Anyone out there willing to admit being a tea party member & Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It's funny because I keep thinking about the racist things that conservatives have said about Obama.

please source

And then of course we could do "racist obama emails"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/racist-obama-email

[Anonymous]

You know what? Tough. I am just so sick and tired of people who wallow in their own ignorance complaining that they are being disrespected by those of use who use critical thinking and logical reasoning. They're right, I don't respect them - if they used their heads for something other than a hat rack, I'd rethink my position. Plus, this comment: "part of the reason people vote Republican or conservative in many if those areas is because of the derogatory comments many if you are throwing out" makes them seem like petulant children.

As do you. People don't like being belittled. And honestly, I've seen a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that don't use critical thinking or even math correctly.

I'm not trying to excuse away the birthers, Muslims name callers, or racists. When the Democrats run a more conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin or work with Angus King, those things help. When people insult anyone who owns a gun (I don't and I'm also guilty of this) as an idiot nut brain, the instinct is to vote the other way. If there were more open primaries that would help and in twenty years it probably won't matter anyway. Go read some papers other than WaPo or NYT. When I look at my hometown paper I'm always shocked at the lack of coverage and in depth writing. Go back and watch old West Wing episodes, esp the parts with the Republican. It's the same debate fifteen years later.

[Anonymous]

OK "Please Source" poster, you can apologize now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a conservative, not Republican or Tea Party.

I am all about spending. While Obama is bad on the issue (and a lot of others) Bush wasn't great on it either.

Bush "wasn't great"?

Good thing the wing nuts are impervious to data. Otherwise this graph would make their heads explode.

Who knows, maybe it will cause a few to question the people feeding them lies for the last five years.

So, instead of "tax and spend Democrats" what we have are "tax cut and spend Republicans!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who take more than they get taxed should not be allowed to vote.

You sure? There will be a lot of White people in the South and the Midwest who would not be able to vote. Is that what you want?

This a non-starter, of course - we only deny voting rights to people who really deserve it, such as convicted felons and residents of the District of Columbia. That said, this is one of those situations where I am tempted to say, "You know what, assholes? You got it. See how you like it. It would come back to bite the TP on the ass, as long as we *honestly* assess those who "take more than they get taxed," and don't limit the "takings" to SNAP and Section 8 benefits received by the proverbial welfare queens.

Social security, Medicare, military tricare, VA benefits? All government assistance. That eliminates 50% of the Tea Party base right there. Mortgage interest deduction? A handout, as is the federal income tax deduction for state taxes. The capital gains tax is actually a tax break - that's a handout too. SBA loans and grants? Suddenly, none of those deified small business owners are voting citizens, they're recognized as the mooching takers they always have been. Feeling pretty good that you max out your 401k, are you? Well, the tax break you got on it just might tip you over the edge and make you a taker. The list goes on and on.

Many of the tea party supporters like to prattle on about "natural laws." Well, may I introduce you to my personal favorite - the law of unintended consequences. Suck on it.

And for the record, I am the archetype of a priviliged person in modern US society - a white, male, western European Protestant, who went to a private college and private law school and is not in private practice. But this notion that only poor people receive government assistance is so dishonest and hypocritical it makes me sick.

+1
Don't forget farm subsidies - a giant, fat handout. That makes the demonization of SNAP even more ridiculous. It really makes my head explode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's take a welfare who gets $2,500 a month in all sorts of welfare goodies to support her and her four kids (all by different baby daddies of course).

That runs up to $30,000 a year.

Let's say you need one fatcat bureaucrat making $70,000 in total compensation to manage 10 welfare queens.

So each welfare queen sucks up $37,000 in taxpayer dollars a year. Hell, let's make it $45,000 just to be generous and account for the Obama phones and other things they are getting.

Even if there were one million welfare queens taking the max in benefits, that'd add up to $45 billion a year, or what, ~8% of the Pentagon's budget (if you count any lingering Iraq+Afghanistan costs)?

Yea, but this welfare queen stereotype is a small % of welfare recipients. AND there is a limit on benefits that has been in place since welfare reform during the Clinton administration. This is the stuff I am talking about! Tea Partiers latch on to one stereotype and extrapolate that to everyone needing assistance. Approx 39% of welfare recipients are White. 40% are AA. I would bet that when you say welfare queen, you are not talking about a White woman in Kansas with 4 kids. And those liberal "strongholds" of Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina have more people on welfare than people working.

Exactly re AL, MS, SC -- those who are working are disgusted by the #s on welfare & vote tea party.

Ok...but that is the rub. You have to believe that these people would work if there were adequate jobs in the state. So instead of targeting the recipients, it may make more sense for the Tea Party in these states to focus on economic development. But no...they are most interested in what is in their own pockets. You cannot run a state or a country that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You know what? Tough. I am just so sick and tired of people who wallow in their own ignorance complaining that they are being disrespected by those of use who use critical thinking and logical reasoning. They're right, I don't respect them - if they used their heads for something other than a hat rack, I'd rethink my position. Plus, this comment: "part of the reason people vote Republican or conservative in many if those areas is because of the derogatory comments many if you are throwing out" makes them seem like petulant children.

As do you. People don't like being belittled. And honestly, I've seen a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that don't use critical thinking or even math correctly.

I'm not trying to excuse away the birthers, Muslims name callers, or racists. When the Democrats run a more conservative Democrat like Joe Manchin or work with Angus King, those things help. When people insult anyone who owns a gun (I don't and I'm also guilty of this) as an idiot nut brain, the instinct is to vote the other way. If there were more open primaries that would help and in twenty years it probably won't matter anyway. Go read some papers other than WaPo or NYT. When I look at my hometown paper I'm always shocked at the lack of coverage and in depth writing. Go back and watch old West Wing episodes, esp the parts with the Republican. It's the same debate fifteen years later.

I'd like to address this, since you hear this on various internet forums, etc...

The argument, "don't dis anyone who holds a different opinion, no matter how odious because it's electorally damaging" is, frankly, idiotic. Usually this is couched as some flavor of "How dare you smug elites insult me on DCUM! This is why people vote for unhinged Teabagging douchebag candidates!"

To that I'd say, "Maybe you're right. Maybe the reason dedicated reactionaries don't become sensible centrists is that someone was vaguely mean to them on the Internet." Of course, if that's the case, all it would take for everyone to become a teabagger is for those nutjobs on the right to stop calling people "libtards" and the like. Oh, what's that? It doesn't work that way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who take more than they get taxed should not be allowed to vote.

You sure? There will be a lot of White people in the South and the Midwest who would not be able to vote. Is that what you want?

This a non-starter, of course - we only deny voting rights to people who really deserve it, such as convicted felons and residents of the District of Columbia. That said, this is one of those situations where I am tempted to say, "You know what, assholes? You got it. See how you like it. It would come back to bite the TP on the ass, as long as we *honestly* assess those who "take more than they get taxed," and don't limit the "takings" to SNAP and Section 8 benefits received by the proverbial welfare queens.

Social security, Medicare, military tricare, VA benefits? All government assistance. That eliminates 50% of the Tea Party base right there. Mortgage interest deduction? A handout, as is the federal income tax deduction for state taxes. The capital gains tax is actually a tax break - that's a handout too. SBA loans and grants? Suddenly, none of those deified small business owners are voting citizens, they're recognized as the mooching takers they always have been. Feeling pretty good that you max out your 401k, are you? Well, the tax break you got on it just might tip you over the edge and make you a taker. The list goes on and on.

Many of the tea party supporters like to prattle on about "natural laws." Well, may I introduce you to my personal favorite - the law of unintended consequences. Suck on it.

And for the record, I am the archetype of a priviliged person in modern US society - a white, male, western European Protestant, who went to a private college and private law school and is not in private practice. But this notion that only poor people receive government assistance is so dishonest and hypocritical it makes me sick.

+1
Don't forget farm subsidies - a giant, fat handout. That makes the demonization of SNAP even more ridiculous. It really makes my head explode.

Hey! Farmers *earned* that money--by being white, Christian, rural-dwellers.

[Anonymous]

Hey! Farmers *earned* that money--by being white, Christian, rural-dwellers.

You mean, "real Americans."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a conservative, not Republican or Tea Party.

I am all about spending. While Obama is bad on the issue (and a lot of others) Bush wasn't great on it either.

Bush "wasn't great"?

Good thing the wing nuts are impervious to data. Otherwise this graph would make their heads explode.

Who knows, maybe it will cause a few to question the people feeding them lies for the last five years.

So, instead of "tax and spend Democrats" what we have are "tax cut and spend Republicans!"

I'm assuming this is discretionary spending vs. both?

[Anonymous]

I'm assuming this is discretionary spending vs. both?

The chart refers to all government spending.

[Anonymous]

I'm the "please source" person. How do you know those people are conservative? Racist, yes. But, I bet lots voted for Cllinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the "please source" person. How do you know those people are conservative? Racist, yes. But, I bet lots voted for Cllinton.

You realize that underneath the photos are some squiggly lines we call letters. They form words, and those words answer your question.

[Anonymous]

Seems like most of the posts on this thread are from the same flame thrower op,
nice job sock puppet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like most of the posts on this thread are from the same flame thrower op,
nice job sock puppet.

And you would be wrong.