believer;791550 wrote:C'mon LJ...really? You spend a little time in rural Ohio, you bump into a handful of good ol' boys who lack your elitist education, and you can now make a blanket claim that they're all Tea Party loons?

#1 A LITTLE time? LOL. I grew up in rural Ohio and spend most of my time doing the things I love (hunting, fishing, camping, competitive shooting) in rural Ohio
#2 I am a "good ol boy" myself, and most "good ol boys" you were to run into in the area I am from would say so.
#3 Where did I say all? EHHHHHH false, never did

I've bumped into quite a few die-hard liberals in urban Ohio, but I'm not ready to claim that everyone who lives in Columbus is a leftist pin head.

Good for you, because I never claimed the opposite. :rolleyes:

Ohio has always been a conservative state. I don't live there anymore, so I can't say how Ohio's Tea Party members are. Out here I would consider the Tea Party folks I've met as being on the very fringe of extremism. I have a brother who lives near Tampa, FL and he says the Tea Party down there is pretty hard-core, bordering on isolationists. I just find it odd that, after eight years of running up the deficits under a Republican administration, these folks just had an epiphany about government.

LJ;791543 wrote:Come to the gun club in Sunbury next sunday and I will introduce you to all the loons.

I'll take your word for it. The gun club in Sunbury is full of loons.

Since when did having a good education turn into "elitist"? I'll never get the war against academia from the far right.

But your point about blanket statements is salient.

If you take your "good education" to heart and believe all the things those professors told you -- I can easily see how someone could become an elitist and feel like they are better than...say, people from rural Ohio. Hell, I went to college in rural Ohio and even my professors (most of them) wanted me to believe that lie.

In any case, I have no problem with Tea Party folks and what they believe because the bottom line is this: if the Tea Party took over every branch of government, they would do far, far, far less harm than what we saw happen when liberal Democrats controlled everything.

I Wear Pants;791841 wrote:Since when did having a good education turn into "elitist"? I'll never get the war against academia from the far right.

LOL I received my "enlightened elitist" education in the middle of gun-toting, redneck rural southeastern Ohio.

As long as I spewed back the obvious liberalism being crammed into our heads by the majority of my professors, I got passing grades.

Nine years of military service, the school of hard knocks, and the realities of daily life have kept my head from tilting to the left. Call it a well-balanced education.

I think that the Democratic Party has changed very little since the time of FDR and even before that with Woodrow Wilson. If one looks at the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, George Bush I and II, and even Richard Nixon (who was a supporter of Democratic programs that were basically social reform programs and ecological programs) I think it would be fair to say that the Republican power wielders have definitely changed, and that has caused the Republican Party to make a sharp right hand turn from which they never adjusted back. Today the Tea Party is calling a lot of the shots and I think that many Republicans have not bought into this very Conservative attitude. I also think that because the country's economic indicators are improving and jobs are beginning to appear again and the auto industry seems to be in a recovery mode as Chrysler had paid back their loans and American car companies in general are at least stable, there is a growing confidence in President Obama and his policies. There are still one and a half years until his re-election bid and basic old time Democratic economic policies seem to be working much better than the Republican policy of sitting around and saying no, no, no, and hoping that somehow Obama will start to lose popularity again.

Swamp Fox;791925 wrote:I think that the Democratic Party has changed very little since the time of FDR and even before that with Woodrow Wilson. If one looks at the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, George Bush I and II, and even Richard Nixon (who was a supporter of Democratic programs that were basically social reform programs and ecological programs) I think it would be fair to say that the Republican power wielders have definitely changed, and that has caused the Republican Party to make a sharp right hand turn from which they never adjusted back. Today the Tea Party is calling a lot of the shots and I think that many Republicans have not bought into this very Conservative attitude. I also think that because the country's economic indicators are improving and jobs are beginning to appear again and the auto industry seems to be in a recovery mode as Chrysler had paid back their loans and American car companies in general are at least stable, there is a growing confidence in President Obama and his policies. There are still one and a half years until his re-election bid and basic old time Democratic economic policies seem to be working much better than the Republican policy of sitting around and saying no, no, no, and hoping that somehow Obama will start to lose popularity again.

Now I have seen it all. Democrats have remained consistent?! My 87 year old grandfather was a Democrat until after the Johnson administration. He said that he switched to Republican because even though the Republicans haven't changed much over the years, they were more like the Democrat party of the past than the Democrats of the time. Today, he can't even reconcile how the Dems went from the party for the working people to the party against the working people in the span of his lifetime.

BCBulldog;791927 wrote:Now I have seen it all. Democrats have remained consistent?! My 87 year old grandfather was a Democrat until after the Johnson administration. He said that he switched to Republican because even though the Republicans haven't changed much over the years, they were more like the Democrat party of the past than the Democrats of the time. Today, he can't even reconcile how the Dems went from the party for the working people to the party against the working people in the span of his lifetime.

+1. My dad has been a staunch democrat his whole life. Even he sees the hypocrisy in the party and notes there is a strong element of elitist snobs that uses the "working people" like a pawn. He also has no interest in the environmental wackos that put restrictions on business that are now the mainstream of the party. He keeps telling me he hopes the party will turn back around to his line of thinking one day.

Swamp Fox;791925 wrote:I think that the Democratic Party has changed very little since the time of FDR and even before that with Woodrow Wilson. If one looks at the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, George Bush I and II, and even Richard Nixon (who was a supporter of Democratic programs that were basically social reform programs and ecological programs) I think it would be fair to say that the Republican power wielders have definitely changed, and that has caused the Republican Party to make a sharp right hand turn from which they never adjusted back. Today the Tea Party is calling a lot of the shots and I think that many Republicans have not bought into this very Conservative attitude. I also think that because the country's economic indicators are improving and jobs are beginning to appear again and the auto industry seems to be in a recovery mode as Chrysler had paid back their loans and American car companies in general are at least stable, there is a growing confidence in President Obama and his policies. There are still one and a half years until his re-election bid and basic old time Democratic economic policies seem to be working much better than the Republican policy of sitting around and saying no, no, no, and hoping that somehow Obama will start to lose popularity again.

Please don't lie to us like this. A jobless rate that just went UP again and an economy that only created something like 80,000 jobs last month is NOT an economy on the upswing. Exactly the opposite.

And the car companies who were bailed out have NOT paid back taxpayers. http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/taxpayers-lost-644-billion-chrysler-bailout

I love how Obama-bots will lie at the drop of a hat and not even flinch -- because they expect people to simply accept the lie and move on (the media mostly does).

Finally, it isn't the Republicans saying no, no, no when it comes to (1) actually submitting a budget and (2) trying to come up with a plan to reduce the country's deficit. The Obama administration basically punted on the budget last year and is now whining because of what the Republicans have proposed.

Once more...another lie.

I've honestly never seen an administration lie so freely and a media so reluctant to call them on it.

Swamp Fox;791925 wrote:I think that the Democratic Party has changed very little since the time of FDR and even before that with Woodrow Wilson. If one looks at the Republican Party of Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, George Bush I and II, and even Richard Nixon (who was a supporter of Democratic programs that were basically social reform programs and ecological programs) I think it would be fair to say that the Republican power wielders have definitely changed, and that has caused the Republican Party to make a sharp right hand turn from which they never adjusted back. Today the Tea Party is calling a lot of the shots and I think that many Republicans have not bought into this very Conservative attitude. I also think that because the country's economic indicators are improving and jobs are beginning to appear again and the auto industry seems to be in a recovery mode as Chrysler had paid back their loans and American car companies in general are at least stable, there is a growing confidence in President Obama and his policies. There are still one and a half years until his re-election bid and basic old time Democratic economic policies seem to be working much better than the Republican policy of sitting around and saying no, no, no, and hoping that somehow Obama will start to lose popularity again.

As much as they claim to love the country and want to "turn things around", I really believe that the Republican game plan hasn't changed one iota since the results were in back in November 2008:

Throw up as many roadblocks as possible and hope that the economy continues to tank in an effort to win back the White House and finish what they started back in 2001. Your well-being takes a back seat to their political aspirations.

Another lie from Louie.

Which party submitted a budget and which one punted, even though it was in power?

Which party was first to submit a comprehensive plan to cut the deficit?

In neither case was it the Democrats.

Writerbuckeye;792323 wrote:Another lie from Louie.

Which party submitted a budget and which one punted, even though it was in power?

Which party was first to submit a comprehensive plan to cut the deficit?

In neither case was it the Democrats.

Writer, read the post. I'm stating an opinion. The fact that it comes awfully close to the game plan must have struck a real nerve with you.

stlouiedipalma;792289 wrote:As much as they claim to love the country and want to "turn things around", I really believe that the Republican game plan hasn't changed one iota since the results were in back in November 2008:

Throw up as many roadblocks as possible and hope that the economy continues to tank in an effort to win back the White House and finish what they started back in 2001. Your well-being takes a back seat to their political aspirations.

I have a serious question. Roadblocks to what? What is the Obama/Democrat plan? Maintain the astronomical deficit spending of the last two years? Propose no budget? I am yet to hear what their plan is. 'Hope' that this lousy economy will 'change' for the better?

stlouiedipalma;792380 wrote:Writer, read the post. I'm stating an opinion. The fact that it comes awfully close to the game plan must have struck a real nerve with you.

What you said wasn't true. I made note of it.

BCBulldog;792694 wrote:I have a serious question. Roadblocks to what? What is the Obama/Democrat plan? Maintain the astronomical deficit spending of the last two years? Propose no budget? I am yet to hear what their plan is. 'Hope' that this lousy economy will 'change' for the better?

Roadblocks to anything they proposed. Senate Republicans have made history in using the threat of filibuster during Obama's administration.

stlouiedipalma;793115 wrote:Roadblocks to anything they proposed. Senate Republicans have made history in using the threat of filibuster during Obama's administration.

Sorry....no dice. Reconciliation, anyone? They've already proven they're willing to use it to get legislation passed, so the "filibuster threat" rings pretty hollow. The only "roadblock" for the dems is their glaring inability to unite and vote as a caucus on any issue. The fact that they could barely get shit done when they had a supermajority pretty much illustrates this.

stlouiedipalma;793115 wrote:Roadblocks to anything they proposed. Senate Republicans have made history in using the threat of filibuster during Obama's administration.

Maybe learn what the term 'compromise' means and it might be met with something other than filibuster. But like fish82 already said, they can't even compromise within their own party for the greater 'good'. Why should we expect anything to be different toward the Republicans and Independents?

fish82;793159 wrote:Sorry....no dice. Reconciliation, anyone? They've already proven they're willing to use it to get legislation passed, so the "filibuster threat" rings pretty hollow. The only "roadblock" for the dems is their glaring inability to unite and vote as a caucus on any issue. The fact that they could barely get shit done when they had a supermajority pretty much illustrates this.

/thread

Bigdogg;790136 wrote:No place for corruption in politics.

This might have been the funniest statement ever written on the Politics forum ...

As long as there are PEOPLE in politics, there will be corruption in politics.

Writerbuckeye;791846 wrote:If you take your "good education" to heart and believe all the things those professors told you -- I can easily see how someone could become an elitist and feel like they are better than...say, people from rural Ohio. Hell, I went to college in rural Ohio and even my professors (most of them) wanted me to believe that lie.

In any case, I have no problem with Tea Party folks and what they believe because the bottom line is this: if the Tea Party took over every branch of government, they would do far, far, far less harm than what we saw happen when liberal Democrats controlled everything.

You think it would be good for America if the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve was composed of Tea Party Patriots? You believe the Sunbury Gun Club would do a better job running the Securities and Exchange Commission?

BoatShoes;797174 wrote:You think it would be good for America if the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve was composed of Tea Party Patriots? You believe the Sunbury Gun Club would do a better job running the Securities and Exchange Commission?

At this stage, they couldn't do a worse job. If I were you, I wouldn't be touting ANYTHING those folks are doing as being the right way.

BoatShoes;797174 wrote:You think it would be good for America if the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve was composed of Tea Party Patriots? You believe the Sunbury Gun Club would do a better job running the Securities and Exchange Commission?

Couldn't be any worse than the out-of-touch elitist European Socialist wanna-be's currently running the show. I wouldn't call on-going 10% unemployment rates and trillion dollar a year deficit spending "doing a better job."