Well, would you look at that!

I Wear Pants;684232 wrote:I disagree with the Tea Party about as much as anyone on here...

The Tea Party stands for fiscal discipline, having the federal government pay for things as ordained by the Constitution and Amendments, and reducing federal taxes to appropriate levels. If you are against the Tea Party, then you are for:

1. Wanton federal spending with unlimited funding for any program deemed necessary or "fair".....whatever that is.
2. Paying for anything deemed necessary, including things that are clearly the responsibility of the states to provide (such as education, fire fighters, police, and new roads/repairs).
3. Raising taxes until it is "fair"....whatever that is.

I'm being somewhat facetious, but to be against the Tea Party is to be for things they abhor....by simple definition.

Yeah, that's what I'm for.

Or I could simply disagree with the policy choices the Tea Party supports and have other disputes about their seeming fiscal responsibility.

I Wear Pants;685338 wrote:Yeah, that's what I'm for.

Or I could simply disagree with the policy choices the Tea Party supports and have other disputes about their seeming fiscal responsibility.

I am trying to prod you, because a majority of Americans agree with at least some of their ideals. Yet, you proudly proclaim you "disagree as much as anyone" on here. If you disagree with them, then that means you are for things they want to eliminate...right?

My personal opinion is that you have incorrectly linked them to the Republican Party and since you are against the R's, so you must be against the Tea Party. Guilt by association.

You fail at reading comprehension.

I do disagree about as much as anyone on here with the tea party since this is a heavily conservative forum. And disagree with someone, especially in political discussion, does not mean you believe the opposite. That's a foolish thing to think.

I Wear Pants;685359 wrote:You fail at reading comprehension.

I do disagree about as much as anyone on here with the tea party since this is a heavily conservative forum. And disagree with someone, especially in political discussion, does not mean you believe the opposite. That's a foolish thing to think.

Yep....it's either me or you failing

Let me go at this a different way....if you disagree with the Tea Party, then that ALSO means you don't agree with them...per Webster. Since you proclaim it so boldly, there must be some facet that your disagree with more than any other. What is it/they?

Dear god dude. I said I disagree with them more than almost anyone else on this site. Which is true since most of the posters on this sight have a chubby for the tea party.

I do not agree with you that their ideas are the end all be all to fixing our economic problems. And it's hard to speak of their social policy stances because they don't like to talk about that.

BGFalcons82;685356 wrote:I am trying to prod you, because a majority of Americans agree with at least some of their ideals. Yet, you proudly proclaim you "disagree as much as anyone" on here. If you disagree with them, then that means you are for things they want to eliminate...right?

My personal opinion is that you have incorrectly linked them to the Republican Party and since you are against the R's, so you must be against the Tea Party. Guilt by association.

Definitely agree with all of this. I think the problem is why I sarcastically brought up Palin. For the majority of liberals, I think what we see with the Tea Party is R's attaching themselves to the Tea Party because it gives them a 'fiscal responsibility' card to play.

Luckily there are some who educate themselves to know better, but over half of the talking heads for the tea party I seem to read about I scratch my head and wonder how they have eanred their affiliation.

The friends I have who are educated in matters of politics know better. Those that casually pay attention don't.

The Tea Party got hijacked bad by the Republicans.

I Wear Pants;685408 wrote:The Tea Party got hijacked bad by the Republicans.

That's what I thought you meant to say all along. Good god dude. :rolleyes:

Regarding their "social policy" stands....they don't have any. Once again, the msm/lamestream media/drive-by media/liberal media is attempting to make the Tea Party into a political party. WRONG. It is not one, and as I've stated on here several times, if they try to become one, they will be roasted and left along the curb for the garbage man to pick up. You are buying this load of crap that the media is attempting to spread (or through anecdotal evidence), and are hating something that isn't there. You are swiping at ghosts. So be it. It's what the Left wants people to believe, because the Tea Party whooped their asses in November. They are scared to death of a repeat performance in November 2012 if they don't get their hands around the Tea Party's throat. The truth is a casualty when there's a war to be won, eh?

The Tea Party is solely concerned about the $15,000,000,000,000 debt and yearly $1,500,000,000,000 deficits as far as Obamanomics can see. We will become a debtor nation in a couple weeks and are playing a high stakes game of chicken with the world hoping they don't devalue the dollar to the point it is no longer the base currency. The day this happens, better hope you can beat your neighbors to Wal-Mart to stock up on milk less than $5 a gallon.

BGFalcons82;685066 wrote:Couple corrections: "teabagger" has a sexual connotation that has been discussed ad infinitum. It has a specific meaning that I, and many others, find offensive and has NOTHING to do with a political discussion.

I'm aware of what teabagging is. I've seen it happen. It's not pretty.

BGFalcons82;685066 wrote:"Socialist" and "fascist" are labels assigned to those that believe in socialistic/fascist principles. Nothing to do with sexual connotations. In fact, we have at least 1 socialist party member in Congress (there used to be more, but I'm not sure for 2011). To equate a label for someone's idealogy with someone wanting a human sausage placed across their face is not in the same realm.

Except that both are used in a derogatory manner, which doesn't do anything to add to the discussion. THAT was what I was trying to point out.

BGFalcons82;685066 wrote:Let's see...what's another name for a dogg? How about a male dogg? Would it be appropriate for me to call bigdogg by another canine name that we would all recognize? Sure it wouldn't, but he continues to use rotten epithets to describe those that don't agree with him, even AFTER he's been asked a couple times to cease and decist. Therefore, is civility for everyone else NOT named, "bigdogg"???

It shows a level of ignorance that is pretty popular among political discussion. Civility is for all adults. If an adult refuses to act in a civil way in discussion, they are refusing to act like an adult. Referring to a party or group by any name meant to be derogatory is no different than a bully on a playground finding a dirty nickname based on a kid's real name. It's childish, and it has no place in adult, mature discussion.

If someone insists to do so, it is recommended that he is either ignored (as you won't be able to reason with him) or that you have a mountain of patience with him when you engage him. Otherwise, he will "drag you down to his level, then beat you with experience."

BGFalcons82;685324 wrote:The Tea Party used to stand for fiscal discipline, having the federal government pay for things as ordained by the Constitution and Amendments, and reducing federal taxes to appropriate levels. If you are against the Tea Party, then you are for:

1. Wanton federal spending with unlimited funding for any program deemed necessary or "fair".....whatever that is.
2. Paying for anything deemed necessary, including things that are clearly the responsibility of the states to provide (such as education, fire fighters, police, and new roads/repairs).
3. Raising taxes until it is "fair"....whatever that is.

I'm being somewhat facetious, but to be against the Tea Party is to be for things they abhor....by simple definition.

As I said earlier, it has, to a bigger degree than some like to think, been hijacked. At the last rally I attended (when it first started, I was on board, BIG TIME), the most lauded speaker spoke of the evils of abortion, and of the astronomical number of babies dying each year.

Agree or disagree with that statement; it doesn't matter to me. What irked me was that the Tea Party was supposed to be what you spoke of in this post. It was supposed to have one, single platform. It doesn't operate that way anymore.

I Wear Pants;685381 wrote:Dear god dude. I said I disagree with them more than almost anyone else on this site. Which is true since most of the posters on this sight have a chubby for the tea party.

I do not agree with you that their ideas are the end all be all to fixing our economic problems. And it's hard to speak of their social policy stances because they don't like to talk about that.

Unfortunately, the fact that they DO more and more like to discuss it is evidence that there is a narrowing gap between the Tea Party and the Republican Party. Annoys the hell outta me.

I Wear Pants;685408 wrote:The Tea Party got hijacked bad by the Republicans.

Unfortunately, yes. They did.

BGFalcons82;685444 wrote:Regarding their "social policy" stands....they don't have any. Once again, the msm/lamestream media/drive-by media/liberal media is attempting to make the Tea Party into a political party. WRONG. It is not one, and as I've stated on here several times, if they try to become one, they will be roasted and left along the curb for the garbage man to pick up. You are buying this load of crap that the media is attempting to spread (or through anecdotal evidence), and are hating something that isn't there. You are swiping at ghosts. So be it. It's what the Left wants people to believe, because the Tea Party whooped their asses in November. They are scared to death of a repeat performance in November 2012 if they don't get their hands around the Tea Party's throat. The truth is a casualty when there's a war to be won, eh?

The Tea Party is solely concerned about the $15,000,000,000,000 debt and yearly $1,500,000,000,000 deficits as far as Obamanomics can see. We will become a debtor nation in a couple weeks and are playing a high stakes game of chicken with the world hoping they don't devalue the dollar to the point it is no longer the base currency. The day this happens, better hope you can beat your neighbors to Wal-Mart to stock up on milk less than $5 a gallon.

See, here's the problem. The mere fact that you're discussing this as a "Tea Party v. Democrats" battle suggests that it has indeed been hijacked by the party that stands most opposed to the Democrat Party. That was never intended to be the case, as there have been many Democrats that recognize the economic problem and the fiscal irresponsibility that has been shown throughout the recent presidencies. Those Democrats, however, have likely been driven off by the gunk that has come alongside the fiscal responsibility stance.

O-Trap;685479 wrote:See, here's the problem. The mere fact that you're discussing this as a "Tea Party v. Democrats" battle suggests that it has indeed been hijacked by the party that stands most opposed to the Democrat Party. That was never intended to be the case, as there have been many Democrats that recognize the economic problem and the fiscal irresponsibility that has been shown throughout the recent presidencies. Those Democrats, however, have likely been driven off by the gunk that has come alongside the fiscal responsibility stance.

OR

They are democrats who have likely been driven off by the uninhibited liberalism that has come alongside the "I want what I want when I want it because it makes me feel good, and if I don't get it I'm gonna start acting like a pecan" stance.

I'm one of those.

There are very few conservative democrats left, and only just a little more "moderates".

First off, I think O-Trap meant that there'd be more Democrats along for the Tea Party ride of fiscal responsibility if the Tea Party didn't come with so many Republican viewpoints attached. Like, I for instance, could vote for someone who had Tea Party economic ideals but all the candidates so far have really only been different from Republicans in economic viewpoints. Many of them are nearly straight GOP on social issues and other things. Doesn't lead to much crossover. Tea Party economic viewpoints and real moderate social views would gain a lot of ground from non entrenched Democrats and independents.

Did you mean peacock? I don't know how a pecan acts.

And this isn't meant to be an insult or a put down or a judgement of your views but from what I've gathered you have almost no views in common with what could be called a Democrat for at least as long as I remember. I guess it just seems weird to me that you still associate yourself as a Democrat (albeit one who is not pleased with them).

Maybe I find it odd because I've never considered myself to be a member, even in ideology only, of a party because they all support things that I want no association with. Some more things that I don't like than others but there are things with all the major parties that I really hate.

I Wear Pants;685524 wrote:Did you mean peacock? I don't know how a pecan acts.

Pecan = nut. Acting like a pecan = Acting like a nut.

I believe he used "cashew" earlier. I 'lold' at that one.

That is pretty funny. +1 internetz to Center.

I Wear Pants;685524 wrote:Did you mean peacock? I don't know how a pecan acts.
And this isn't meant to be an insult or a put down or a judgement of your views but from what I've gathered you have almost no views in common with what could be called a Democrat for at least as long as I remember. I guess it just seems weird to me that you still associate yourself as a Democrat (albeit one who is not pleased with them). .

I'm not insulted at all!

I think age has a part. I'm thinking that I'm probably old enough to be your mother (technically) so I'm practically from another generation than you. I've mentioned this a few times, but I'll do it again. I'll try to be very brief.
But I come from a long history of democrats. My granny voted straight tickets and called republicans "horses tails" lol (she never cussed). My parents were democrats and that's how I was raised. The thing is, they were all conservative. That's not to say that they were/are racist, prejudiced bigots. They were tight with what little money they had and thought the government should do the same. They donated what they could, which was mostly food, and sometimes money if they had it, to their neighbors who were having a bad spell. They also donated at church and they also helped complete strangers. They minded their own business and thought the government should do the same. They knew what poor was, but they didn't want the government to rub their faces in it and tell them what to do and how to do it. When they had a few extra bucks, that money was put away to help them when the next dry spell came. Everything that they owned was old, but they took care of their things and kept them. They took care of each other; Aunts helping nephews, cousins helping grandfathers, people taking care of their parents (I'm not the only one who's done it) - they believed in family. Sure, I've had rich relatives, but my immediate family core - parents, grandparents - were humble. My great grandfather was a miner who got paid in company tokens. He supported unions when unions had a greater purpose than what we know now. They knew the value of the dollar. They worried about spending their own money, not anybody elses.
Those kinds of democrats were/are the salt of the earth. They are a dying breed. I look around sometimes at some of the people who assumed that affiliation and they look alienoid to me in alot of ways. I told you I was being brief and that sorta went by the wayside, the sad thing is, I didn't even get all my thoughts out! LOL
Hopefully I've described the reasons why I still describe myself as a democrat and the frustration I feel towards some of the so-called democrats. Perhaps that's why people think that I am the so-called democrat. The affiliation is changing at a very rapid rate. The newer/younger democrats can't see anything wrong with the party. They don't recognize it weakening itself. The further the party spazzes out, the less it has meaning. They cannot understand how it is making a mockery of itself.
I agree with you in that the democrats now are no better than the republicans. The crucial difference is that the republicans are reading the public like a book and are trying to change to fit the climate. I know that's hard to accept or believe, but take a look at them and watch what their doing. They are trying. What are the democrat politicians doing? They running and hiding (Wisconsin), they publicly mock their fellow Americans (Obama), they suing states for following the law (Obama),and the list goes on and on. They're a hot mess.
There's lessons to be learned here and the republicans are catching on. The dems are too busy protesting to figure it out.

O-Trap;685554 wrote:Pecan = nut. Acting like a pecan = Acting like a nut.

I believe She used "cashew" earlier. I 'lold' at that one.

You get an A- for the day!

CenterBHSFan;685561 wrote:You get an A- for the day!

I KNEW it! For a split second, I couldn't remember whether or not you were a woman.

Damn ... the day just began, and I'm already below an A.

A-? What a loser.

I Wear Pants;685588 wrote:A-? What a loser.

I know. FML.

I've never seen an A-. But not because I am used to the letter grade above that.

Which Tea Party do most of you align yourselves with? The last time I looked there were a lot of splinter groups claiming to be affiliated with the "Tea Party".

stlouiedipalma;686019 wrote:Which Tea Party do most of you align yourselves with? The last time I looked there were a lot of splinter groups claiming to be affiliated with the "Tea Party".

This is actually a fair question. As more and more fringe ideologies claim the "Tea Party," the more nebulous a term it becomes.

Yeah, that whole “Tea Party is nothing more than Koch Brothers/Americans for Prosperity funding astroturfing operation” is just a kooky liberal smear. Except of course, when a Tea Party activist posts on YouTube the training session they just had with Americans for Prosperity…

[video=youtube;R8yGmAfZvmo][/video]

I like how Tea Party members are quick to point out that they're not Republicans, even though they ran for office as Republicans. If you didn't want to be seen as Republicans, why not run under the "Tea Party"?

The Republicans were clever, though, in attaching themselves (like leeches) onto the Tea Party. After 2008 they were D.O.A. on the national scene. The Tea Party offered them a chance to be risen and compete once more. All Republicans (especially those who are employed by the RNC) are in your debt. Just don't count on being repaid any time soon.