Tea Parties - Page 3

Originally Posted by hardeeharhar

Newt's point was also valid for all of Bush's term.

The problem isn't deficits. The protesters don't like that there is a Democrat in the White House who has been tasked with fixing the bullshit for the person these same protesters voted into office. Yes, he is doing just that. Yes, he is doing it in a restrained but decidedly liberal manner... If there was a Republican in the White House the deficit would have grown just as much because that is what a virtual unanimous consensus of Economists said was needed. It would have been different, tax cuts primarily, but the deficit, this tickle that these protesters are hypothetically complaining about would have been just as large, and just as real to pay off in the future. But there would not have been an AstroTurf campaign because the guy in the white house would have been their guy...

Hypocrites. And bullshit all around.

People want to fix our problems? They should get their heads out of their asses and stop complaining about what other people are doing to them... If they stopped doing half the stupid shit they do to themselves our economic scenario wouldn't be nearly as dire...

Originally Posted by trumptman

I'm going to disagree if for no other reason then the proof is in the pudding because Republicans lost. When you have a majority and lose it, those people have gone somewhere and given up for some reason. These are part of those people. It isn't new this is the same group that Ross Perot pulled away from Republicans when Clinton took the White House elected with 43% of the vote. This is the paleocon wing of the Republican party. I know because it is the wing to which I belong and I have several posts here over the years, posts from when Republicans were in power noting how easy it is to chip this group off from the party.

Democrats were elected in 2006 with claims of PAYGO and earmark reform. Obama ran on very conservative language with regard to finances. The banter all around these forums was about "Borrow and Spend" Republicans who would not address a continual deficit of $250-300 billion a year.

However Obama has come in and in the very first year, blown out the spending projections. Instead of bringing us savings from ending the war in Iraq, he is by his own optimistic projections taking the current Bush doubled debt, and raising it another 250%. CBO which is using real numbers declares Obama will raise it 300%.

Sadly here is what too many Americans will be looking at to get their understanding of our deficit problem.



John, you're laughing at the great-grandkids debt again. Stop it.

Originally Posted by jimmac

And why did he have to do that? Because of the mess the Republicans left after they lost!

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yeah, keep up the circumstantial logical fallacies.

Reasoning like this says you can go rape your neighbor to clean up the mess of her husband only slapping her.

Makes sense to some I guess.

See folks, the way you clean up someone adding five trillion of debt in 8 years is to add twenty trillion more in the next ten.

We'll never tell you why it costs 400% more to clean up the mess just remember, someone lost.

We'll never tell you why it costs 400% more to clean up the mess just remember, someone lost

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

More pics here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_187554.html

So many of these people seem very insecure with themselves...

Originally Posted by jimmac

This is just sophistry at it's best.

Part of the reason is Bush's gang were such bad fuck ups!

I repeat again where were you when we were saying Bush was leading us into a hole?

And yes we did! That's already been previously covered elsewhere.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Address, don't dismiss.



Wow, costing 400% more to clean up a mess is explained by the very deep reasoning of they were "such bad fuck ups!"

Could you post a picture of the glib face made afterward because if we are going to use John Stewart reasoning, I at least want to see the funny faces.



The answer again is I condemned Bush spending. I wish the search function wasn't so damaged on this board. Perhaps you or someone else will admit to remembering this. I actually started a thread where I declared Bush very LIBERAL because of his spending. I was condemned as deluded because "we all know" Bush is the most conservative guy evar!1!!! I

Still given that is still a circumstantial ad-hom deficit spending is still wrong no matter if someone didn't protest at $300 billion, $400 billion or $500 billion. Wrong is wrong. Being wrong in the past doesn't excuse present wrongs.

Seriously Jimmac, stop engaging in fallacies and get some different reasoning. The reasoning amounts to, you weren't perfect and thus can no longer pass judgment or participate in political discussion. You aren't perfect either and don't exclude yourself so stop trying to exclude others. Address the issues and stop harping your version of history with all its accusations and insinuations.

Still given that is still a circumstantial ad-hom

circumstantial ad-hom

Being wrong in the past doesn't excuse present wrongs.

Seriously Jimmac, stop engaging in fallacies and get some different reasoning

you weren't perfect and thus can no longer pass judgment or participate in political discussion

You aren't perfect either and don't exclude yourself so stop trying to exclude others

Originally Posted by trumptman

The answer again is I condemned Bush spending.

Originally Posted by tonton

I don't think that's entirely true, unless you were making the Frankenstien of contradictions.

Where were you saying, "We aren't spending enough," you ask?

I seem to recall you, again and again, criticizing, chastising, ridiculing Democrats for refusing to pay for costs associated with the Iraq war. True or not true?

Again, I seem to recall you championing the tax rebates and tax cuts for the rich, and even pushing for more. True, or not true?

What on Earth do you think Bush spent so much money on? Two things. Tax cuts. Iraq. Do the logic.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Nope. The real issue is entitlements. Entitlement growth already has the the U.S. bankrupt by any standards a corporation would need to use. In the future the growth entitlements is expected to exceed world GDP when boomers are retired.

We are spending about 4-5% of GDP on defense which is near historic lows. If you want to comb through the PDF you will see (starting about 50 pages in) the tables for the last 50 years or so.

The growth has been in entitlements and standing against that is not a contradiction then nor now. It was correct to condemn Bush for his prescription drug benefit and it is correct to do so for the spending that is increasing under Obama.



If you go to war, you provide what is needed. In most other instances where we have gone to war, we spend literally double to triple MINIMUM what we are spending now. Military spending at 10+% of GDP was not at all uncommon during the cold war.

We have cut our military to the bone and keep letting entitlements grow. Some earlier post on here noted military spending was increasing 4% this year. Think about how that will barely stay ahead of inflation WHILE FIGHTING TWO WARS and meanwhile all the other areas of government were noted to be growing at rates much higher than 4% and also higher than the rate of inflation.



I am capable of the logic. The tables show that regardless of rates, we have a spending problem. This has been true regardless of Obama or Bush or rates for half a century. As I noted in another thread, we are in a pretty pathetic state. We basically get to choose between Obama who will create ten trillion more in debt or Republicans who will create seven trillion more while getting press coverage about how ketchup is a vegetable and how they are pushing old people off cliffs or into ovens.

Both results suck and the only argument is to the degree of suckiness.

Republicans chastizing Clinton for a massive $40 Billion dollar bailout of Mexico. Those days are long gone.

Originally Posted by tonton

I notice you didn't respond with regard to your contradiction. You admit you were supporting the two largest areas of Bush spending. How can you claim to have criticized Bush spending without realizing the contradiction?

Originally Posted by tonton

I notice you didn't respond with regard to your contradiction. You admit you were supporting the two largest areas of Bush spending. How can you claim to have criticized Bush spending without realizing the contradiction?

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

I really don't understand why this forum hasn't been renamed "trumptmanOutsider" yet....

"Several Republican members of Congress spoke at Tea Party protests around the country on Wednesday," CNN reported. "Some were applauded. Others heckled. But only one, it appears, was booed relentlessly for the entire duration of his speech: Rep. Gresham Barrett of South Carolina."

Barrett faced the ire of the tea party protesters because his vote last year for the $700 billion, Bush administration-backed financial bailout. Now, the Republican congressman is prepping for a South Carolina gubernatorial run in what is expected to be a competitive GOP primary.

Originally Posted by trumptman

It's a copyright issue. They won't give me enough cash to use the name.

HuffPro



Buh..buh.buh...impossible Republican, Fox News, corporate shilling, love fest.

How could this possibly happen?

Originally Posted by trumptman



We should listen to Jimmac.

Originally Posted by trumptman

It ISN'T a contradiction. The reasoning amounts to stating that supporting a principle somehow disqualifies you from participating or having views in the process.

It is entirely possible for the government to spend 4% of GDP on defense, cut taxes AND keep the rest of their spending within the revenue generated.

False dilemma man. It isn't an OR question. It is absolutely possible to do all three. I showed you how our defense spending was not at anything resembling a high or even average level compared to historic standards. I showed how the problem has been separate from tax rates. Now I've noted (perhaps more clearly for you) what I thought was clear in the first post. It is possible to do all three and meet the principle. I even stated an example of an area of entitlement creation (and named entitlements as the primary culprit) as the areas that should be criticized and that I did criticize.

So this is done, unless you just want to pose the false dilemma repeatedly.

Originally Posted by FormerLurker

I really don't understand why this forum hasn't been renamed "trumptmanOutsider" yet....

Originally Posted by tonton

OK so I understand now. You were expecting Bush to cut billions and billions in social support programs to pay for billions and billions in Iraq, and for billions and billions in tax cuts. I'd like to see how that works out for you, living in an urban area, except that I wouldn't want to see how that works out for others. And what about infrastructure? I guess we'll just have to expect a few more bridges to collapse. Collateral damage, I guess.

Please tell me where Bush could have cut enough spending to pay for his massive "Conservapork".

I'll tell you where Bush could have cut spending. The war. The tax cuts. That was obvious.

Originally Posted by Northgate

Good for you. More people should donate to charity. But most people don't. I think history has proven that human kind doesn't really give a shit about human kind.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

That's what's known as "freedom of choice". If you would care to donate a huge chunk of your earnings to others, have at it. It's usually the people who want to force others to give who won't follow their own demands.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Additionally I've condemned Bush and Republicans for taking people off the tax rolls.

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

Jon is having a field-day with the Fox News Channel's Tea Parties which they promoted heavily (but claim not to have sponsored).

Fox is owned by... an Australian businessman who used his fortune to set up a mind-control mechanism in the US to tell the sheep what to think; right now, he's very worried that his taxes are going up so he makes everybody who's paying less worry for him.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

Not true. The Tea Parties were grassroots. Fox and a bunch of Republicans came late to the party and got their asses chewed. Nobody likes a phony.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QsY2r7HbTM

"Y'know, since two thirds of my retirement plan evaporated, I owe more on my house than it's worth, and I'm worried about losing my job, taxes and gay marriage just don't fit on my radar screen no more," he admitted to me yesterday when I asked him about it.

"And you know," he continued, with a conspiratorial wink, "when I first saw them on TV on Fox News? Saw all the costumes and signs on the screen and I thought it was one of them pride parades in San Francisco, at first."

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

http://forums.appleinsider.com/images/smilies/lol.gif

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Sorry. Please delete this post.

Originally Posted by Northgate

And yet you voted for them over and over and shill for them repeatedly.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

The fact that so many Obama supporters are trying to marginalize or discredit these Tea Parties indicates that they were indeed successful.