The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

roro80 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:56:25 -0000

"didn’t the American people vote for these people who raised their taxes?"

Yes, except for a few things:
1) Have taxes been raised? Um...no. They haven&#39t. They&#39ve gone down since Obama got to office. Remember that whole bailout thingie?
2) The Teabaggers didn&#39t vote for Obama. Which means that "without representation" equates to "really really sore loser".

@jwest. It was dying to be made fun of. Finger sniffer or not, if some semi-large group were to start a movement and call themselves the "MuffDivers" or the "Filthy Sanchezes" with the nearly willfull cluelessness with which the Teabaggers advertised themselves, then somehow get a major news station to do 24-hour coverage on said movement, using the hilarious term over and over and over again, I don&#39t see how anyone could help but be doubled over with laughter.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

GreenDreams — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:20:18 -0000

Uh, correction. The 2007-2009 stretch cannot be laid at the Democrats&#39 feet. The GOP filibustered everything and the president didn&#39t sign. Since the Dems didn&#39t have 2/3 needed to overrule the veto, their agenda was not passed. Like it or not, the entire 2001-2008 period was GOP rule.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

roro80 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:56:25 -0000

"didn’t the American people vote for these people who raised their taxes?"

Yes, except for a few things:
1) Have taxes been raised? Um...no. They haven't. They've gone down since Obama got to office. Remember that whole bailout thingie?
2) The Teabaggers didn't vote for Obama. Which means that "without representation" equates to "really really sore loser".

@jwest. It was dying to be made fun of. Finger sniffer or not, if some semi-large group were to start a movement and call themselves the "MuffDivers" or the "Filthy Sanchezes" with the nearly willfull cluelessness with which the Teabaggers advertised themselves, then somehow get a major news station to do 24-hour coverage on said movement, using the hilarious term over and over and over again, I don't see how anyone could help but be doubled over with laughter.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

christoofar — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:38:34 -0000

Seems to me that the majority of "tea party" attendees:

1. Didn&#39t vote for Obama.
2. Don&#39t like Obama. At all.
3. Will probably be getting a tax break under his withholding tax change.

And I&#39m still wondering where all of them have been for the past 8 whole years.

And Fox "News" used it to pump up their ratings.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

GreenDreams — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:20:18 -0000

Uh, correction. The 2007-2009 stretch cannot be laid at the Democrats' feet. The GOP filibustered everything and the president didn't sign. Since the Dems didn't have 2/3 needed to overrule the veto, their agenda was not passed. Like it or not, the entire 2001-2008 period was GOP rule.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

jwest — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:54:45 -0000

Tony,

It’s obvious you haven’t read or listened to a word about the tea parties other than what could be gleaned from left wing hate sites. It might help to try a perspective outside of that tiny box.

Reaction to the tea parties has, however, provided one of the truly best descriptions of an individual ever written. David Shuster’s screed about “Teabagging” had one blogger commenting:

“Shuster was like an 8th grader who couldn’t stop sniffing his finger”

That is writing.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

Ryan — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:35:55 -0000

goodluckwiththat

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

elrod — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:27:23 -0000

The silent majority of Americans doesn&#39t mind large-scale government spending. That&#39s the truth the GOP discovered after 1996 when, after welfare reform was removed from the agenda, large numbers of lower-middle class whites no longer found the language of small-government conservatism to be compelling. Alas, the GOP got religion.

Same for the Democrats. Many made hay over the way that Bush turned the Clinton surplus into a deficit. But that doesn&#39t mean the Democrats were ideologically committed to balanced budgets. No, it was just a way to swing a handful of small-government Independents over to vote against the Republicans.

But the majority of Americans just don&#39t care about deficits and government spending - at least over the long term. Yes, a short-term Perot-style eruption could come around. But no party is able or willing to sustain it.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

christoofar — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:38:34 -0000

Seems to me that the majority of "tea party" attendees:

1. Didn't vote for Obama.
2. Don't like Obama. At all.
3. Will probably be getting a tax break under his withholding tax change.

And I'm still wondering where all of them have been for the past 8 whole years.

And Fox "News" used it to pump up their ratings.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

jwest — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 10:54:45 -0000

Tony,

It’s obvious you haven’t read or listened to a word about the tea parties other than what could be gleaned from left wing hate sites. It might help to try a perspective outside of that tiny box.

Reaction to the tea parties has, however, provided one of the truly best descriptions of an individual ever written. David Shuster’s screed about “Teabagging” had one blogger commenting:

“Shuster was like an 8 year old who couldn’t stop sniffing his finger”

That is writing.

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

Ryan — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:35:55 -0000

goodluckwiththat

Re: The (Hopefully) Last Tea Party Post

elrod — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:27:23 -0000

The silent majority of Americans doesn't mind large-scale government spending. That's the truth the GOP discovered after 1996 when, after welfare reform was removed from the agenda, large numbers of lower-middle class whites no longer found the language of small-government conservatism to be compelling. Alas, the GOP got religion.

Same for the Democrats. Many made hay over the way that Bush turned the Clinton surplus into a deficit. But that doesn't mean the Democrats were ideologically committed to balanced budgets. No, it was just a way to swing a handful of small-government Independents over to vote against the Republicans.

But the majority of Americans just don't care about deficits and government spending - at least over the long term. Yes, a short-term Perot-style eruption could come around. But no party is able or willing to sustain it.