Why no "tea" Parties under Bush?

That's bull. I've been just as hard on my republican representatives than on democrats, in fact probably more, because I expect more.

That's not evident in hardly anything you've said on this site .. thus I don't expect that is evident anywhere.

I not only said that partisanship is evident in republicans, I also said it was evident in democrats.

These tea parties are just more partisan bullshit and the question of why not when Bush was president in valid.
 
That's not evident in hardly anything you've said on this site .. thus I don't expect that is evident anywhere.

I not only said that partisanship is evident in republicans, I also said it was evident in democrats.

These tea parties are just more partisan bullshit and the question of why not when Bush was president in valid.
Whether or not they are "partisan" isn't the point, will this be just a beginning or will it be all that there is for this "grass-roots movement".

Will it be effective, as were the protests against Bush/Kennedy Amnesty or will it wind up like most protest from the right, quiet and in the background?

These are the questions we all have.

The numbers were more than people expected and less than some hoped, but if it continues into the future they will get larger, just as the war protests did.

It can go either way, but simply dismissing it because it was people you haven't seen protest before protesting is just sad.
 
Whether or not they are "partisan" isn't the point, will this be just a beginning or will it be all that there is for this "grass-roots movement".

Will it be effective, as were the protests against Bush/Kennedy Amnesty or will it wind up like most protest from the right, quiet and in the background?

These are the questions we all have.

The numbers were more than people expected and less than some hoped, but if it continues into the future they will get larger, just as the war protests did.

It can go either way, but simply dismissing it because it was people you haven't seen protest before protesting is just sad.

Not sure who you're debating but I don't dismiss them because they're new to protesting. I dismiss them because of its comoc book nature.

Tea parties .. get real.

If you believe that has the potential of growing .. sure. But I see it as pretty much exactly what it was .. republican schtick, nothing more.
 
Not sure who you're debating but I don't dismiss them because they're new to protesting. I dismiss them because of its comoc book nature.

Tea parties .. get real.

If you believe that has the potential of growing .. sure. But I see it as pretty much exactly what it was .. republican schtick, nothing more.
I see it as the growing malcontent of the fiscal conservative who were not served by Rs or by Ds. Basically as more libertarian (not party) than republican.

I have hope they will get larger, and others who feel the same will cross over when they see that even though they had "hope" for "change" that what they got was a patch on the balloon and more of the same.
 
I see it as the growing malcontent of the fiscal conservative who were not served by Rs or by Ds. Basically as more libertarian (not party) than republican.

I have hope they will get larger, and others who feel the same will cross over when they see that even though they had "hope" for "change" that what they got was a patch on the balloon and more of the same.

That's a valid argument.

However, although I am not an Obama supporter, I would never even slightly consider participating in a tea party.

Additionally, these tea parties once again highlight the failure of conservative policies and people.

It only appeals to one segment of society.

All I'm saying is there are smarter ways to do this.
 
Additionally, these tea parties once again highlight the failure of conservative policies and people.

once again, like other closed minded individuals, you either fail to see, or refuse to see, that it wasn't conservative principles or people that failed, but that the republicans in office failed to actually BE conservative. You've been told this before as have other massively moronic Obama worshippers and yet, like the consistent ridicule of these tax day protests and the reasons for them, you apparently can only see a single purpose in any act.
 
You had a sort of valid point going right up to that last sentence ..then you went all partisan on us.

Obama HAD to spend more than Bush because he inherited a FAR WORSE set of circumstances than did Bush .. or did you somehow forget that.

Bush inherited surpluses .. BIG ONES.

?

you should have simply stopped right there. Once that line of bullshit popped out, the rest was meaningless.

Bush did not inherit a surplus. He inherited a recession.

The 'budget surplusses' were figments of the imagination of the idiots in DC (both parties). They conned the vast majority of the public into believing these 'huge surplusses' existed so that they (both parties) could justify spending more money.

Funny how you are so adamant about not believing the government on other issues, yet spit forth one of the biggest piles of crap they ever put forth as if it were fact.

There were NO ACTUAL surplusses. Anyone can BUDGET a surplus... but if you OUTSPEND revenues, (no matter how revenue you have) you end up with a DEFICIT. Which is exactly what has happened every single fiscal year since 1960.
 
you should have simply stopped right there. Once that line of bullshit popped out, the rest was meaningless.

Bush did not inherit a surplus. He inherited a recession.

The 'budget surplusses' were figments of the imagination of the idiots in DC (both parties). They conned the vast majority of the public into believing these 'huge surplusses' existed so that they (both parties) could justify spending more money.

Funny how you are so adamant about not believing the government on other issues, yet spit forth one of the biggest piles of crap they ever put forth as if it were fact.

There were NO ACTUAL surplusses. Anyone can BUDGET a surplus... but if you OUTSPEND revenues, (no matter how revenue you have) you end up with a DEFICIT. Which is exactly what has happened every single fiscal year since 1960.


OK. Bush inherited a recession and spent trillions on tax cuts and these same people cheered notwithstanding the "generation theft" involved. Obama inherits a bigger recession and implements spending stimulus and we get loony tune "tea parties" complaining about "generational theft" notwithstanding the fact that without such stimulus there would likely be larger deficits (at least according to the CBO).

Now, I realize that Obama has other spending proposals that are a slight uptick from Bush, but lets get real here. This is just a bunch of whiners complaining because they lost an election. Which, as I said, is fine. But let's not pretend this is some huge principled protest movement.
 
Now, I realize that Obama has other spending proposals that are a slight uptick from Bush, but lets get real here. This is just a bunch of whiners complaining because they lost an election. Which, as I said, is fine. But let's not pretend this is some huge principled protest movement.

and you can provide some sort of cite or link to verify that this is REALLY what all these people are protesting? That they simply lost an election?
 
OK. Bush inherited a recession and spent trillions on tax cuts and these same people cheered notwithstanding the "generation theft" involved. Obama inherits a bigger recession and implements spending stimulus and we get loony tune "tea parties" complaining about "generational theft" notwithstanding the fact that without such stimulus there would likely be larger deficits (at least according to the CBO).

Now, I realize that Obama has other spending proposals that are a slight uptick from Bush, but lets get real here. This is just a bunch of whiners complaining because they lost an election. Which, as I said, is fine. But let's not pretend this is some huge principled protest movement.

1) My post was addressing his specific 'Bush inherited big surplusses' comment

2) I have bitched about the fiscal irresponsibility of the two parties for the past twenty years

3) No question Obama inherited a worse situation than did Bush

4) I have supported the concept that the government does indeed need to spend in this environment when consumer and corporate spending have been so greatly diminished. That said, there is a LOT of bullshit spending going on from the two parties right now. This money should be going into job creation. Take the lull in the labor force and put it to work rebuilding our infrastructure, building out alt energy etc...

5) The financial bailouts... a lot of this money has only been promised and has not been spent yet. If they do it correctly, the taxpayer can actually benefit and thus greatly reduce what the long term effect is of all of this spending for bailouts. Just as the taxpayer did with the S&L problems in the late 80's early 90's.

6) I think you are right to a degree. Some of the protestors could indeed simply be protesting because they are pissed at all the protests from the left over the past 8 years. But I think Damo is also correct... I think a good many of them are the fiscal conservatives who are fed up with the bullshit from the two parties.
 
That's a valid argument.

However, although I am not an Obama supporter, I would never even slightly consider participating in a tea party.

Additionally, these tea parties once again highlight the failure of conservative policies and people.

It only appeals to one segment of society.

All I'm saying is there are smarter ways to do this.
True that. There are smarter ways to do this.
 
Have at it ex bushies, defend your hypocracy.

Obvously you had no problem with his spending like a drunken sailor, you re-elected him.

This tea party thing is all just a partisan move and nothing more.

I didn't read the whole thread, but in case no one told you why....THIS IS WHY

$34,000: the amount of federal taxes that Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner (D) failed to pay during his employment at the International Monetary Fund despite receiving extra compensation and explanatory brochures that described his tax liabilities.

$75,000: the amount of money that the head of the powerful tax-writing committee, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), was forced to report on his taxes after the discovery that he had not reported income from a Costa Rican rental property. His excuses for the failure started with blaming his wife, then his accountant and finally the fact that he didn't speak Spanish.

$93,000: the amount of petty cash each Congressional representative voted to give themselves in January 2009 during the height of an economic meltdown.

$133,900: the amount Fannie Mae "invested" in Chris Dodd (D-CT), head of the powerful Senate Banking Committee, presumably to repel oversight of the GSE prior to its meltdown. Said meltdown helped touch off the current economic crisis. In only a few years time, Fannie also "invested" over $105,000 in then-Senator Barack Obama.

$140,000: the amount of back taxes and interest that Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle (D) was forced to cough up after the vetting process revealed significant, unexplained tax liabilities.

$356,000: the approximate amount of income and deductions that Daschle (D) was forced to report on his amended 2005 and 2007 tax returns after being caught cheating on his taxes. This includes $255,256 for the use of a car service, $83,333 in unreported income, and $14,963 in charitable contributions.

$800,000: the amount of "sweetheart" mortgages Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) received from Countrywide Financial, the details for which he has refused to release despite months of promises to do so. Countrywide was once the nation's largest mortgage lender and linked to Govern ment-Sponsored Entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their meltdown precipitated the current financial crisis. Just days ago in Pennsylvania , Countrywide was forced to pay $150,000,000 in mortgage assistance following "a state investigation that concluded that Countrywide relaxed its underwriting standards to sell risky loans to consumers who did not understand them and could not afford them."

$1,000,000: the estimated amount of donations by Denise Rich, wife of fugitive Marc Rich, to Democrat interests and the William J. Clinton Foundation in an apparent quid pro quo deal that resulted in a pardon for Mr. Rich. The pardon was reviewed and blessed by Obama Attorney General and then Deputy AG Eric Holder, despite numerous requests by government officials to turn it down.

$12,000,000: the amount of TARP money provided to community bank “OneUnited” despite the fact that it did not qualify for funds, and was "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses." It turns out that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a key contributor to the Fannie Mae meltdown, just happens to be married to one of the bank's ex-directors.

$23,500,000: The upper range of net worth Rep. Allan Mollohan (D-WV) accumulated in four years time according to The Washington Post through earmarks of "tens of millions of dollars to groups associated with his own business partners."

$2,000,000,000: ($2 billion) the approximate amount of money that House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-WI) is earmarking related to his son's lobbying efforts. Craig Obey is "a top lobbyist for the nonprofit group" that would receive a roughly $2 billion component of the "Stimulus" package.

$3,700,000,000: ($3.7 billion) not to be outdone, this is the estimated value of various defense contracts awarded to a company controlled by the husband of Rep. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Despite an obvious conflict-of-interest as "a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms ."

$4,190,000,000: ($4.19 billion) the amount of money in the so-called "Stimulus" package devoted to fraudulent voter registration ACORN group under the auspices of "Community Stabilization Activities". ACORN is currently the subject of a RICO suit in Ohio.

$1,646,000,000,000 ($1.646 trillion): the approximate amount of annual United States exports endangered by the "Stimulus" package, which provides a "Buy American" stricture. According to international trade experts, a "US-EU trade war looms", which could result in a worldwide economic depression reminiscent of that touched off by the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Act.

It's not just a culture of corruption. It's a culture of corruption and stupidity. And, unlike Republicans, Democrats appear to be above the law. All of the aforementioned clowns are still in office, ruling like the royalty they've become.
********
AND, That'S ONLY for the first SIX WEEKS, FOLKS
 
True that. There are smarter ways to do this.

name one...

seems to me that the message has been heard loud and clear. only problem is the MSM, except fox, have all ridiculed it, instead of report it. the internet is buzzing with tea party talk. the fact that the left mocks it is no surprise. some on the right mocked those who protested iraq.
 
name one...

seems to me that the message has been heard loud and clear. only problem is the MSM, except fox, have all ridiculed it, instead of report it. the internet is buzzing with tea party talk. the fact that the left mocks it is no surprise. some on the right mocked those who protested iraq.
We get far better response and effectiveness flooding them with calls and letters. I like this, it's about time, IMO. I like the central theme, I like that it is aimed at those things I call True Conservatism and not towards some anti-<insert group here> theme.

Saying that there are "smarter" ways to do something doesn't mean that something doesn't get done.



Give me liberty, don't give me debt.
 
"Whether or not they are "partisan" isn't the point,"


Lame assed attempt at diversion. That is the point of this thread.
 
Last edited:
We get far better response and effectiveness flooding them with calls and letters. I like this, it's about time, IMO. I like the central theme, I like that it is aimed at those things I call True Conservatism and not towards some anti-<insert group here> theme.

Saying that there are "smarter" ways to do something doesn't mean that something doesn't get done.



Give me liberty, don't give me debt.

i see, i misread you, i thought you meant this was not a good way to get things done....

imo, a combination of both would be more effective. i don't quite remember, but how did we stop the amnesty thing? did people write letters only? i don't remember protests....
 
because the tea party's is a cover for thier racist protest.
All I saw were a couple hundred middle aged white people at all the protest.

Probably because those "couple hundred middle aged white people" are the ones paying the taxes. Lay off the bong hits and pay attention.
 
"Whether or not they are "partisan" isn't the point,"


Lame assed attempt at diversion. That is the point of this thread.
And that point was answered, then a new point was made. It's called a conversation, I know old people don't follow them well.
 
Back
Top