• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Media Exaggerate Tea Party's Sway

Have you forgotten the multitrillion dollar war?

The one we're still in (Iraq) or the other one we're still and but now prioritizing up (Afghanistan)?

If you want to add those in, it doesn't change much, as nothing really has changed. We're stills spending between $750 million to $1 billion a week there, which is now just transferring to Afghanistan, which will be Obama's trillion dollar war. :shrug:

Give me a freaking break. The catalyst was that Obama has a D behind his name. When Bush was spending into the red in record amounts, the teapartiers loved him.
Part of it is partisan no doubt, but when Obama with the D behind his name doubles Bush and makes him look like an alterboy - then passes unpopular health care, buys automakers, bails out more banks, buys AIG... I mean look at the whole ball of wax. Obama's Bush on steroids.

Claiming they should have been up in arms years ago is convenient, but timing isn't issue, that some people have finally had enough of the spending and are speaking out about it is the issue.
 
Nope. No pass. Communism is unsustainable and will always collapse. We did not need to borrow trillions to help it along. If you want to spend far more than is needed on one thing you need to pay for it by spending less on something else. I liked Reagan, but that was a flat out screw up. I acknowledge that his policies hastened the collapse. I just don't think the cost-benefit worked in our favor.

Easy for you to say after the fact. What were you saying in 1980 or were you even alive in 1980?
 
The one we're still in (Iraq) or the other one we're still and but now prioritizing up (Afghanistan)?

If you want to add those in, it doesn't change much, as nothing really has changed. We're stills spending between $750 million to $1 billion a week there, which is now just transferring to Afghanistan, which will be Obama's trillion dollar war. :shrug:

Part of it is partisan no doubt, but when Obama with the D behind his name doubles Bush and makes him look like an alterboy - then passes unpopular health care, buys automakers, bails out more banks, buys AIG... I mean look at the whole ball of wax. Obama's Bush on steroids.

Claiming they should have been up in arms years ago is convenient, but timing isn't issue, that some people have finally had enough of the spending and are speaking out about it is the issue.

Don't forget, the healthcare bill was so bad they had to bribe their own party members to vote for it.
 
Easy for you to say after the fact. What were you saying in 1980 or were you even alive in 1980?

I think it was said before the fact, during the effort, and after. Before is called foresight. Some had it. Also, Reagan didn't act alone. The efforts really had been going on for decades before him. Giving him sole credit is kind of inaccurate. Same with full blame for that matter.
 
Easy for you to say after the fact. What were you saying in 1980 or were you even alive in 1980?

In 1980? I was not saying much. I was busy trying to score beer and get laid. Plus, I hadn't taken an intro Econ class yet. Apparently no one in our government ever has.
 
Last edited:
The one we're still in (Iraq) or the other one we're still and but now prioritizing up (Afghanistan)?

If you want to add those in, it doesn't change much, as nothing really has changed. We're stills spending between $750 million to $1 billion a week there, which is now just transferring to Afghanistan, which will be Obama's trillion dollar war. :shrug:

Both....;)
 
In 1980? I was not saying much. I was busy trying to score beer and get laid. Plus, I hadn't taken an intro Econ class yet. Apparently no one in our government ever has.

I campaigned for Mondale. LOL
 
I campaigned for Mondale. LOL


I was 100% non-political. I graduated high school in the mid 1980's, so geo-politics and economics were not exactly my forte. Although I was never naive enough to think the Soviets were actually going to bomb us. I was shocked so many people really believed that crap. That's when I figured out the government could get people to believe anything. The Sheep Principle.
 
I'm not so sure he does.

Bush (Dubyer, that is) truly was the subject of an astoundingly unprecedented hate-and-smear campaign, like nothing I'd ever seen to that point. The vilification of Dubya went far beyond anything I'd seen aimed at Clinton by the Right, an order of magnitude beyond. Possibly half of the vilification hinged on some of the most outrageous black-helo/tinfoil-hat conspiracy crap I've ever heard in forty years.

In reaction, most Republicans closed ranks and defended Bush, in public. However, among fellow Repubs and/or Conservatives, most were saying "WTF is he doing?" on many issues, especially domestic issues and spending. Many conservatives howled when Bush did the 08 bailout, and criticized him vehemently.

Many of us who are part of the Tea movement, or sympathetic to it, have been raising hell about taxes, spending, waste and the expansion of gov't for a long time... just because some of you failed to notice until we got organized and the "TEA" label was used doesn't mean this is a new thing, or a strictly partisan thing.



QFT.

If anyone wants to play the why now game. This is all your have to read.
 
A Delayed Bush Backlash

I attended the Cincinnati Tax Day tea-party rally as a speaker. But it was more interesting to be an observer.

First, here’s what I didn’t see. I didn’t see a single racist or bigoted sign or hear a single such comment. Nor did I see any evidence of “homegrown fascism.” Though in fairness, such things are often in the eye of the beholder, now that dissent has gone from being the highest form of patriotism under George W. Bush to the most common form of racism under Barack Obama.

But I did see something a lot of people, on both the left and the right, seem to have missed: a delayed Bush backlash.

One of the more widespread anti-tea-party arguments goes like this: Republicans didn’t protest very much when Bush ran up deficits and expanded government, so when Obama does the same thing (albeit on a far grander scale), Republican complaints can’t be sincere.
...
No doubt partisanship plays a role. But partisanship only explains so much given that the tea partiers are clearly sincere about limited government and often quite fond of Republican-bashing. So here’s an alternative explanation: Conservatives don’t want to be fooled again.

Recall that Bush came into office promising to be a “different kind of conservative,” and one of his first legislative victories was the No Child Left Behind Act, sponsored by Teddy Kennedy.

Throughout his presidency, Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” surrendered — either rhetorically or substantively — to the assumptions of welfare-state liberalism, i.e. that your decency was best measured by your commitment to large, inefficient government programs. “When somebody hurts,” Bush insisted, “government has got to move.”
...
Many conservatives muted their objections, in part because they actually liked the man personally or because they approved of his stances on tax cuts, judges, abortion, and, most important, the war on terror (we can see a similar dynamic with so many antiwar liberals who still support Obama).

Conservatives didn’t necessarily bite their tongues (remember the Harriet Miers and immigration fiascoes), but they did prioritize supporting Bush — often in the face of far nastier attacks than Obama has received — over ideological purity.
...
Then, as a lame duck, Bush laid down the predicates for much of Obama’s first 100 days, supporting both a stimulus and Wall Street bailouts. As one participant of the D.C. tea-party rally told the Washington Examiner’s Byron York, “George Bush opened the door for Barack Obama and the Democrats to walk in.”
...
57 percent have a favorable view of Bush, but that hardly captures the nuance of tea-party feelings. For instance, when Bush’s face appeared on the Jumbotron in the arena, the Cincinnati audience applauded. When speakers criticized Bush and the GOP for “losing their way,” the audience applauded even louder.

Going by what I saw in Cincinnati, second to a profound desire to rein in government, the chief attitude driving the 39 percent of tea partiers who describe themselves as “very conservative” isn’t partisanship, racism, or seizing the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. It’s “We won’t be fooled again.” In the near term, that spells trouble for Obama and Democrats. In the long term, that lays down a serious gauntlet for Republicans.

Between goshin's post and this one. The TEA party should be clear now. Those who wish to continue to bash us do so at thier own peril of looking like dishonest fools. ;)
 
Part of it is partisan no doubt, but when Obama with the D behind his name doubles Bush and makes him look like an alterboy - then passes unpopular health care, buys automakers, bails out more banks, buys AIG... I mean look at the whole ball of wax. Obama's Bush on steroids.

Claiming they should have been up in arms years ago is convenient, but timing isn't issue, that some people have finally had enough of the spending and are speaking out about it is the issue.
Let us not forget quite a lot of "them" were upset with Bush and his spending as evidenced by poll after poll. The fallacious "where were they when Bush was POTUS" fluff question flies in the face of common sense, any rational point and quite a lot of public opinion polling that was posted at DP throughout Bush's last term. Only you can't rely upon most internet posters to act as if they remember those simple realities, when they want to "discuss' the Tea Party movement. ;)
 
Many of us who are part of the Tea movement, or sympathetic to it, have been raising hell about taxes, spending, waste and the expansion of gov't for a long time... just because some of you failed to notice until we got organized and the "TEA" label was used doesn't mean this is a new thing, or a strictly partisan thing.

Really? Yet you kept electing the people who did it. Over and over. And we're to take you seriously now? Righto.
 
I believe that there are legitimate aspects to the Tea Party, but as long as they support laws like these, that are being considered in Oklahoma, then they can never be referred to as a movement that wants to get the government out of health care.

Dana, while I'll grant that some of it sounds ridiculous from the article, it is also extremely obvious that the author of the article is heavily biased against it. I'd have to wonder if we're getting the whole story just from that one article.
 
I believe that there are legitimate aspects to the Tea Party, but as long as they support laws like these, that are being considered in Oklahoma, then they can never be referred to as a movement that wants to get the government out of health care.

It's the age old Republican lie. They are not against big government or big spending. That is a proven fact at this point. They are against spending if it's done by Democrats. They are against "big government" if the bill is a Democratic one. That's why I'm a Libertarian. Republicans sold idiots a bill of goods. And yes, the tea baggers are mostly Republicans. That's why I don't believe any part of it sincere.
 
The tea party movement has attractive rhetorical slogans about reducing the size of government, alongside effectively no intentions of actually doing so. Their focus is on enforcing certain ideas about morality that they have, even if they would involve an expansion of statism.

Consider their promotion of authoritarian policy to restrict illegal immigration. Construction, maintenance, and active patrol of a massive border fence between the United States and Mexico would involve a similarly massive financial expenditure, likely larger than that of decriminalizing border crossing. The social conservatives of the tea party movement don't care, as their concern is with what they perceive about the immorality of "rewarding lawbreakers." As I've quoted from Lakoff previously:

Within Strict Father morality, illegal immigrants are seen as lawbreakers ("illegals") who should be punished...From the perspective of the Nation As Family metaphor, illegal immigrants are not citizens, hence they are not children in our family. To be expected to provide food, housing, and health care for illegal immigrants is like being expected to feed, house, and care for other children in the neighborhood who are coming into our house without permission. They weren't invited, they have no business being here, and we have no responsibility to take care of them.

Many people would sooner harshly deal with the "neighbor children" that are "trespassing" on their property and adopt draconian security measures to prevent them from doing so even if letting them in would ultimately cost less.

Actually, I would give Reagan a pass, since his spending, mostly on the military, was designed to bankrupt the Soviet economy, since, in theory, they would be unable to keep up. The theory held, and the USSR collapsed, thus making the world a little safer.

The Soviet economy had been declining since the 1970s, which I attribute to fundamental defects of Communism. Central planning may have produced behemoth gains at some point, and we cannot sneeze at the actual economic record of the USSR during the fifties and sixties, but party/state dictatorship was simply too authoritarian to effectively manage an increasingly educated population and their increased demands for liberty in the political sphere and the workplace. The union didn't even "collapse," properly speaking. It was dismantled by a party/state elite that quickly became the party/state elite in the Russian Federation, even as the majority of Soviet citizens favored its preservation in some form. Not much to attribute to Reagan; plenty to attribute to the failures of Leninist dictatorship.
 
Its kinda hard to say with a straight face that a movement has no electoral power when no national elections have take place after the creation of said movement.
 
I believe that there are legitimate aspects to the Tea Party, but as long as they support laws like these, that are being considered in Oklahoma, then they can never be referred to as a movement that wants to get the government out of health care.

Great Story Dana. It was wonderful to see all the statements of how the Tea Party pushed for the legislation, the Tea Party had rallies for the legislation, the Tea Party's lobbied their representitives to pass it.

....

Oh wait, the story didn't say a single thing about the Tea Parties.

:roll:

You got the Tin man over there typing with you too?

As I said before, you may have a local tea party (likely put together by a person leaning socially conservative) supporting it or people who are part of the movement supporting it, but that is not the Tea Party as an over arching movement pushing it.

Social Conservatives are part of the movement. So are libertarians. So are paleocons. So are centrists. So are democrats. So are moderates.

If the democrat and centrist contingent were for Gay Marriage being legalized, with that term, across the United States does that mean the "Tea Party" supports it?

No.

No more than if some libertarians in the anti-war movement magically meant that the anti-war movement was anti-gun control.

Your problem isn't with the Tea Parties, you're just projecting your bigger issue onto them, which is you want to do to Social Conservatives what they've done to Libertarians for the past 10 years...ignore you and kick you to the curb saying "your not that important". And because the Tea Party, which began more libertarian but has became literally all inclusive while still actually holding a fiscal and governmental conservative focus, has actually managed to bring groups together rather than ostrocize the group of conservative you hate and are upset with so much you find it something that must be beaten down.
 
Last edited:
First, I'd gladly dare anyone on this forum to tell me I was not a critic of Bush. Sorry, but you refugee's coming over from other places acting as if you know jack **** of what was said about Bush during the Bush years by INDIVIDUALS on this forum is frankly that, BS. Bail outs, Perscription Drug, nation building, No Child Left Behind, immigration, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage...Bush pissed me off a ton.

Second, Tea Parties started in 2007, yes they picked up steam later but they are not some new thing born of the Obama Presidency.

Third, I call absolute bull**** on this idiotic hollier than thou attitude. Its a bunch of people who are sitting on their high horse that I garauntee have done the same thing in some portion of their life. Natural human nature causes people to generally group up. Politically even if you don't take sides of a party "moderates" or "Independents" or "Centrists" will still segregate, grabbing onto their ideological equals in hopes of forming a difference between "Us" and "them". This is present in social circles (geeks, preps, jocks, brains, etc), this is present in many work places (with the difference forming between management and the employees), in sports (our team vs your team), and throughout society. Its the way the Dallas Cowboys could hate TO when he spiked the ball in the middle of the Star but can explain it away when he's on their team. Its how Green Bay fans could think Favre is a god amongst men but is an absolute diva now when in reality he's doing the same thing he's done for almost a decade.

Its not just then too. Families and friends do this always. Everyone likely has some friend that has some kind of jackass trait that you accept or maybe even laugh about that if it was some random person, or someone you disliked, showing that trait would cause you to get up in arms. If your best friend owes you $10 and keeps forgetting about it I garauntee you all react different than if some jackass at work guilted you into lending them $20 and they are the ones stiffing you.

So yes, as SHOCKING as I'm sure it is to some of you...primarily because you're being pathetic hypocrites for the sake of attacking the people you dislike (Funny, Catz, I don't see you posting non-stop attacking the massively Anti-War left who were protesting all the time during Bush but are being relatively quiet when Obama's doing much the same things as him. God Catz, how DARE you act differently to one group than the other)...human nature is present and people are more likely to be more amped up, more interested, when they feel like they have less control and power.

Fourth, which brings us to the political science aspect of it. Traditionally both sides have always shown us that the people OUT of power are going to be the loudest complainers and those IN power are going to complain the least. Why? Political human nature shows that when "your team" is in power people who are mildly interested in politics are more likely to take a detached stance because their side is in power so they figure they're doing fine. Meanwhile those out of power are generally more engaged when it comes to their mildly interested population because you have that underdog, put upon, helpless feeling that spurs it. Which, with that taking care of the mildly interested, you then have the people that are actually relatively learned about Politics. That also has a Political Science motivation to it. Much like in Sports, you keep your troubles in house as best as possible to not give the other side an advantage. Again, both sides routinely do this. When you're in power you're not likely going to be doing demonstrations or making huge scenes about specific issues. Why? Because that helps the other side get elected and while you dislike 4 out of the 10 things your guy is doing you're going to dislike 9 out of 10 things the OTHER guy is going to do (and that 9 is going to include those 4 that your guys doing). So instead you try to send the message then in a less public way. Its the same reason you're not seeing huge immigration rallies getting tons of coverage, huge anti-war rallies getting tons of coverage, etc now that you saw continuously for years during the Bush Administration.

So yes, those hypocritical vile tea baggers are ****ing human and are prone to typical political trends. They should all be ignored (while we, the obviously more civilized "moderates", stand above the frey...bitching and complaining all the time which is half the reason we choose moderate so that we can always just bitch so we always feel vicitimized...while only commenting on these type of things when it helps the side we ACTUALLY lean to).

And finally, its a scope issue. Obama's Bail Out was MUCH larger than Bush's. Obama's Health Care is MUCH larger than Perscription Drug. Bush passed major tax cuts across the board, Obama's planning on letting tax cuts fall off the board and already looking at raising various ones. Bush ran up the debt a good bit, Obama is going to surpass Bush's 8 years total in his first two years.

When a friend jokingly punches you in the arm when you're not expecting it you're going to get annoyed at him and have a few words. When that douche bag that sits across the bar comes over and slugs you across the jaw you're probably going to start swinging.

I guess that makes you a hypocrite.

:roll:
 
(Funny, Catz, I don't see you posting non-stop attacking the massively Anti-War left who were protesting all the time during Bush but are being relatively quiet when Obama's doing much the same things as him. God Catz, how DARE you act differently to one group than the other)...human nature is present and people are more likely to be more amped up, more interested, when they feel like they have less control and power.

Oh really? I guess that means you've missed my posts about how disappointed I am that obama hasn't dismantled the torture camps in Gitmo and/or prosecuted those involved, or the posts about my frustration that don't ask/don't tell hasn't been overturned, or my posts expressing frustration that the Patriot act hasn't been dismantled.

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.

beyond that, you seem kinda tense and defensive. What's that about?

If you were there, great. but I strongly suspect that the majority of teabaggers weren't, and are simply rabidly partisan Republicans.

the which is substantiated by the statistics from the OP. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom