What should be the politically correct term for Tea Party Goers?

[Moby]

So let's try to be politically correct for the emotional supporters of the Tea Party movement.

What should we call these people that supported the massive run up in deficit spending before a black democrat from The North took office and then immediately came out against it?

[Smurf-Herder]

So let's try to be politically correct for the emotional supporters of the Tea Party movement.

What should we call these people that supported the massive run up in deficit spending before a black democrat from The North took office and then immediately came out against it?

I think the people who were originally against overspending and overcontrolling government, who finally decided they'd had enough when Obama started doubling down on overspending and government control, after lying about more transparency, whould like to be called what they are - Tea Party Protesters, or Tea Partiers for a less legalistic term. In the tradition of the Boston Tea Party, whose protest on which they were founded.

[MintJulep]

So let's try to be politically correct for the emotional supporters of the Tea Party movement.

What should we call these people that supported the massive run up in deficit spending before a black democrat from The North took office and then immediately came out against it?Why do you inject race into a movement that rejects big government? The racism accusation leveled at anyone who disagrees with this retarded administration is typical Alinsky tactics.

Instead of the politics of hope and change, Obama has brought us the politics of destruction. If you ever ask why this bunch is so hated, you have your answer right here.

[bairdi]

How about hypocrites?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2801/4190849095_d98e433d22.jpg

[Boogie man]

Obama's black? Nope. He's half black and half white. Why is the left so race minded about everything?

[John Galt]

Just call them what they are...uninformed, and illiterate

[MintJulep]

Just call them what they are...uninformed, and illiterateThe most uniformed and illiterate of the electorate are the lazy, worthless bums who thought they were getting a check "from the rich".

IOW, the ignorant Obamatrons.

Hope and change, baby! :lmao2:

[Zebulon0351]

I think "Tea Baggers" works just fine.

[Kana]

How about hypocrites?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2801/4190849095_d98e433d22.jpg

Many of them are hypocrites. If they voted for Bush or McCain, they are hypocrites. McCain suspended his campaign to fly to Washington to show his support for Bush's bailout, and criticized Obama for not dropping everything to do the same. McCain flapped his lips in a transparently fake opposition to redistribution of wealth, while simultaneously helping to facilitate actual redistribution of $700 billion of taxpayer wealth to failing corporations.

I am opposed to big government. The difference I see between me and the average Tea Partier is that I was also opposed to it four years ago, and I will still be opposed to it when conservatives eventually retake the legislature or presidency. When that happens, we will see just how principled the Tea Party movement really is. Maybe they will surprise me and remain true to their stated convictions, but I'm not holding my breath.

[doctordog]

they already have a term that addresses them, why must liberals try to give them a different term? Should we now call all liberals that are for UHC freeloaders? Bums? Retards? this thread is silly.

[CosmicRocker]

Just call them what they are...uninformed, and illiterate
sorry Amigo -but your post shows your own "uninformance" of the idea of limited gov't and prioritizing ( REDUCING) spending by Congress.

[CosmicRocker]

Many of them are hypocrites. If they voted for Bush or McCain, they are hypocrites. McCain suspended his campaign to fly to Washington to show his support for Bush's bailout, and criticized Obama for not dropping everything to do the same. McCain flapped his lips in a transparently fake opposition to redistribution of wealth, while simultaneously helping to facilitate actual redistribution of $700 billion of taxpayer wealth to failing corporations.

I am opposed to big government. The difference I see between me and the average Tea Partier is that I was also opposed to it four years ago, and I will still be opposed to it when conservatives eventually retake the legislature or presidency. When that happens, we will see just how principled the Tea Party movement really is. Maybe they will surprise me and remain true to their stated convictions, but I'm not holding my breath.
Good post. The true movement REJECTED the Republican deficits, as well as the Obama deficits.

That's why the Teap Party is more popular than the Republican party.

We're sick of both party's inability to run a cost efficient gov't.

Need a bridge? -write a check. need some Stimulus? -write a check

I never ends, the deficits are growing at an unsubstainable rate.

[Pat]

Why do you inject race into a movement that rejects big government? The racism accusation leveled at anyone who disagrees with this retarded administration is typical Alinsky tactics.

Instead of the politics of hope and change, Obama has brought us the politics of destruction. If you ever ask why this bunch is so hated, you have your answer right here.
It's a false way to preemptively defend his bogus assertion.
As you pointed out, it is a method used by Mr Alinsky. If every supporter of Mr Obama would read the book "Rules for Radicals", they might actually understand what is going on with this administration. It's very similar to what the $cientologists call "fair game".

[Pat]

Obama's black? Nope. He's half black and half white. Why is the left so race minded about everything?
Can you spot the white guys in this picture?

[Moby]

I think the people who were originally against overspending and overcontrolling government, who finally decided they'd had enough when Obama started doubling down on overspending and government control, after lying about more transparency, whould like to be called what they are - Tea Party Protesters, or Tea Partiers for a less legalistic term. In the tradition of the Boston Tea Party, whose protest on which they were founded.
Really? Obama doubled the deficit spending?

Come on Smurf. The man's administration has created 1 budget in the middle of the worst economic crisis this country has seen in nearly 80 years.

What you and most of the baggers refuse to understand is that they started complaining about the Bush budget as soon as he passed it off to Obama. Everyone in America should care enough about this country to know how it works :banghead:

Let's stop trying to hijack this thread and come up with some names that the emotional right will accept as politically correct.

[Moby]

they already have a term that addresses them, why must liberals try to give them a different term? Should we now call all liberals that are for UHC freeloaders? Bums? Retards? this thread is silly.
So what is the Politically Correct term?

[doctordog]

So what is the Politically Correct term?

The Tea Party, but carry on with your silly name game if it makes you more comfortable.:thumbsup:

[bairdi]

Really? Obama doubled the deficit spending?

Come on Smurf. The man's administration has created 1 budget in the middle of the worst economic crisis this country has seen in nearly 80 years.

What you and most of the baggers refuse to understand is that they started complaining about the Bush budget as soon as he passed it off to Obama. Everyone in America should care enough about this country to know how it works :banghead:

Let's stop trying to hijack this thread and come up with some names that the emotional right will accept as politically correct.
How about if take a page from the Iranian conservatives and call themselves the Revolutionary Guard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34789801/ns/world_news-washington_post

[Pat]

Really? Obama doubled the deficit spending?

Come on Smurf. The man's administration has created 1 budget in the middle of the worst economic crisis this country has seen in nearly 80 years.

What you and most of the baggers refuse to understand is that they started complaining about the Bush budget as soon as he passed it off to Obama. Everyone in America should care enough about this country to know how it works :banghead:

Let's stop trying to hijack this thread and come up with some names that the emotional right will accept as politically correct.
Saul, Saul Alinsky, is that you?

[John Galt]

sorry Amigo -but your post shows your own "uninformance" of the idea of limited gov't and prioritizing ( REDUCING) spending by Congress.
Nope....I'm pretty well informed. That tiny group you may align yourself with, has been usurped by the Beckbots, who take their uninformed talking points from same.

You think they would use spellcheck before they bring those signs out into pubic....

[doctordog]

Nope....I'm pretty well informed. That tiny group you may align yourself with, has been usurped by the Beckbots, who take their uninformed talking points from same.

You think they would use spellcheck before they bring those signs out into pubic....

Never mind the signs, how about some basic political understanding.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/53C2-b8BOLs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/53C2-b8BOLs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
:lmao2:


BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

[John Galt]

Never mind the signs, how about some basic political understanding.



BAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!



True Dat!

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lUPMjC9mq5Y&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[Kana]

Good post. The true movement REJECTED the Republican deficits, as well as the Obama deficits.

That's why the Teap Party is more popular than the Republican party.

We're sick of both party's inability to run a cost efficient gov't.

Need a bridge? -write a check. need some Stimulus? -write a check

I never ends, the deficits are growing at an unsubstainable rate.

Thanks.

But I am skeptical of whether this Tea Party movement is a real movement with a consistent ideological base. Non-defense spending grew faster under George W. Bush than any president since Nixon. So, where have all these Tea Partiers been hiding for the past decade? Were they in cryogenic sleep or something? Conservatives spent the Bush years praising the virtues of the Leviathan state, but when Obama is elected, they suddenly decide to tighten their purse strings.

It looks to me like they are just shifting with the winds. Is this a movement, or a fad?

[MintJulep]

Thanks.

But I am skeptical of whether this Tea Party movement is a real movement with a consistent ideological base. Non-defense spending grew faster under George W. Bush than any president since Nixon. So, where have all these Tea Partiers been hiding for the past decade? Were they in cryogenic sleep or something? Conservatives spent the Bush years praising the virtues of the Leviathan state, but when Obama is elected, they suddenly decide to tighten their purse strings.

It looks to me like they are just shifting with the winds. Is this a movement, or a fad?Do you think the current economical situation could be the catalyst for their sudden emergence?

[John Galt]

Thanks.

But I am skeptical of whether this Tea Party movement is a real movement with a consistent ideological base. Non-defense spending grew faster under George W. Bush than any president since Nixon. So, where have all these Tea Partiers been hiding for the past decade? Were they in cryogenic sleep or something? Conservatives spent the Bush years praising the virtues of the Leviathan state, but when Obama is elected, they suddenly decide to tighten their purse strings.

It looks to me like they are just shifting with the winds. Is this a movement, or a fad?
There are many who've been quietly denouncing the horrid economic direction this country took under Bush. Likewise, the beast that we call 'the govt.', grew unchecked.

The fact that the house of cards finally came crashing down, is no surprise to many of us.

This latest 'movement', has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, and everything to do with Fox News rallying 'the base'.


I too, ask where this angry mob has been for the last 8 years?

[doctordog]

There are many who've been quietly denouncing the horrid economic direction this country took under Bush. Likewise, the beast that we call 'the govt.', grew unchecked.

The fact that the house of cards finally came crashing down, is no surprise to many of us.

This latest 'movement', has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, and everything to do with Fox News rallying 'the base'.


I too, ask where this angry mob has been for the last 8 years?

How many times were tax payer funds robbed for bailouts in the last 8 years while at the same time being slated to pay for the largest healthcare spending bill ever?

85% Americans have insurance and this idiot wants to wreck that for 15% of the uncovered? Fact is we have have never seen job losses of this magnitude and all the money we are spending is not seeing the results promised. Now introduce Cap and Trade along with other more stringent EPA changes and the cuts in workers will be even higher.

[Kana]

Do you think the current economical situation could be the catalyst for their sudden emergence?

I'm sure it has something to do with it, as does some oblique sense of political identity (they see right-wing big government as more benign than left-wing big government). The question, as I see it, is whether this movement is ideological or merely reactionary. Will the Tea Party's commitment to limited government outlive the financial crisis?

[Moby]

The Tea Party, but carry on with your silly name game if it makes you more comfortable.:thumbsup:
So we should call individuals that support the Tea Party's "Tea Party"?

Do you read and think about what you read before you post?

[doctordog]

So we should call individuals that support the Tea Party's "Tea Party"?

Do you read and think about what you read before you post?

We have the Democratic Party, the Repulican Party, damn Moby are you really that fucking dense?:disbelief:

[John Galt]

How many times were tax payer funds robbed for bailouts in the last 8 years while at the same time being slated to pay for the largest healthcare spending bill ever?

I don't think you want to start down the 'how many times' road, if you want to discuss the last 8 years.

These teabaggers don't like bailouts, but they were fine with BILLIONS of dollars in no bid contracts? Tax money, is tax money. I want to know why they weren't in the streets before the negro took office?

85% Americans have insurance and this idiot wants to wreck that for 15% of the uncovered? Fact is we have have never seen job losses of this magnitude and all the money we are spending is not seeing the results promised. Now introduce Cap and Trade along with other more stringent EPA changes and the cuts in workers will be even higher.


How is it that 85% of Americans have insurance? What percentage of those Americans pay nothing, or a small fraction of premium costs, because it is included w/salary?

With premiums increasing at a guaranteed 20%/yr., what kind of 'incentive' would it be for businesses to hire, if that portion of their overhead were gone/reduced?


Every job lost, creates an insured lost. That 85% number decreases with every jobless person you love to post about.

The thing about teabaggers is that, when pressed, the majority of the protesters haven't even thought these issues through.


They've never thought past the rallying cries, and shouted slogans.



That's what this particular discussion is about...I don't think that even you want to defend the general mentality of the majority of this group.

You argue your side, because you've got your bennies, your personal days, etc.,etc., etc..I expect you to defend those perks.

A lot of these idiots are actually arguing against issues that would be beneficial to them in the long run.

They're just too stupid to know it.

[Pat]

I don't think you want to start down the 'how many times' road, if you want to discuss the last 8 years.

These teabaggers don't like bailouts, but they were fine with BILLIONS of dollars in no bid contracts? Tax money, is tax money. I want to know why they weren't in the streets before the negro took office?




How is it that 85% of Americans have insurance? What percentage of those Americans pay nothing, or a small fraction of premium costs, because it is included w/salary?

With premiums increasing at a guaranteed 20%/yr., what kind of 'incentive' would it be for businesses to hire, if that portion of their overhead were gone/reduced?


Every job lost, creates an insured lost. That 85% number decreases with every jobless person you love to post about.

The thing about teabaggers is that, when pressed, the majority of the protesters haven't even thought these issues through.


They've never thought past the rallying cries, and shouted slogans.



That's what this particular discussion is about...I don't think that even you want to defend the general mentality of the majority of this group.

You argue your side, because you've got your bennies, your personal days, etc.,etc., etc..I expect you to defend those perks.

A lot of these idiots are actually arguing against issues that would be beneficial to them in the long run.

They're just too stupid to know it.

Just trying to help.
Let's stop trying to hijack this thread and come up with some names that the emotional right will accept as politically correct.

[doctordog]

I don't think you want to start down the 'how many times' road, if you want to discuss the last 8 years.

These teabaggers don't like bailouts, but they were fine with BILLIONS of dollars in no bid contracts? Tax money, is tax money. I want to know why they weren't in the streets before the negro took office?




How is it that 85% of Americans have insurance? What percentage of those Americans pay nothing, or a small fraction of premium costs, because it is included w/salary?

With premiums increasing at a guaranteed 20%/yr., what kind of 'incentive' would it be for businesses to hire, if that portion of their overhead were gone/reduced?


Every job lost, creates an insured lost. That 85% number decreases with every jobless person you love to post about.

The thing about teabaggers is that, when pressed, the majority of the protesters haven't even thought these issues through.


They've never thought past the rallying cries, and shouted slogans.



That's what this particular discussion is about...I don't think that even you want to defend the general mentality of the majority of this group.

You argue your side, because you've got your bennies, your personal days, etc.,etc., etc..I expect you to defend those perks.

A lot of these idiots are actually arguing against issues that would be beneficial to them in the long run.

They're just too stupid to know it.

I am arguing D because it took 25 years to get those perks as you call them. Fact is many that are willing to work, perform beyond epxectations while improving their worth though growth can get the same. Many of you talk about coverage that is given. Earth to Galt. If you aren't producing, you aren't earning thus you aren't working. The whole basis for the left argument is the ones that won't want to take from those that will.

[CosmicRocker]

Nope....I'm pretty well informed. That tiny group you may align yourself with, has been usurped by the Beckbots, who take their uninformed talking points from same.

You think they would use spellcheck before they bring those signs out into pubic....
You're hung up with minutia.
It's NOT a TINY GROUP !!!!!!!!!!!!! :banghead:

More Americans prefer the Tea Party to the Republicans.

why is that?

Because neither the Repubs Nor the Dem's can control Congressional Spending.

That's what started this - condemnation of Bush deficits, and Obama;s doubling down.

This is a grass roots movement - albeit funded now by Repub. PACS.

I hope the run some candidates -beat both Partys.

Then maybe Congress might wake up, and realize the majority of americans
know we are on a budget disaster.

Go Tea Party !

[CosmicRocker]

Thanks.

But I am skeptical of whether this Tea Party movement is a real movement with a consistent ideological base. Non-defense spending grew faster under George W. Bush than any president since Nixon. So, where have all these Tea Partiers been hiding for the past decade? Were they in cryogenic sleep or something? Conservatives spent the Bush years praising the virtues of the Leviathan state, but when Obama is elected, they suddenly decide to tighten their purse strings.

It looks to me like they are just shifting with the winds. Is this a movement, or a fad?
Look at the polls - the Tea party is beating the Republicans.

They have deficit hawks, fiscal conservative Dem's. and true conervatives
( Not the establishment Republican Party )

I follow Repub politics too - the Tea party didn't organize till Obama took office - you are correct.

But they condemed the Repub deficts too.
I followed this from the beginning - went to a rally in April.

The one concept ( even the loons there) that united everyone, was gov't must start to prioritize spending.

[doctordog]

Look at the polls - the Tea party is beating the Republicans.

They have deficit hawks, fiscal conservative Dem's. and true conervatives
( Not the establishment Republican Party )

I follow Repub politics too - the Tea party didn't organize till Obama took office - you are correct.

But they condemed the Repub deficts too.
I followed this from the beginning - went to a rally in April.

The one concept ( even the loons there) that united everyone, was gov't must start to prioritize spending.

I hope you are right, the Tea Party could accomplish something that neither the Green Party or Progressives have accomplished.

[foxbaron]

I think another reason for the tea party being organized is that this adminstration not only wants to change health care as we know it but want to do it in such a way that the people have no choice as to what type of health care they prefer.

They are being forced to change under penalty of fines and/or imprisonment. Kind of like debtors prison. Unconstitutional at least.

[doctordog]

I think another reason for the tea party being organized is that this adminstration not only wants to change health care as we know it but want to do it in such a way that the people have no choice as to what type of health care they prefer.

They are being forced to change under penalty of fines and/or imprisonment. Kind of like debtors prison. Unconstitutional at least.

I hope they aren't secretly building large ovens anywhere.:mad:

[John Galt]

I am arguing D because it took 25 years to get those perks as you call them. Fact is many that are willing to work, perform beyond epxectations while improving their worth though growth can get the same. Many of you talk about coverage that is given. Earth to Galt. If you aren't producing, you aren't earning thus you aren't working. The whole basis for the left argument is the ones that won't want to take from those that will.
Just when you were doing so well, you're back to gross generalizations.

You don't know any 'slackers' that get bennies?

That isn't even the discussion. This comes down to the burden on employers. If we lightened this burden, perhaps it would create more/better jobs.

I tend to doubt it, as corporations would prefer to steal the higher profits for the upper levels, but in concept, it's valid.

The point is that the Teabaggers don't even think this through, before they start screeching.

Uninformed, and illiterate.

[John Galt]

You're hung up with minutia.
It's NOT a TINY GROUP !!!!!!!!!!!!! :banghead:

More Americans prefer the Tea Party to the Republicans.

why is that?

Because neither the Repubs Nor the Dem's can control Congressional Spending.

That's what started this - condemnation of Bush deficits, and Obama;s doubling down.

This is a grass roots movement - albeit funded now by Repub. PACS.

I hope the run some candidates -beat both Partys.

Then maybe Congress might wake up, and realize the majority of americans
know we are on a budget disaster.

Go Tea Party !
And you're hung up on the past. Your group has been taken over by idiots who take their marching orders from Fox.

That's why, as you admit, they never showed up when Bush was breaking all kinds of deficit spending records.

My question remains until someone actually answers it....
"Where was this 'movement', during the last 8 years"?



They'll run a candidate, and he'll be crying in his beer w/Nader when the election is over.

Talking about reducing spending, and cutting taxes is easy.

Let's see you implement it.

[JJGlanton]

So let's try to be politically correct for the emotional supporters of the Tea Party movement.

What should we call these people that supported the massive run up in deficit spending before a black democrat from The North took office and then immediately came out against it?
Nice- Moby the race-baiter....... right up there with Sharpton and Jackson, but even more cowardly....

[JJGlanton]

Obama's black? Nope. He's half black and half white. Why is the left so race minded about everything?
Obama's black? But he's so clean, light-skinned, and articulate, with nary a trace of afro-american dialect (unless he wants to talk like a g)

[serum114]

The Tea Party is a joke it's just the Dick Armey army, cock sure and full of shit. Back in April I went to one of their little parties and it was about the dumbest thing I have ever seen.

[JJGlanton]

The Tea Party is a joke it's just the Dick Armey army, cock sure and full of shit. Back in April I went to one of their little parties and it was about the dumbest thing I have ever seen.
says the individual that believes a comment about the oral sex skills of a dead president's wife is worth repeating with post.

[serum114]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCqQRflUWd4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCqQRflUWd4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[CosmicRocker]

And you're hung up on the past. Your group has been taken over by idiots who take their marching orders from Fox.

That's why, as you admit, they never showed up when Bush was breaking all kinds of deficit spending records.

My question remains until someone actually answers it....
"Where was this 'movement', during the last 8 years"?



They'll run a candidate, and he'll be crying in his beer w/Nader when the election is over.

Talking about reducing spending, and cutting taxes is easy.

Let's see you implement it.
It's not my group anymore -too much baggage, although the idea of actually not spending ourselves into oblivion remains.

Where was the movement?
Silent by and large - some Dem's did complain about the Bush deficits - mostly the "off budget wars"
But they came in and did the same thing - even passing the bloated Omnibus, and worthless Stimulus.

The Republicans were too loyal to their party to complain, because if you criticize a President of your party ( Bush) then you "didn't support the troops" or some such nonscence.


There are lots of lunatics in the Tea Party - racists too. whole lotta Baggage.
But that idea that we are spending ourselves to death is finally catching on.
Maybe.

[CosmicRocker]

A far as cutting taxing and spending - there IS a way to implement it -but not with the incumbents.

It would take a mindset in Congress ( Led by Obama) that we must prioritize - and make un popular cuts.

No politician will tell you that that wants re-election.

Only by throwing out the lot of them, can we hope they finally get it, that they have to look for ways to save money.

I doubt it will happen - we always fuck up and never change.

[doctordog]

Just when you were doing so well, you're back to gross generalizations.

You don't know any 'slackers' that get bennies?

That isn't even the discussion. This comes down to the burden on employers. If we lightened this burden, perhaps it would create more/better jobs.

I tend to doubt it, as corporations would prefer to steal the higher profits for the upper levels, but in concept, it's valid.

The point is that the Teabaggers don't even think this through, before they start screeching.

Uninformed, and illiterate.

if they replace it with cash for the hit we would have to take I have no problem with it because I along with others work for it as part of our compensation package. A high percentage of people are upset about those packages are not willing to put in enough effort to get them.

[JJGlanton]

Little Miss Moby really isn't too bright. The correct term for one who attends a Tea Party is Tea Partier.

[doctordog]

Little Miss Moby really isn't too bright. The correct term for one who attends a Tea Party is Tea Partier.

He has to have labels just to feel normal.

[John Galt]

if they replace it with cash for the hit we would have to take I have no problem with it because I along with others work for it as part of our compensation package. A high percentage of people are upset about those packages are not willing to put in enough effort to get them.
In a perfect world, you would get higher pay.

The employer would have less overhead, and perhaps more money to hire new employees.

And, healthcare would be affordable enough to make it worth your while to shop the market.

I just don't think 'the partiers' even think this through.

[Smurf-Herder]

Really? Obama doubled the deficit spending?

Come on Smurf. The man's administration has created 1 budget in the middle of the worst economic crisis this country has seen in nearly 80 years.

What you and most of the baggers refuse to understand is that they started complaining about the Bush budget as soon as he passed it off to Obama. Everyone in America should care enough about this country to know how it works :banghead:

Let's stop trying to hijack this thread and come up with some names that the emotional right will accept as politically correct.

Hey, "doubling down" is an expression.

And cut the shit about hijacking. I reworded your false characterizations of the Tea Party people.

[MintJulep]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCqQRflUWd4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QCqQRflUWd4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

See ya in November! :hi:

Dc_-L4fyLUo

[Moby]

We have the Democratic Party, the Repulican Party, damn Moby are you really that fucking dense?:disbelief:
Why can't you post the actual phrase? If you have no opinions in a thread than why do you even try to participate?

Republican Party supporters are called "Republicans"
Democratic Party supports are called "Democrats"

Are you proposing that if the Tea Party ever reaches national registration that we call the supporters "Teas"? If so, just post it. Why all the drama?

[Moby]

Hey, "doubling down" is an expression.
So did Obama raise deficit spending more than the previous President? :confused: I don't get where your going with this and what your comments had to do with a name for the "Tea Party" supporters? :confused:

Wrong talking point for the wrong thread. It's a common mistake.

[doctordog]

Why can't you post the actual phrase? If you have no opinions in a thread than why do you even try to participate?

Republican Party supporters are called "Republicans"
Democratic Party supports are called "Democrats"

Are you proposing that if the Tea Party ever reaches national registration that we call the supporters "Teas"? If so, just post it. Why all the drama?


I can cut the shit, anytime you want to, I only follow your example.

[Moby]

I can cut the shit, anytime you want to, I only follow your example.
So than what is the term that you suggest we use for people that support the Tea Party movement (which BTW - doesn't appear to be a nationally registered political party yet)?

It's a simple question.

[doctordog]

So than what is the term that you suggest we use for people that support the Tea Party movement (which BTW - doesn't appear to be a nationally registered political party yet)?

It's a simple question.

Lets start with the "T" and "P" from the two words of description. Now we will add an "o" and "s" and refer to them as the "Tops" going to forward.:thumbsup:

[John Galt]

Well, we could just call them confused.

But, Contradictory is also fitting.

I think Hypocrites fits best.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9532652


Few Show up for Protest at Detroit Auto Show


Charlie Gennara thought there would be a sizable showing for a planned "tea party" protest outside the annual international auto show in Detroit on Monday.

For the first 45 minutes, though, it was just him and one other person voicing their displeasure with the billions in aid spent by the government on General Motors, Chrysler and auto lender GMAC Financial Services



Joan Fabiano, who organizes tea parties as part of a group called Grassroots in Michigan, e-mailed supporters asking them not to show up Monday, saying such action could hurt business in the state



"I'd like to think I had something to do with that," Fabiano said of the low turnout Monday.

Fabiano, of Holt, Mich., worked at GM for 30 years and believes protesting at the auto show sends the wrong message.

"I think it was ill-conceived," she said. "It only hurts fellow Michiganders and Michigan commerce. Businesses are already hurting."



I think I understand now...they're against bailouts, unless it's for something that they believe is important....like the company one of them worked for, for 30 years.



Hey Cosmic Somebody hijacked your grassroots movement....

I've been warning you all along.



At least we know that they're no different than the crooks we have in office now:lmao2:


Hey Teabaggers...don't look now, but your balls are showing:lmao2:

[CosmicRocker]

Hey Cosmic Somebody hijacked your grassroots movement....

I've been warning you all along.

No shit Sherlock - look at my post the previous page.

Here: I'll cut and paste it for you.
It's not my group anymore -too much baggage, although the idea of actually not spending ourselves into oblivion remains.
Where was the movement?
Silent by and large - some Dem's did complain about the Bush deficits - mostly the "off budget wars"
But they came in and did the same thing - even passing the bloated Omnibus, and worthless Stimulus.

The Republicans were too loyal to their party to complain, because if you criticize a President of your party ( Bush) then you "didn't support the troops" or some such nonscence.


There are lots of lunatics in the Tea Party - racists too. whole lotta Baggage.
But that idea that we are spending ourselves to death is finally catching on.
Maybe.

Get it? the Tea Party has become an amalgamation of "anti's", with some lunatic fringe cases like Detroit

It 's not just about the deficit anymore -although I've tried to tell you that is the core idea, which you just don't seem to get
( Maybe cause you already pay so much NY taxes, and are used to it).

I've also told you ( even though you don't trust polls) that the ideas in the tea party ( sans the lunatics /haters) are more popular than the Republican Party.

So enough of the talk it wasn't grass roots - obviously the idea that we spend too much is still "popular"

[John Galt]

So enough of the talk it wasn't grass roots - obviously the idea that we spend too much is still "popular"
Yea...unless we spend it on something that a handful of them support...just like the system we have now.

Granted..you've come a long way since the days of your defense of these idiots as "grass roots".

More popular than republicans????

They ARE republicans. All of them.

The cracks are starting to show now, and by fall, they'll be splintered into so many factions, they'll amount to a fart in the wind when it comes to affecting the elections.


I've been saying it all along...they're full of shit. They just like to screech Fox talking points. They don't even know what the hell they believe anymore.



Except that Sarah the Savior will ride in at the last minute, and save the day:lmao2:

[CosmicRocker]

Yea...unless we spend it on something that a handful of them support...just like the system we have now.

Granted..you've come a long way since the days of your defense of these idiots as "grass roots".

More popular than republicans????

They ARE republicans. All of them.

The cracks are starting to show now, and by fall, they'll be splintered into so many factions, they'll amount to a fart in the wind when it comes to affecting the elections.


I've been saying it all along...they're full of shit. They just like to screech Fox talking points. They don't even know what the hell they believe anymore.



Except that Sarah the Savior will ride in at the last minute, and save the day:lmao2:
Look at the polls !
( do I have to goggle them for you?)
NO, theya re NOT all repubs- some are, some are lunatics.

But the Independents are looking for SOMEONE to get the idea that we are digging a hole ( literally) all the way to China with our bankrupt policies.

Do you want to defend the Dems?
What have they accomplished?

[MichMike]

teabaggers works nicely.

[MintJulep]

teabaggers works nicely.It's a fine time for a teabaggin'

http://www.wickedlocal.com/stoneham/archive/x1692328549/g258258c0ca36b3b2125efe371a3b933f0034ef57cdf63d.jp g

[Smurf-Herder]

teabaggers works nicely.

That's because you like the gay slur angle.

[Moby]

That's because you like the gay slur angle.
Why do you consider "Teabagger" a gay term when it's not.

[Moby]

Lets start with the "T" and "P" from the two words of description. Now we will add an "o" and "s" and refer to them as the "Tops" going to forward.:thumbsup:
What do the "o" and "s" stand for?

Right now you just have "TP" for the name. We should call them TPers?

[Smurf-Herder]

Why do you consider "Teabagger" a gay term when it's not.

Because this is where I first heard the term, back in the early 90's - along with a full (graphic) explanation from a gay friend when he was asked about it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gi9hgqZr6fs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gi9hgqZr6fs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It is a gay term - at the very least, it's origins are sexual - and it's a popular practice in the gay community, according to our gay friend.

[MintJulep]

Because this is where I first heard the term, back in the early 90's - along with a full (graphic) explanation from a gay friend when he was asked about it.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gi9hgqZr6fs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Gi9hgqZr6fs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It is a gay term - at the very least, it's origins are sexual - and it's a popular practice in the gay community, according to our gay friend.I think this lady will soon be able to explain what being teabagged means.

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05wI7dx8xs3g6/610x.jpg

[John Galt]

I can't believe we've got so many guys here who've never had their balls sucked.

And so many women who don't do 'that'.

You don't know what you're missing.

[Smurf-Herder]

So did Obama raise deficit spending more than the previous President? :confused: I don't get where your going with this and what your comments had to do with a name for the "Tea Party" supporters? :confused:

Wrong talking point for the wrong thread. It's a common mistake.

You mischaracterized the tea party people - I corrected your BS.

And yes, he did - with the Omnibus, Stimulus; and whatever else is coming down the road.

[Smurf-Herder]

Why don't we just settle this once and for all.

Allow the terms "Teabagger" and "Teabagging" in the course of reference in a political discussion - without using it as an insult directed towards another member, which would be interpreted or intented as a sexual slur.

I didn't care all that much about it, until I saw it used repeatedly as a sexually intended insult, in a long drawn out argument between two members a week ago.

[foxbaron]

So let's try to be politically correct for the emotional supporters of the Tea Party movement.

What should we call these people that supported the massive run up in deficit spending before a black democrat from The North took office and then immediately came out against it?


How about we call them PAKs

Political Ass Kickers.

[Moby]

And yes, he did - with the Omnibus, Stimulus; and whatever else is coming down the road.
So what was the spending deficit for the year that Bush left office?

Budget and CBO estimates?

What is it today?



Has it doubled? NO, so stop lying or post the sources.

[Moby]

Why don't we just settle this once and for all.

Allow the terms "Teabagger" and "Teabagging" in the course of reference in a political discussion - without using it as an insult directed towards another member, which would be interpreted or intended as a sexual slur.
As mentioned before, if some some tells a teabagger to do his wife than it's a sexual slur. Calling someone a teabagger is acceptable slang for a political movement, being a hypocrite and not knowing what you're supporting.

Stay with it.

[Smurf-Herder]

As mentioned before, if some some tells a teabagger to do his wife than it's a sexual slur. Calling someone a teabagger is acceptable slang for a political movement, being a hypocrite and not knowing what you're supporting.

Stay with it.

Okay then, Teabagger. :thumbsup:

[Smurf-Herder]

So what was the spending deficit for the year that Bush left office?

Budget and CBO estimates?

What is it today?



Has it doubled? NO, so stop lying or post the sources.

I didn't say it "doubled" - stop lying, yourself.

I said "doubling down" was an expression.

Bush's deficit was only 450 billion, until TARP.

Obama and the Dems added a $700 billion dollar Onmibus bill (which we all debated at the time), along with all this new shit. So his deficits will continuously be hovering around a trillion (per the CBO figures discussed on this board nearly a year ago), while Bush's would have been only a one-time jump in that last year.

Bush wouldn't sign the Omnibus bill while he was in office, he wouldn't have wasted Stimulus money in the wrong places. He wouldn't have proposed all the spending Obama has.

I don't see how you can argue that Obama isn't adding far more to the deficit than Bush.

[Moby]

Bush's deficit was only 450 billion, until TARP.
Really? Are you sure about that?

Can you support that with oh, say Bush's actual budget proposal months before TARP? :lmao2:

[Smurf-Herder]

Really? Are you sure about that?

Can you support that with oh, say Bush's actual budget proposal months before TARP? :lmao2:


Yes, here's an article in 2008 showing his proposed budget deficits for 2008 and 2009. Everybody was bitching about it being over $400 Billion each year. They were pissed because he had it down to only $163 Billion at one point. Not the ballpark of a Trillion that Obama is giving us, each year for the next ten years, according to the CBO.

President's Spending Plan Would Rival 2004 Deficit
Sunday, February 3, 2008

"The more than $3 trillion federal budget for 2009 that Bush will unveil is his final opportunity to shape the priorities of the government before leaving office a year from now. Lawmakers and their aides say Bush has little leverage left to force his proposals on a recalcitrant Congress.

But even in the unlikely event that he were to get his way, the budget deficit would jump sharply, from $163 billion in 2007 to about $400 billion in 2008 and 2009 -- partly the result of the new economic stimulus plan. Such deficits would rival the record deficit of $412 billion of 2004, though administration allies argue that shortfalls of that size now represent a smaller share of the overall economy and are thus more manageable."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR2008020202042.html

[Smurf-Herder]

Moby, let me add this before you ask me to prove it:

White House, CBO debt forecasts challenge Obama

"The White House midsession budget forecast and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office both forecast that government revenues will be crimped by a slow recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s Great Depression, while spending on retirement and medical benefits soars.

The White House projected a cumulative $9 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019, while the CBO pegged the total at $7.1 trillion because it assumed higher revenues as tax cuts expire.

The spending blitz could push the national debt, now more than $11 trillion, to close to $20 trillion. The debt is the total sum the government owes, while the deficit is the yearly gap between revenues and spending."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57M0WV20090825

[Smurf-Herder]

I'm also wondering where the 700 Billion dollar Omnibus bill that Bush refused to sign, but Obama did works into the 2009 fiscal year; and if TARP was considered an on-budget or off-budget item.

[bairdi]

Moby, let me add this before you ask me to prove it:

White House, CBO debt forecasts challenge Obama

"The White House midsession budget forecast and the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office both forecast that government revenues will be crimped by a slow recovery from the worst recession since the 1930s Great Depression, while spending on retirement and medical benefits soars.

The White House projected a cumulative $9 trillion deficit between 2010 and 2019, while the CBO pegged the total at $7.1 trillion because it assumed higher revenues as tax cuts expire.

The spending blitz could push the national debt, now more than $11 trillion, to close to $20 trillion. The debt is the total sum the government owes, while the deficit is the yearly gap between revenues and spending."

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57M0WV20090825
Don't forget that Obama put items into the budget that Bush did not.

February 20, 2009
Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

[Smurf-Herder]

Don't forget that Obama put items into the budget that Bush did not.

February 20, 2009
Obama Bans Gimmicks, and Deficit Will Rise
By JACKIE CALMES

WASHINGTON — For his first annual budget next week, President Obama has banned four accounting gimmicks that President George W. Bush used to make deficit projections look smaller. The price of more honest bookkeeping: A budget that is $2.7 trillion deeper in the red over the next decade than it would otherwise appear, according to administration officials.

The new accounting involves spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Medicare reimbursements to physicians and the cost of disaster responses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/politics/20budget.html

Then how can any average person compare the two, from an unbiased source?