Has The Tea Party Gone Too Far This Time? Experts Say "Yes"

[Night Strike]

Answer me honestly:
Was your point just to troll? Just to get people upset and annoyed?

That's what ALL of his Tea Party threads have been about. He's just angry that there is a credible group challenging our socialistic president.

[pimpdave]

Do you also think he's Muslim, Night Strike?

[pimpdave]

Answer me honestly:
Was your point just to troll? Just to get people upset and annoyed?

That's what ALL of his Tea Party threads have been about. He's just angry that there is a credible group challenging our socialistic president.

So what were you posts about in this thread? You mean you weren't trying to insult me?

This thread had nothing to do with you!

[Night Strike]

Answer me honestly:
Was your point just to troll? Just to get people upset and annoyed?

That's what ALL of his Tea Party threads have been about. He's just angry that there is a credible group challenging our socialistic president.

So what were you posts about in this thread? You mean you weren't trying to insult me?

This thread had nothing to do with you!

I am a conservative who identifies with the Tea Party, so I'm just simply challenging your "experts" who say we have gone too far. Actually, I don't think our criticism has gone far enough: there is still way too much spending going on in Washington.

Do you also think he's Muslim, Night Strike?

Never have thought that.

[Lootifer]

there is still way too much spending going on in Washington.

I've never understood this rhetoric; to me its like asserting population growth is bad and then making blanket statments "Theres too much sex going on in peoples bedrooms".

[shieldgenerator7]

there is still way too much spending going on in Washington.

I've never understood this rhetoric; to me its like asserting population growth is bad and then making blanket statments "Theres too much going on in peoples bedrooms".

Well yeah it's an arbitrarily broad statement and could be made no matter what the state of the spenditure of the government is. It needs to be mroe specific like, "The government is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it should." That's specific and can give the person(s) accused of causing more of a way to get out of it.

[Lootifer]

there is still way too much spending going on in Washington.

I've never understood this rhetoric; to me its like asserting population growth is bad and then making blanket statments "Theres too much going on in peoples bedrooms".

Well yeah it's an arbitrarily broad statement and could be made no matter what the state of the spenditure of the government is. It needs to be mroe specific like, "The government is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it should." That's specific and can give the person(s) accused of causing more of a way to get out of it.

Even thats kinda stupid imo; you need to say: "The government is spending money on education too inefficiently; either they cut back or improve efficiency".

[Night Strike]

there is still way too much spending going on in Washington.

I've never understood this rhetoric; to me its like asserting population growth is bad and then making blanket statments "Theres too much going on in peoples bedrooms".

Well yeah it's an arbitrarily broad statement and could be made no matter what the state of the spenditure of the government is. It needs to be mroe specific like, "The government is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it should." That's specific and can give the person(s) accused of causing more of a way to get out of it.

Even thats kinda stupid imo; you need to say: "The government is spending money on education too inefficiently; either they cut back or improve efficiency".

The government is spending more money than it brings in by revenue, therefore it is by definition spending too much.

[Symmetry]

there is still way too much spending going on in Washington.

I've never understood this rhetoric; to me its like asserting population growth is bad and then making blanket statments "Theres too much going on in peoples bedrooms".

Well yeah it's an arbitrarily broad statement and could be made no matter what the state of the spenditure of the government is. It needs to be mroe specific like, "The government is spending $1.5 trillion dollars more than it should." That's specific and can give the person(s) accused of causing more of a way to get out of it.

Even thats kinda stupid imo; you need to say: "The government is spending money on education too inefficiently; either they cut back or improve efficiency".

The government is spending more money than it brings in by revenue, therefore it is by definition spending too much.

'Cause the Tea Party has largely been about cutting revenue (the Taxed. Enough. Already.) while not proposing any realistic stance on expenditure. Could you name a few Tea Party candidates for office? It'd be interesting to look at their policies.

[Phatscotty]

of course a balanced budget amendment is not "realistic"...



Just throw your hands in the air and go with the music and let the debt bury you. It will only hurt in the end.

[Symmetry]

of course a balanced budget amendment is not "realistic"...



Just go with the music and let the debt bury you. It will only hurt in the end.
[youtube]wbg687LoUV8/youtube]

So roughly, who do you think best represents the Tea Party among politicians if the Tea Party is realistically to be considered anything other than a failure? Doesn't have to be exact.

[Night Strike]

'Cause the Tea Party has largely been about cutting revenue (the Taxed. Enough. Already.) while not proposing any realistic stance on expenditure. Could you name a few Tea Party candidates for office? It'd be interesting to look at their policies.

If the government can't be good stewards with the money we already give them, why should we continue to give them the same amount of money, muchless even more money? That's why the Tea Party exists. If someone were in charge of your finances and wasting your money, you would fire them and find someone better. That's what the Tea Party is trying to do. And some of the politicians working to do that would be Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, etc. They are actually working to put out budgets, make reforms, etc. The president is just out their campaigning and deriding rich people instead of being a leader and reigning in spending.

[Symmetry]

'Cause the Tea Party has largely been about cutting revenue (the Taxed. Enough. Already.) while not proposing any realistic stance on expenditure. Could you name a few Tea Party candidates for office? It'd be interesting to look at their policies.

If the government can't be good stewards with the money we already give them, why should we continue to give them the same amount of money, muchless even more money? That's why the Tea Party exists. If someone were in charge of your finances and wasting your money, you would fire them and find someone better. That's what the Tea Party is trying to do. And some of the politicians working to do that would be Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, etc. They are actually working to put out budgets, make reforms, etc. The president is just out their campaigning and deriding rich people instead of being a leader and reigning in spending.

And yet you can't do me this one thing- give me a legitimate Tea Party candidate. Who? How shall we judge the movement if not by its successes and leaders?

You don't seem happy to call the pols that you named actual Tea Party pols.

[DoomYoshi]

[pimpdave]

Answer me honestly:
Was your point just to troll? Just to get people upset and annoyed?

That's what ALL of his Tea Party threads have been about. He's just angry that there is a credible group challenging our socialistic president.

Let me just get this straight. When Night Strike criticizes Obama and deceitfully calls him socialist, it's political discourse. When I accurately criticize the Tea Party, it's trolling?