The Tea Party is anti-democratic and guilty of abuse of power

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Going for padding the post count? Good lord...

Because I responded to 3 whole posts of yours? I am sorry is the considered excessive?

As far as your logic goes...

There are RINO's and Blue Dogs....

Never said there were not. That does nothing for what you said. You said you do not like the Republicans and then went on to list the Republicans you like. You never said you do not like Blue dogs or Rinos. You were pretty specific.

Did you trip over your own logic because this response makes no sense to me.

reply to post by Kitilani


The only logical failure would be yours, not mine. You and some of the others have no idea what the tea party is, which is evident everytime people complain about them.

It would be like blaming the black caucus of the Democratic party.

The Tea Party believes in smaller government and responsible fiscal policy, reduction in certain tax areas, a stricter interpretation of the Constitution and a reduction in the National debt. The 3 Republicans I named are members of the Tea Party, making them different from regular Republicans because their views are divergent from the traditional Republican Party platform.

So while you list them as Republicans, they would fall under the RINO term.

Does that answer your question? Or should I change it up so you can use another 4 posts to respond while being an donkey in the process?

reply to post by Xcathdra


How can you say that? All those people you named are DEMONSTRABLY LIARS or have totally crazy ideas!!

Let me show it...

Jim DeMint

Out of 7 statements, he lied 5 times! Some funny ones:

"We've got more revenue than we ever have."

Says U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown is responsible for "over $14 trillion in debt."

I mean...yeah...1 person is responsible for the the entire budget deficit. Let's dumb it down enough so people only have to remember one name, right?

Michelle Bachmann

"Apart from a few faults"? Out of 29 statements, she flat out lied 24 times. Only 5 times did that woman even speak a half truth. If you base your opinions on what she says, you will be wrong 82.8% of the time. If you consider this a good bet, please tell me where we can meet to play poker.

And Rand Paul? He's like his dad, says a lot of stuff that makes sense and is true...but then spazzes out and says other stuff that's comically crazy.

Like, he wants to completely remove the department of education when everyone knows that a good education is key to a high salary and less unemployment (LINK). There's more honor students in India than the US has students!! And those are the guys the US economy and science has to compete with...and he wants to remove the very department that looks out for your kids' education and makes sure there are at least some standards?

Or his crazy theory that our reaction to the BP oil spill and other disasters like that should be LESS regulations. That's like handing a toddler a bottle of whiskey and a handgun!!

Pretty much the only thing I agree with is his stance on bailouts. But not for the same reason as most. Some seem to believe that if we hadn't bailed out those banks, by now, things would be all great again. Well, that's simply not true. I totally agree that LONG TERM this would have been the good option, because people would have been forced to built up a sustainable economy from the ground up again...instead of patching up that old rusty Dodge with duct tape. But in the short AND medium term more people would have lost their jobs for waaaaaaay longer than now. If the banks would have collapsed, the dollar would have collapsed even more than now. Imports would get ridiculously expensive. No investment activity would happen anymore, so forget about economic growth. Of course long term, it would get so cheap to invest in the US again (lol, China), it would SLOWLY pick up again. But that would take years of conditions way worse than what we have now.

What they should have done is one of 2 things:

1) No bailouts, force the economy to build up in a sustainable way from the ground up again. People would have suffered for years way worse than with bailouts. But it forces a sustainable restructuring of the economy...

2) Bailouts AND financial reforms. That option could have worked. But the financial reform bill was totally watered down and my mates at Goldman are laughing about it.

Instead, they went with option 2.1....bailouts and no significant reforms. It's halfarsed...and that's why we have this stupid stagnation interlaced with totally erratic panic cycles.

Anyway, yeah, no bailouts would have been the best option long term, he got that one right. But he just can't stop spazzing out with crazy stuff like wanting LESS regulation for BP

reply to post by MrXYZ


So your a die hard Democrat... Gotcha...

Does it matter that they "did not have sex with that women"?

Maybe we can ask them what the defintion of is is?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

So your a die hard Democrat... Gotcha...

Does it matter that they "did not have sex with that women"?

Maybe we can ask them what the defintion of is is?

edit on 4-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Did you read what I just wrote? I don't think the Dems did the right thing either since they're in power...hell, Obama continued most of Bush's policies.

I don't think you understand my main point...THEY'RE ALL BOUGHT!! That whole party nonsense is just to entertain the masses, like gladiator games. And it seems to work, as you totally buy into it...

Wow, so much hate.
But regardless, if you are against the Tea Party, then that would mean you are for the Status Quo.

That to me makes no sense at all.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Wow, so much hate.
But regardless, if you are against the Tea Party, then that would mean you are for the Status Quo.

That to me makes no sense at all.

Those are the only two choices? I think that is a quite narrowminded.
This is not your way or no way. There are more than two ways.

I never saw any TEA PARTY listed on the ballots in 2010. In fact, I was reminded all the time that there was not tea PARTY and that it was just average Americans from all stripes.

At least you guys finally gave up that lie.

Originally posted by Alxandro
Wow, so much hate.
But regardless, if you are against the Tea Party, then that would mean you are for the Status Quo.

That to me makes no sense at all.

So basically, if you come across 3 pieces of dog crap on the road, you will step into one of them for sure...and you pick yours because the other 2 smell bad.

Makes sense

Tell me, why does the GOP and DEMs sucking suddenly validate the TP as a "good choice". Look at what the TP's leader say, and then then check the facts. In too many cases, they demonstrably lie. So how on earth is that a better choice than either of the other 2?

reply to post by MrXYZ


I do not understand how these people keep saying there are Dems, Repubs, and Tea Partiers.
The Tea "party" is the Republican party. Each "tea party" candidate listed by these people is a Republican. How the hell did we get to a place where Republicans get to be in two different parties at the same time and apparently be better when they stand under one banner and suck when they stand under the other.

Can anyone of these folks name for us some "tea party" politicians that are NOT also Republicans?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

...
So how on earth is that a better choice than either of the other 2?

Because this would really be true change, not the SNAFU that was forced down our throats.

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by MrXYZ

...
So how on earth is that a better choice than either of the other 2?

Because this would really be true change, not the SNAFU that was forced down our throats.

How can you call picking one out of three turds "true change"?

reply to post by MrXYZ


DUH!
Think of it his way, for starters, it gets rid of the career politicians.
For that reason alone they should be given a chance.

As far as the thread title is concerned, how can the Tea Party be abusing power if they've never been in power to begin with?

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by MrXYZ

...
So how on earth is that a better choice than either of the other 2?

Because this would really be true change, not the SNAFU that was forced down our throats.

Teabaggers, who are all Republicans so far, would be a true change from the Democrat/Republican deal we got going on now?
That sounds fantastic. Flesh that out for me. Specifically which Republican teabaggers are not Republicans again?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by MrXYZ

...
So how on earth is that a better choice than either of the other 2?

Because this would really be true change, not the SNAFU that was forced down our throats.

Teabaggers, who are all Republicans so far, would be a true change from the Democrat/Republican deal we got going on now?
That sounds fantastic. Flesh that out for me. Specifically which Republican teabaggers are not Republicans again?

theres your proof

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Kitilani

 

The only logical failure would be yours, not mine. You and some of the others have no idea what the tea party is, which is evident everytime people complain about them.

Tell me all about it. Instead of just bitching that I do not know what I am talking about how about just this once you try and provide some facts?

It would be like blaming the black caucus of the Democratic party.

You are going to have to show me where the black caucus rallies were where they were all bragging about them taking back the house because Democrats won the way teabaggers did after the Republican sweep of 2010. Can you?

The Tea Party believes in smaller government and responsible fiscal policy, reduction in certain tax areas, a stricter interpretation of the Constitution and a reduction in the National debt. The 3 Republicans I named are members of the Tea Party, making them different from regular Republicans because their views are divergent from the traditional Republican Party platform.

Yeah Bachmann voting FOR the patriot act really made her standout among other Republicans huh. What have any of them done for you besides make speeches?

So while you list them as Republicans, they would fall under the RINO term.

Actually looking at their voting records and policy stances would make them Republicans. Apparently they are TPINOs.

Does that answer your question? Or should I change it up so you can use another 4 posts to respond while being an donkey in the process?

edit on 4-8-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

I am not sure where you learned to count. I responded one time each to 4 different posts...and no it did not.

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Alxandro

Originally posted by MrXYZ

...
So how on earth is that a better choice than either of the other 2?

Because this would really be true change, not the SNAFU that was forced down our throats.

Teabaggers, who are all Republicans so far, would be a true change from the Democrat/Republican deal we got going on now?
That sounds fantastic. Flesh that out for me. Specifically which Republican teabaggers are not Republicans again?

theres your proof

Proof of...?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Kitilani

 

Going for padding the post count? Good lord...

As far as your logic goes...

There are RINO's and Blue Dogs....

It appears to me that the RINO's/neocons have taken over the Republican asylum, and are desperately trying to keep the Tea Party folks in the pen, co-opt and corral them. They seem to be willing to use any means available, and it strikes me as odd that the more liberal types are all too willing to assist them in that endeavor, and are actively trying to maintain the linkage that the neocons are also trying to maintain. Looks from here like BOTH of those groups view the Tea Party as a major threat.

Nice that they can find something to yoke themselves together on, isn't it? Who'd have ever thought you'd see an elephant and a donkey pulling the same crap-wagon like brothers, washing each other's backs and all that happy stuff?

Warms the heart, don't it?

Originally posted by nenothtu
Looks from here like BOTH of those groups view the Tea Party as a major threat.

I want to understand this, I really do. I looked at all the candidates the supposed "tea party" was supporting in 2010. I looked at all the candidates they bragged about putting in office. They are all Republicans.

Not much more than a year ago the mantra was "there is no Tea "party" we are just like you! We are everyday Americans!" They all voted Republican, bragged about getting Republicans into office, and now turn around and try to claim they are some magical 3rd entity?

Can you list for me one politician that was supported by the so called "tea party" that is actually a member of the TEA Party and NOT the Republican party?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by nenothtu
Looks from here like BOTH of those groups view the Tea Party as a major threat.

I want to understand this, I really do. I looked at all the candidates the supposed "tea party" was supporting in 2010. I looked at all the candidates they bragged about putting in office. They are all Republicans.

Not much more than a year ago the mantra was "there is no Tea "party" we are just like you! We are everyday Americans!" They all voted Republican, bragged about getting Republicans into office, and now turn around and try to claim they are some magical 3rd entity?

Can you list for me one politician that was supported by the so called "tea party" that is actually a member of the TEA Party and NOT the Republican party?

Apparently not, since you appear to be willfully failing to comprehend what the "Tea Party" is in favor of the common agenda.

Bipartisan cooperation is great, isn't it? Seems to be working wonders against the Tea Party!

I take that to indicate that you've also not read the rest of the thread, or perhaps just passed over the posts I've already made in it, or that wouldn't be the sort of question you'd ask me. Had you read them, you would already be aware of my answer to that.

Originally posted by nenothtu
Apparently not, since you appear to be willfully failing to comprehend what the "Tea Party" is in favor of the common agenda.

Failing to comprehend? I can name them for you. All Republicans. What are you smoking?

Bipartisan cooperation is great, isn't it? Seems to be working wonders against the Tea Party!

Keep saying it like there is a difference between the "tea party" and Republicans. Too bad you still cannot explain what that difference is in real terms with real people with real voting records and real policy issues.

I take that to indicate that you've also not read the rest of the thread, or perhaps just passed over the posts I've already made in it, or that wouldn't be the sort of question you'd ask me. Had you read them, you would already be aware of my answer to that.

You assume that what you wrote answered my question because you seem quite used to responding with rather empty talking points and hoping people will just move along. I actually want answers to my questions.