Tea Parties Video

[bytor2112]

Yeah, I feel for you.

I never elected Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove, Scooter Liibby, Condoleeza Rice, Alan Greenspan, Bob Bernanke, Tom Ridge, Karen Hughes, Micnael Brown, John Bolton, John Ashcroft,Harriet Miers, John (?) Yoo, Tom Delay, Rick Santorum, abd Phill Graham, just to pick of few off the top of my head.

It feels awtul to have people you despise at the top, doesn't it?

Elphaba

I know right....we went from bad to worse. Will we never learn???? and how does one feel awtul????

[Wingnut]

I am not even sure what that means........bigger numbers as in more liberals than conservatives? More Obama supporters than people opposed to Obama? More liberals than conservatives?

Naw...we just like to write numbers on posters, and well, our posters can beat up your posters. They're bigger.

[bytor2112]

Naw...we just like to write numbers on posters, and well, our posters can beat up your posters. They're bigger.

I think you lost me, Wingnut.

[Just_A_Guy]

That’s not “tyranny.“ That’s "DEMOCRACY!"

Sounds like Stewart never read de Toqueville. The two are not mutually exclusive.

HEthePrimate]BTW, which side were conservatives on during women's suffrage and civil rights?

Umm . . . not born yet. Guilt-by-association is a logical fallacy, by the way.

And why do you folks never complain about horrible deficit spending when it's your president doing it (like Ronald Reagan and "Dubyah"), usually on some war or out-of-control military spending?

Umm . . . we were. (At least, us paleocons. And even the neocons spoke up now and again. Which you'd know if you actually listened to/read Beck and Limbaugh, as opposed to forming your opinions of them based on what Obama told you to think about them).

The tea-party movement is not a bunch of mindless morons spouting platitudes fed by Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh. It's fiscal conservatives who were gritting their teeth as "their" president spent like a liberal, and now find that "change" means a president who in ten weeks committed us to as much deficit spending (probably more, depending on whose numbers you use) as Bush committed us to in eight years.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I found the religious "solution" disappointing, and not just because I'm an atheist.

Elphaba

I'm interested to understand the psychology of an atheist posting on lds.net...

[Just_A_Guy]

An informative graphic comparing the annual Bush vs Obama deficits (here's the source):

Obama's on course to add as much to the national debt in two years as Bush did in eight.

[Elphaba]

I'm interested to understand the psychology of an atheist posting on lds.net...

Yes, it is an interesting question, isn't it?

Let me know what you find out.

Elphaba

[Aesa]

An informative graphic comparing the annual Bush vs Obama deficits (here's the source):

Obama's on course to add as much to the national debt in two years as Bush did in eight.

Stop this false idea that it's "Obama" doing it.

It's not. Bush would do the same if he was in office, because the political leadership has to serve vested interests.

They are two political parties, but wings of the same eagle.

[Aesa]

I'm interested to understand the psychology of an atheist posting on lds.net...

There's a 'clan' of us. The thing that needs to be recognised, though, regardless of belief is that we all require the same necessities to life.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

Stop this false idea that it's "Obama" doing it.

It's not. Bush would do the same if he was in office, because the political leadership has to serve vested interests.

They are two political parties, but wings of the same eagle.

Agreed. Bush actually started the current round of bailouts.

I think it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't sort of situation. If you don't do a bailout and the economy tanks, everybody blames you. If you do a bailout you get accused of runaway spending, stealing from the taxpayers, etc. I have to admit that I am uncomfortable with the amount of spending that's going on, and might have done it differently, but it's a difficult position to be in. Let's give this a chance and see what happens. If it works, great. If it doesn't, let's try something else. I think part of the whole economic crash was simple panic, and when so many people panic at the same time, well, we're going to have problems.

To quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "Do something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else."

HEP

[bytor2112]

It's not just the bailouts....Tarp I and II and the misuse of these funds. It' the "emergency" spending bill and the omnibus bill that have people angry. The Tea Party's are not in protest of raising taxes on the so-called "wealthy" as HEP states.......it is in protest of the WASTE of tax payer dollars.

[Maxel]

To quote Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "Do something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn't, do something else."

I must admit; I'm hesitant to accept this idea when the issue is increasing the national deficit by such a huge percentage. The idea behind FDR's remarks is that if Plan 1 fails, we can try Plan 2 because we'll still be around to try Plan 2.

If this crazy spending fails, and America's creditors decide to 'cash in' their debts, America may be in no position to try a Plan 2. FDR's wisdom loses its efficacy when Plan 1 requires a person to drink what could be either a lethal poison or another substance that may or may not cure the drinker of an ailment.

I'd prefer to find another option and forego Plan 1 altogether.

[Just_A_Guy]

Stop this false idea that it's "Obama" doing it.

It's not. Bush would do the same if he was in office, because the political leadership has to serve vested interests.

They are two political parties, but wings of the same eagle.

You are certainly right, in that Bush gave us TARP.

But to the extent that libs claim we fiscal conservatives have no right to complain, because Bush spent just as much as Obama does: That's demonstrably false. I think it's also highly questionable that Bush would have started spending money merely for the sake of spending money, as Obama seems to be doing. The Bush bailouts--while obscene--were at least somewhat directed towards the rescue of "key" financial institutions.