• 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

Yes, silly me, it is only the great and wonderous extremist libertarian and "I'm always neutral so I can bitch non stop" moderates/centrists that are immune to the dreaded hypocritical label, of which one could NEVER place on them.

By jove, I think he's got it.
 
While voting for him. Just another example of what I'm talking about! Thanks. Hannity and Rush are part of the problem. They help convince people to vote the clowns in office.


Part of what turned people onto the tea party movement was when McCain said he would out spend Obama on mortgages.... Why do you think he lost? He tried to out obama obama, and at the same time started a catalyst that swelled an existing movements numbers.


You don't ever listen to hannity or Limbaugh do you. :ssst:

Once again you fail to see the point even though I've said it numerous times. Based on their past non-action I don't believe them. I'm not a hypocrite in the least. If I thought they were honest instead of lying hypocrites I would jump on board.


So your libertarianism is based on the impossible, and its just an outlet for you to whine. Noted.


Let me repeat so you get it this time: I don't believe them. I don't think they are for smaller government. So how can I support them? THAT would make me a hypocrite. Not supporting them actually makes me the opposite.


No you are a hypocrite. :shrug: You decided you did not believe them and sided with the big government liberal kooks, That makes you a hypocrite, or foolish. :shrug:



So you guys show up to hear them anyway? Interesting. And yet you don't see why so many don't take you seriously. How can we?


I also show up to hear liberals speak when they come around and Im available. :shrug:


And if these politicians want to change and be for smaller goverment. Why not hear what they have to say?


Are you so closed minded.... Oh wait, Listening to them would mean less for you to complain about. :shrug:
 
Part of what turned people onto the tea party movement was when McCain said he would out spend Obama on mortgages.... Why do you think he lost? He tried to out obama obama, and at the same time started a catalyst that swelled an existing movements numbers.

That's why you think he lost? Interesting. The problem is, GOPers voted for him just they do with all people with elephants next to their names. He lost because independents, who actually decide elections contrary to the thoughts of Democrats or Republicans, were tired of the GOP. That's why the Dems took the Presidency and Congress. Yes, the GOP base was not energized. True. I'll give you that. But they voted elephant like always.

So your libertarianism is based on the impossible, and its just an outlet for you to whine. Noted.

Not sure what you mean. Care to elaborate? Not much to work with there.

No you are a hypocrite. :shrug: You decided you did not believe them and sided with the big government liberal kooks, That makes you a hypocrite, or foolish. :shrug:

I didn't really "decide". They convinced me. I'm hypocrisy free since 1968.

I also show up to hear liberals speak when they come around and Im available. :shrug:

But do you claim to side with them like you do the tea party crowd? That's the difference.

And if these politicians want to change and be for smaller goverment. Why not hear what they have to say?

Here's a little history lesson for you. The Republicans ALWAYS talk the small government game. ALWAYS. But they never actually do it. The fact people have not realized that is stunning. They keep buying it election after election even though the GOP bends them over like two bit whores every time. But this time they really mean it? Please. This is like Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. He'll kick it this by God. Righto.
 
Last edited:
Part of what turned people onto the tea party movement was when McCain said he would out spend Obama on mortgages.... Why do you think he lost?

I hate when people use these type of arguments. There's almost no national race that has a singular reason why someone lost so trying to throw those type of arguments in, especially as a definitive thing, to "win" an argument is asanine.

The closest thing to a singular reason for McCain's loss that I could give would be horrendous political strategy, and I would only say that because it was extremely broad. Trying to play Joe Moderate in the primaries only to try and change into Joe Conservative in the regular cost him Independent votes while Republicans just saw it as phony, causing him money. Picking up Palin would've been good if he had stayed Joe Moderate, and maybe if he had tried and swung BACK to Joe Moderate, but instead he kept up with the Joe Conservative act. Throughout the entire Joe Conservative act the moderate popularist McCain kept creeping in at times, giving you a disjointed chaotic message that didn't appeal greatly to either independents or republicans and came off as phony to the entire pack.

And that's not for saying anything in regards to what Obama did well that helped him win the election while McCain lost it.

Also, the notion that you "win elections" with Independents is also freaking idiotic in its constant implied meaning. If you don't get a good turnout and support from your base you won't win the election either even if you win the Independents because generally its your base that's most likely going to give you the most finances for your campaign to allow you to reach out to those independents, independents are always going to fragment some what so you need to add something to it, and if you somewhat win independents but have a weak turnout of your base you can be in just as much hot **** as you'd be with getting few independents but having strong base turnout.

The key to winning elections is not independents, its a solid to good base turnout + getting a significant portion of Independents. Fail to do either and you're going to have a hard time.
 
Part of what turned people onto the tea party movement was when McCain said he would out spend Obama on mortgages.... Why do you think he lost? He tried to out obama obama, and at the same time started a catalyst that swelled an existing movements numbers.

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:

You have to love revisionist history. People like Hannity and Rush make excuses. The fact is the vote was close, and that was hardly the deciding issue. There's a reason McCain made that argument to begin with: He was losing. ;)
 
I hate when people use these type of arguments. There's almost no national race that has a singular reason why someone lost so trying to throw those type of arguments in, especially as a definitive thing, to "win" an argument is asanine.



Not my point, nor was it what I was saying. What I was saying, and perhaps I phrased it wrong was that People many people were turned off of McCain's "socialism" for a lack of better word, that the excitement on the "right" was nill...

No one can deny this....


This also catapulted many who were already sick of this spending into sympathizing with the tea partys..


Had McCain won, I truly believe there still would be a tea party, just obviously not as big, but noteable...


That notwithstanding. If we can educate even 5% of the "Anti-Obama" types, we as small government types will have served this country well.




The closest thing to a singular reason for McCain's loss that I could give would be horrendous political strategy, and I would only say that because it was extremely broad. Trying to play Joe Moderate in the primaries only to try and change into Joe Conservative in the regular cost him Independent votes while Republicans just saw it as phony, causing him money. Picking up Palin would've been good if he had stayed Joe Moderate, and maybe if he had tried and swung BACK to Joe Moderate, but instead he kept up with the Joe Conservative act. Throughout the entire Joe Conservative act the moderate popularist McCain kept creeping in at times, giving you a disjointed chaotic message that didn't appeal greatly to either independents or republicans and came off as phony to the entire pack.


You forgot "playing Joe Obama in the debates" ;)


And that's not for saying anything in regards to what Obama did well that helped him win the election while McCain lost it.

Also, the notion that you "win elections" with Independents is also freaking idiotic in its constant implied meaning. If you don't get a good turnout and support from your base you won't win the election either even if you win the Independents because generally its your base that's most likely going to give you the most finances for your campaign to allow you to reach out to those independents, independents are always going to fragment some what so you need to add something to it, and if you somewhat win independents but have a weak turnout of your base you can be in just as much hot **** as you'd be with getting few independents but having strong base turnout.

The key to winning elections is not independents, its a solid to good base turnout + getting a significant portion of Independents. Fail to do either and you're going to have a hard time.


I see nothing wrong with this. ;)
 
:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:

You have to love revisionist history. People like Hannity and Rush make excuses. The fact is the vote was close, and that was hardly the deciding issue. There's a reason McCain made that argument to begin with: He was losing. ;)





How often do you listen to Rush and hannity? Gotta love the ignorant pontificating as if they are in the know. :shrug:
 
That's why you think he lost? Interesting. The problem is, GOPers voted for him just they do with all people with elephants next to their names. He lost because independents, who actually decide elections contrary to the thoughts of Democrats or Republicans, were tired of the GOP. That's why the Dems took the Presidency and Congress. Yes, the GOP base was not energized. True. I'll give you that. But they voted elephant like always.


I think it was far more than that. McCain was not a good Canidate, and he tried to be obama in the end. :shrug:


Not sure what you mean. Care to elaborate? Not much to work with there.



You want to remain a complainer until the impossible happens, a core movemen of people you don't think are hypocrites. Its a loser position.



I didn't really "decide". They convinced me. I'm hypocrisy free since 1968.


Apparently not.



But do you claim to side with them like you do the tea party crowd? That's the difference.


I am the "tea party crowd" and you want to call me a hypocrite so you can whine. It has FAIL written all over it.




Here's a little history lesson for you. The Republicans ALWAYS talk the small government game. ALWAYS. But they never actually do it. The fact people have not realized that is stunning. They keep buying it election after election even though the GOP bends them over like two bit whores every time. But this time they really mean it? Please. This is like Charlie Brown, Lucy and the football. He'll kick it this by God. Righto.



Chris Christie.



And if you actually go to a tea party, you will see there is a difference. There is almost as much dismay with the repubs as there is the dems.....


That is unless you want to remain ignorant. :shrug:
 
How often do you listen to Rush and hannity? Gotta love the ignorant pontificating as if they are in the know. :shrug:

I've listened to Rush a lot through the years. Funny man who is often wrong. He also doesn't fair well when others challenge him. Seen Hannity a few times, and he's worse.

So, yes, I'm familiar with them. More importantly, I was attention during the election. They're just making excuses.
 
Also, the notion that you "win elections" with Independents is also freaking idiotic in its constant implied meaning. If you don't get a good turnout and support from your base you won't win the election either even if you win the Independents because generally its your base that's most likely going to give you the most finances for your campaign to allow you to reach out to those independents, independents are always going to fragment some what so you need to add something to it, and if you somewhat win independents but have a weak turnout of your base you can be in just as much hot **** as you'd be with getting few independents but having strong base turnout.

I agree with much of that. But I think you are underestimating the independents. Most people are not in either base and both bases generally turn out no matter how crappy the candidate is. But yes, if you alienate your base you will lose. No kidding. But that does not happen all that much in a national race. So both bases vote like they generally do and the independent voters tip the scale. In state and local elections the base is far more important in terms of who wins because turnout is so low only the bases are bothering to vote. It would be a rare Presidential election where the independents voted for the loser.
 
I've listened to Rush a lot through the years. Funny man who is often wrong. He also doesn't fair well when others challenge him. Seen Hannity a few times, and he's worse.


What specifically is he/they wrong about?

I can be specific, can you?


So, yes, I'm familiar with them. More importantly, I was attention during the election. They're just making excuses.



What does this paragraph mean? It makes little sense,
 
You want to remain a complainer until the impossible happens, a core movemen of people you don't think are hypocrites. Its a loser position.

I don't recall whining about anything. It's not my nature.

I am the "tea party crowd" and you want to call me a hypocrite so you can whine. It has FAIL written all over it.

Except for one small thing: I never called you a hypocrite.

And if you actually go to a tea party, you will see there is a difference. There is almost as much dismay with the repubs as there is the dems.....

I'm sure there is.
 
What specifically is he/they wrong about?

I can be specific, can you?

He's been wrong about a lot of things. From we'll love our oil prices with the Iraq war to his excuses for republicans to most of what he says daily. There's a reason he won't appear with someone who can argue back effectively.




What does this paragraph mean? It makes little sense,

Merely left out a word. I paid attention during the election. Means I can't be fooled into accepting the Hannity / Rush excuses. I know what happened.
 
He's been wrong about a lot of things. From we'll love our oil prices with the Iraq war to his excuses for republicans to most of what he says daily. There's a reason he won't appear with someone who can argue back effectively.


Have any links to this? any examples? Or are we just making it up as we go along. :lol:




Merely left out a word. I paid attention during the election. Means I can't be fooled into accepting the Hannity / Rush excuses. I know what happened.


What excuses. Be specific. :ssst:
 
Have any links to this? any examples? Or are we just making it up as we go along. :lol:







What excuses. Be specific. :ssst:

The second part is a direct answer to the claim of why John McCain lost. Don't be silly.

As for links, how may do you want?

But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.

We have contacted Rush Limbaugh to ask how he came up with the figure he used recently when he said, "She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court."

(snip)

In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

Sotomayor Overturned? | FactCheck.org

The author of this e-mail is not the only one to claim that the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (known as the Waxman-Markey bill) would require homeowners to bring their homes up to code and pass an inspection before they can be sold. But the claim is false.

On the June 29 broadcast of his radio program, Rush Limbaugh said that the energy bill would require "environmental experts" to do "a survey" before people can put their homes on the market:

Limbaugh, June 29: Have you heard about this, folks? When you sell your house, environmental experts have to come in and do a survey to find out if you’ve got leaky windows, if all the environmental systems are correct, if you have relatively new appliances, and until you modernize in the way they say, you can’t sell – that’s in the bill.

Limbaugh repeated the claim during a show the following day, this time quoting from a June 26 blog post from the Web site of House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, cautioning: "Home Sellers Beware."

Ohio’s 8th Congressional District Blog, June 26: Having a hard time selling your home? Here’s one more hurdle to jump: all homes sales are conditioned upon an energy audit and a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program for your home that’s outlined in the Democrats’ bill. And if you thought you could improve your property with a fresh coat of paint and some granite counters? Think again! Now your home will be subjected to a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize you for older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances. So the Democrats’ bill would bring down the value of your home!

We’ve combed through the portion of the House-passed bill pertaining to residential buildings and found no point-of-sale mandates for owners of existing homes. Major trade groups representing home builders and real-estate brokers also say these claims are false.

Energy Bill and Existing Homes | FactCheck.org

So, for example, Rush Limbaugh was wrong when he said, "You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty." In fact, only two out of 13 of Washington’s speeches refer to God, according to PolitiFact research.

Fact checking Rush and Rachel / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
 
The second part is a direct answer to the claim of why John McCain lost. Don't be silly.

As for links, how may do you want?

But only five of her decisions have been reviewed by the justices. Using five as a denominator, the rate comes out to 60 percent.

We have contacted Rush Limbaugh to ask how he came up with the figure he used recently when he said, "She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court."

(snip)

In any case, 60 percent of the cases the Supreme Court has reviewed is not a particularly high number. In any given term, the Supreme Court normally reverses a higher percentage of the cases it hears. During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term.

Sotomayor Overturned? | FactCheck.org

The author of this e-mail is not the only one to claim that the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (known as the Waxman-Markey bill) would require homeowners to bring their homes up to code and pass an inspection before they can be sold. But the claim is false.

On the June 29 broadcast of his radio program, Rush Limbaugh said that the energy bill would require "environmental experts" to do "a survey" before people can put their homes on the market:

Limbaugh, June 29: Have you heard about this, folks? When you sell your house, environmental experts have to come in and do a survey to find out if you’ve got leaky windows, if all the environmental systems are correct, if you have relatively new appliances, and until you modernize in the way they say, you can’t sell – that’s in the bill.

Limbaugh repeated the claim during a show the following day, this time quoting from a June 26 blog post from the Web site of House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, cautioning: "Home Sellers Beware."

Ohio’s 8th Congressional District Blog, June 26: Having a hard time selling your home? Here’s one more hurdle to jump: all homes sales are conditioned upon an energy audit and a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program for your home that’s outlined in the Democrats’ bill. And if you thought you could improve your property with a fresh coat of paint and some granite counters? Think again! Now your home will be subjected to a new energy rating assessment and energy labeling program that will penalize you for older windows, original fixtures, and dated appliances. So the Democrats’ bill would bring down the value of your home!

We’ve combed through the portion of the House-passed bill pertaining to residential buildings and found no point-of-sale mandates for owners of existing homes. Major trade groups representing home builders and real-estate brokers also say these claims are false.

Energy Bill and Existing Homes | FactCheck.org

So, for example, Rush Limbaugh was wrong when he said, "You can't read a speech by George Washington . . . without hearing him reference God, the Almighty." In fact, only two out of 13 of Washington’s speeches refer to God, according to PolitiFact research.

Fact checking Rush and Rachel / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com





Oh you want to take years of his radio and point out some of his possible mistakes? My bad, I thought you said you listen to him and could tell me some of his daily wrongs....



Looking at your list, he's less wrong than you have been since your arrival. :ssst:
 
I don't recall whining about anything. It's not my nature.



You whine about the tea party, you are waiting for that perferct storm of a libertarian uprise....


Until then, you'll complain about the people CLOSEST to helping us libertarians realize a nation more intuned to our vision.




Except for one small thing: I never called you a hypocrite.


<------------ Tea party member.






I'm sure there is.




Well, I guess you would have to go to one so at least your whining would seem relevant to reality. ;)
 
You whine about the tea party, you are waiting for that perferct storm of a libertarian uprise....

No, I'm not. I actually don't care about the tea parties in the least. Pointing out they are hypocrites isn't whining. It's simply an opinion. I have no real feelings about them at all. In order to be whining I would have to care.
 
No, I'm not. I actually don't care about the tea parties in the least. Pointing out they are hypocrites isn't whining. It's simply an opinion. I have no real feelings about them at all. In order to be whining I would have to care.





Sure ok, you're not whining..... :ssst:



:lol:
 
Part of what turned people onto the tea party movement was when McCain said he would out spend Obama on mortgages.... Why do you think he lost? He tried to out obama obama, and at the same time started a catalyst that swelled an existing movements numbers.


You don't ever listen to hannity or Limbaugh do you. :ssst:




So your libertarianism is based on the impossible, and its just an outlet for you to whine. Noted.





No you are a hypocrite. :shrug: You decided you did not believe them and sided with the big government liberal kooks, That makes you a hypocrite, or foolish. :shrug:

You sound surprised....... not all posters that call themselves Libertarians are, me thinks you are talking to a lib in sheep’s clothing.
I also show up to hear liberals speak when they come around and Im available. :shrug:


And if these politicians want to change and be for smaller goverment. Why not hear what they have to say?


Are you so closed minded.... Oh wait, Listening to them would mean less for you to complain about. :shrug:
 
I know. I'm totally fine with them doing whatever it is they are doing.


Hmm, medicine kicking in? :2razz::2razz:



I would, too. Unless it screams hypocrisy. We started running huge deficits in the 1980's. It then continued unabated through Bush Sr. and then really kicked up a few notches under Dubya. FOR EIGHT DAMN YEARS. But apparently it was all OK then because I don't recall any tea parties or unified whining from the right. Which is why I cannot respect the "movement". The people are either just stupid for not noticing for 30 years or they are hypocrites.

That's not to say any of this applies to you personally, of course, but it sure as hell applies to the "movement".

It's not. The fact you all waited until 2009 is. That's why it's impossible to take you seriously (on that, anyway, not in general).

True. Because Stekim is not a hypocrite or a teabagger come lately. That's why I cannot take them seriously. Shit, the vast majority of tea baggers voted for W. You can't make this stuff up. They vote for W and I'M the liberal? Again, you can't make this stuff up.



See above. I'm not talking about tax day protests. If it's not April 17th it's not a tax day protest. And at last check the tea baggers whine every day. Odd indeed.

Well, we are not talking about tax day protests, so I'm not sure your post is on point. And how much do you want to bet that the tea baggers stop "protesting" when a Republican lords over the Nanny State again? I don't recall any big tea parties under the last one. And no one in history was bigger government than good ole dubya.

Vulgar is in the eye of the beholder. I find it vulgar that people are pretending to care about something that we've had for decades. Like they just noticed. Please.



Note in one of em, you did actually indirectly call me a "hypocrite" btw. ;)
 
I know. I'm totally fine with them doing whatever it is they are doing.

5 pages of you whining about the tea party, 5 pages of wrapping your foul mouth around their good name, and then you have the brass to say this?
 
Last edited:
Hmm, medicine kicking in? :2razz::2razz:

What do you mean? Yes, I think they are hypocrites. But that does not mean I have any problem with them meeting up and whining. It's fine by me. I have no problem with the KKK meeting up, either. The fact they are idiots doesn't really matter. Meet up. Cool,
 
Back
Top Bottom