiving, less vocal, more compassionate, more lienent, with those that are closer to you in some fashion. This does not change in politics, and especially so when you add in political strategy into it.
Simply becasue people express their anger and disagreement in two different ways does not necessarily mean its not there, nor should it be expected that their anger and disagreement will always occur EXACTLY the same in EVERY situation because every situation is not the same.
You and Stekim put out this bull**** notion and expect it to be considered factually 100% unquestioanbly correct that the only difference now is that its a Democrat in office and the republicans lost.
Bull****, utter bull****.
Yes, a Democrat being the one in office DOES play into it (just as a Republican being in office played into it previously for Democrats). You don't completely torpedo your own side when rather than fixing anything it'll make it WORSE because its just going to let the other guy get in which will do everything you're disliking about your guy PLUS other stuff you dislike.
For all of Bush's spending, Obama's is arguably larger.
For all of Bush's entitlement, Obama's was larger.
For all of the Patriot Acts slippery slope, the Health Care Plans slippery slope is arguably larger.
For all Bush's spending that he did the large majority of it was in regards to wars, something while YOU may disagree with many (and not just "hyper partisan republicans") look at as at least being identifable in the Constitution (in regards to defense) as being something at least in the legitimate perview of the government. While YOU may disagree, there is a legitimate and reasonable belief there...JUST as much, if not more, as the belief that Health Care is legitimate government spending per the constitution.
For all Bush's fiscal issues he did cut taxes, not with class warefare but across the board. Obama's flat out stated he plans on pushing for part of the Bush tax cuts to expire and has been talking about permanent tax increases while using smoke screens of temporary rebates to distract.
For all his debt running up, it took 8 years for Bush to do what Obama's likely to do in 2 years.
For all the cries of "Obama has a bad economy to contend with" its equally a legitimate counter to go "Bush had to deal with the reality of 9/11"
The situations are not 100% the same and there are a number of legitimate reasons why people who were either quietly unhappy with Bush or dealing with "the lesser of two evils" under Bush are now speaking out far louder when they're dealing with, what they see, as the "Eviler of two evils" and who is doing in their mind every bad thing that Bush did, only on steroids, and is adding Sprinkles of more bad things on top of it all.