Thank the Tea Party

[maxiep]

It must suck for the GOP leadership when elected officials actually try to live by their campaign promises

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259328/flake-defies-gop-cuts-andrew-stiles

The amount the GOP wants to cut is insufficient and not serious. The electorate gave them another chance; it seems they're intent on blowing it.

 

[Eastoff]

Well at least the stand for small government http://www.examiner.com/la-county-l...rty-caucus-members-voted-to-renew-patriot-act

 

[maxiep]

Well at least the stand for small government http://www.examiner.com/la-county-l...rty-caucus-members-voted-to-renew-patriot-act

Exactly how much extra bureaucracy did the Patriot Act create?

 

[Nate4Prez]

It must suck for the GOP leadership when elected officials actually try to live by their campaign promises

Yes, because Tea Party Members live by their campaign promises.

The Tea Party had $1 Billion in Earmarks last Year

 

[crandc]

They are too focused on women's uteruses and redefining rape and outlawing same sex marriage in DC to worry about trivial things like jobs.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol..._homeland_security_secretary_napolitano_.html

Efforts to recruit Westerners for attacks against America has skyrocketed the threat of terrorism to its highest level since the 9/11 attacks, warned Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano.

The latest intelligence shows that the threat - from Al Qaeda cells and their allies - is increasingly coming from inside the country, said Napolitano ominously noting that another attack could come "with little or no warning."

"The terrorist threat to the homeland is in many ways at its most heightened state since 9/11," Napolitano said in a speech to the House Homeland Security Committee in Washington Wednesday.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...rity_secretary_napolitano_.html#ixzz1DUoxsxtN

 

[maxiep]

Yes, because Tea Party Members live by their campaign promises.

The Tea Party had $1 Billion in Earmarks last Year

It's a good thing that this Congress doesn't allow earmarks, then.

 

[maxiep]

They are too focused on women's uteruses and redefining rape and outlawing same sex marriage in DC to worry about trivial things like jobs.

You are confusing those who favor limited government with social conservatives.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

GLEN BECK! FAUX NEWS! TEA BAGGERS! YARRRRGHH!H

 

[Eastoff]

Exactly how much extra bureaucracy did the Patriot Act create?

my mistake, I thought small government was associated with rights of the people.

 

[hasoos]

Thank the Tea Party? Why did they disband? Otherwise there is no reason to thank them.

 

[maxiep]

my mistake, I thought small government was associated with rights of the people.

Providing for the common defense is one of the few responsibilities the Federal Government has.

 

[Eastoff]

Providing for the common defense is one of the few responsibilities the Federal Government has.

Well I do not know enough to say if the patriot act helped/hurt our common defense.

 

[blazerboy30]

They are too focused on women's uteruses and redefining rape and outlawing same sex marriage in DC to worry about trivial things like jobs.

Do we have an award for "dumbest post of the year"? If so, I nominate this post.

 

[Eastoff]

Do we have an award for "dumbest post of the year"? If so, I nominate this post.

whether you disagree or not, it is a relevant issue.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php

The controversy over "forcible rape" may be over, but now there's a new Republican-sponsored abortion bill in the House that pro-choice folks say may be worse: this time around, the new language would allow hospitals to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life.

So yes, they really did want to define what kind of rape was acceptable for abortion. Last time I checked abortions take place in a uterus. So maybe you should back up this time.

 

[blazerboy30]

whether you disagree or not, it is a relevant issue.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php



So yes, they really did want to define what kind of rape was acceptable for abortion. Last time I checked abortions take place in a uterus. So maybe you should back up this time.

This is a total attack on all womens' uterus. You're totally right.

 

[maxiep]

Again, what do any of these socially conservative issues have to do with lowering the size and scope of government?

 

[PapaG]

They are too focused on women's uteruses and redefining rape and outlawing same sex marriage in DC to worry about trivial things like jobs.

How can somebody supposedly political be so consistently wrong on their political adversaries?

Tea Party =/ Evangelical Christians/Social Conservatism

I think the Evangelical are ridiculous on trying to impose their morals on the rest of the country via the political process.

 

[PapaG]

whether you disagree or not, it is a relevant issue.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...t-women-die-instead-of-having-an-abortion.php



So yes, they really did want to define what kind of rape was acceptable for abortion. Last time I checked abortions take place in a uterus. So maybe you should back up this time.

Stupid bill that has no chance of passing, and likely won't even make it to a floor vote. What is has to do with the Tea Party baffles me, though.

 

[MARIS61]

Do we have an award for "dumbest post of the year"? If so, I nominate this post.

I second the nomination for your post!

All in favor say AYE!

 

[MARIS61]

Again, what do any of these socially conservative issues have to do with lowering the size and scope of government?

What does lowering the size and scope of government have to do with the Tea Party?

 

[PapaG]

What does lowering the size and scope of government have to do with the Tea Party?

Newest nominee for dumbest post of the year!

The tea party groups are supporting at least 10 bills, which range from limiting the federal government's authority over in-state commerce to enforcing immigration law. Those bills also include Del. Mark Cole's bill to limit federal regulation of goods that do not cross state lines.

The bills are inspired by a belief that government--at all levels, but particularly at the federal level--is overstepping its bounds, spending too much taxpayer money, and interfering in individuals' lives.

Tea party supporters aren't just talking about the elected people in government--they think the bureaucrats are getting out of hand, too

The primary lesson I've learned the past few days here is how little the liberal Democrats on this board actually know about politics in general, the positions held by their own party members, and what their "opponents" stand for on principle.

 

[MARIS61]

Stupid bill that has no chance of passing, and likely won't even make it to a floor vote. What is has to do with the Tea Party baffles me, though.

It's their bill.

 

[PapaG]

It's their bill.

No it isn't. Joe Pitts is the sponsor of the bill. He's been a far-right/pro-life weirdo since 1997 in Congress. The Tea Party didn't even exist then.

As I was saying about the liberal Democrats knowing nothing...

 

[bluefrog]

Tea Party =/ Evangelical Christians/Social Conservatism

Tea Partiers may not be social conservatives but many social conservatives are Tea Partiers.

On Social Issues, Tea Partiers Are Not Libertarians

On the issues of abortion and gay marriage, Tea Partiers sit well to the right of the general public according to a recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute.

 

[PapaG]

Tea Partiers may not be social conservatives but many social conservatives are Tea Partiers.

On Social Issues, Tea Partiers Are Not Libertarians

What does that have to do with this bill? What is the Tea Party platform in terms of this bill?

What is a "self-identified" Tea Party member? How does one know what the Tea Party stands for?

What does this polling from "Public Religion" mean in terms of their own bias? What does this poll even mean?

 

[PapaG]

http://www.publicreligion.org/

Soliciting donations on their own website. I have to say, I had never heard of this polling organization prior to one of their polls being posted in this thread.

 

[MARIS61]

No it isn't. Joe Pitts is the sponsor of the bill. He's been a far-right/pro-life weirdo since 1997 in Congress. The Tea Party didn't even exist then.

Symantics. It doesn't "exist" now either.

The Tea Party is majority base of the Republican Party and the Republican Party is the Tea Party's Party, since they're not an actual political party on their own merit.

Everything the Republican Party does is now driven by the Tea Party.

Pretending they are 2 separate Parties with the same representatives is disingenious and childish.

 

[PapaG]

The CEO of "Public Religion Research Institute" is a columnist at the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-p-jones-phd/top-10-religion-and-polit_b_800854.html

Plus, he's an author!

He is the author of two books -- Progressive & Religious (2008) and Liberalism’s Troubled Search for Equality (2007) -- and numerous articles on religion and public policy

LOL

 

[PapaG]

Symantics. It doesn't "exist" now either.

The Tea Party is majority base of the Republican Party and the Republican Party is the Tea Party's Party, since they're not an actual political party on their own merit.

Everything the Republican Party does is now driven by the Tea Party.

Pretending they are 2 separate Parties with the same representatives is disingenious and childish.

Frankly, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but I knew that already. Next time, at least try to make your nonsensical point in a coherent manner.