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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. There are at least two of us here in addition to the historically illiterate and innumerate wingnut poster

[jsteele]

Remember how the Tea Party is only interested in taxes and not social issues?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tea-party

Two Tea Baggers talk about a class-action lawsuit against homosexuality.

"Peter, the whole issue of a class action lawsuit, you and I have talked about this a little bit," Scarborough said. "I just wonder if you’ve explored that, talked to anyone about it. Obviously, statistically now even the Centers for Disease Control verifies that homosexuality much more likely leads to AIDS than smoking leads to cancer.

"And yet the entire nation has rejected smoking, billions of dollars are put into a trust fund to help cancer victims and the tobacco industry was held accountable for that," he added. "Any thoughts on that kind of an approach?"

"Yeah I think that’s great," LaBarbera responded. "I would love to see it. We always wanted to see one of the kid in high school who was counseled by the official school counselor to just be gay, then he comes down with HIV. But we never really got the client for that."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just curious of the reasoning behind wanting to be a part of this mixed bag of nuts

I'm a Tea Party patriot. If I had to put it succinctly, I'd say it's a combination of things:

- I'm pretty angry, because let's face it, I thought I was going to be rich, or that my superior intellect would in some way be recognized by the universe, but that hasn't happened.

- Meanwhile, there's some guy running the country who's probably not even American, has done nothing in his life other than run the Harvard Law Review and organize poor people, and has never had to make payroll. Since our whole society is one big giveaway to racial "interest groups" the only explanation for this is affirmative action.

- I am definitely not a racist. I actually know black people and like some of them. Others I don't like. I just wish the good ones would talk to the bad ones and get them to stop acting in self-destructive ways (i.e. "pull your pants up" says Bill Cosby [who I *love*, btw])

- Politics is confusing, and it's really hard to follow a lot of what's going on. At the same time, I'm the kind of person who really likes to feel like I have expertise in all things. But since I spend all my time reading websites that are light on news, and heavy on fodder for resentment, I don't really have the facts necessary to understand what's going on. But ironically enough, the less expertise one has, the less ability one has to evaluate one's level of expertise.

- I see the country is going in the wrong direction (gay people getting married, VD vaccines for 12 year olds, swearing on TV). You can tell the country's going to Hell in a handbasket, and something has to be done to bring it back in line with values of Real Americans--which means me and my neighbors.

- If we have to make the economy crater to get things back on track, I'm fine with that, because America's already sinking into the muck. And besides, if we have another recession, it's the moochers and takers who are going to suffer. Not hard-working Real Americans like myself.

You are angry at your own failure and blaming it on whom??

[Anonymous]

Keep up, PP. That was satire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And I think specifically it's the big guys who get the big bucks. The family farmers I know are barely scraping by. They may be getting government assistance, but it doesn't show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And I think specifically it's the big guys who get the big bucks. The family farmers I know are barely scraping by. They may be getting government assistance, but it doesn't show.

Yup.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/overhauling-the-farm-bill-the-real-beneficiaries-of-subsidies/254422/
"The real winners in the subsidy explosion since the mid-'90s have clearly been the animal feedlot operators and the largest corporate mega-farms. Suppliers like Monsanto and big grain traders -- ADM, Bunge, Cargill, and Dreyfus -- benefitted handsomely as well. Small and mid-sized growers depend on subsidies to stay afloat, sometimes even in big years; meanwhile, big industrial growers thrive."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And I think specifically it's the big guys who get the big bucks. The family farmers I know are barely scraping by. They may be getting government assistance, but it doesn't show.

1. People getting government assistance who are barely scraping by? You mean just like the single mother with three kids who live is public housing in the city? She's reviled, but the family farmer is deified.

2. If the family farmer is taking more than he's paying, then he's not eligible to vote, pursuant to the initial PP's criteria. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that was not where she thought that comment would end up. See: Law of Unintended Consequences. See also, Suck on it.

[Anonymous]

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html

Yale researcher on science and the Tea Party.....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

The chart refers to all government spending.

Please read the article below and get back to me. The numbers are taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, but they post the numbers in tables. The graph you posted is from moveon.org. If the numbers came off Table 1.6 like the author below suggests then that includes all government spending for goods and services (this includes state and local municipalities) and of course both of these have been considerably depressed the past five years and not the responsibility of either President Obama or Congress. Goods and services also don't include transfer payments which would include food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. While I'm not sure I trust the source, if the data is pulled off the wrong table, your table isn't a fair representation either.

http://www.objectobot.com/?p=248

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

The chart refers to all government spending.

Please read the article below and get back to me. The numbers are taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, but they post the numbers in tables. The graph you posted is from moveon.org. If the numbers came off Table 1.6 like the author below suggests then that includes all government spending for goods and services (this includes state and local municipalities) and of course both of these have been considerably depressed the past five years and not the responsibility of either President Obama or Congress. Goods and services also don't include transfer payments which would include food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. While I'm not sure I trust the source, if the data is pulled off the wrong table, your table isn't a fair representation either.

http://www.objectobot.com/?p=248

Total spending measured in federal outlays as a percentage of GDP under Obama in this, his fifth year (22.7%), is almost exactly the same as under Reagan in his fifth year (22.8%).

Source is OMB: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals

[Anonymous]

I was when it was in it's peak period back when it started. Now they have such an extreme basis that I don't really see myself in them.

I am an independent with strong libertarian views. The ACA is Big Guv getting in peoples biznezz. It was nice that they enacted that preexisting condition ban though.

I am all for lesser guv. I don't need Palin or Bachmann telling me what to do just like I don't need Reid or Pelosi telling me what to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was when it was in it's peak period back when it started. Now they have such an extreme basis that I don't really see myself in them.

I am an independent with strong libertarian views. The ACA is Big Guv getting in peoples biznezz. It was nice that they enacted that preexisting condition ban though.

I am all for lesser guv. I don't need Palin or Bachmann telling me what to do just like I don't need Reid or Pelosi telling me what to do.

business, economics, math is not your strong suit is it?

How exactly do you think health insurance companies will be able to pay for and provide insurance for people with PEC's without forcing those who don't need insurance to pay into the riskpool?

You are precisely the type of R that has the mental acuity of Bill O'reilly. saying things like PEC coverage is brilliant but mandate is evil.

mandated PEC coverage without onerous premiums only works financially if a mandate is present.

Mind you I'm a D who agrees that O-care is terrible...but my solution is single payer.....what's the R solution? NOTHING.

and that's why you guys are here now. because when you had power in the 80's and early 90's you did NOTHING to make health care/health insurance work for everyone. you have NO solutions.

and when you critique things, it makes you look even worse because it is clear you don't understand the facts behind the issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was when it was in it's peak period back when it started. Now they have such an extreme basis that I don't really see myself in them.

I am an independent with strong libertarian views. The ACA is Big Guv getting in peoples biznezz. It was nice that they enacted that preexisting condition ban though.

I am all for lesser guv. I don't need Palin or Bachmann telling me what to do just like I don't need Reid or Pelosi telling me what to do.

Uh, you do realize that the only way to ban pre-existing conditions is to make sure that everyone signs up for insurance before they get sick.

Right?

Right??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html

Yale researcher on science and the Tea Party.....

I believe many Tea Party types actually understand science. That makes their behavior even worse, IMHO.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was when it was in it's peak period back when it started. Now they have such an extreme basis that I don't really see myself in them.

I am an independent with strong libertarian views. The ACA is Big Guv getting in peoples biznezz. It was nice that they enacted that preexisting condition ban though.

I am all for lesser guv. I don't need Palin or Bachmann telling me what to do just like I don't need Reid or Pelosi telling me what to do.

Uh, you do realize that the only way to ban pre-existing conditions is to make sure that everyone signs up for insurance before they get sick.

Right?

Right??

Right. Absolutely. But you surely know that the intended reference is to the ban on denial of insurance on the basis of preexisting conditions. Jumping on the literal meaning of a common shorthand phrase is a bit cheap.