Conquer Club

Lately I have been seeing threads by pimpdave with the title Tea Party this or that. In a lot of cases the linked article is some obscure thing stated by Santorum with no real info. I want to know how many people think that Santorum speaks for the Tea Party or is somehow equivalent.
If you have sources go ahead and post them. From what I have heard I thought he only changed his stance to mention Tea Party to get votes. But I don't think the Tea Party ever backed him, I could be wrong what's you opinion?

Pimpdave would find a way to link Obama to being a Tea Party member if it suited his agenda to do so. If pimpdave links someone to the Tea Party, it's highly unlikely that person is actually affiliated with a Tea Party group.

I fail to understand why people continue to take Pimpdave's Tea Party threads seriously...

Ray Rider wrote:I fail to understand why people continue to take Pimpdave's Tea Party threads seriously...

The Tea Party Death Squads are a very serious threat

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... eath+squad


and no, that definition definitely wasn't written by me

I'm glad you guys are finally recognizing that the Tea Party is a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is a by produce of anal sex.

pimpdave wrote:I'm glad you guys are finally recognizing that the Tea Party is a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is a by produce of anal sex.

The least you could do is use the right words when taintalizing my thread. By product*

-Word Nazi

inb4 all Tea Party members are Word Nazis therefore Kentington, often misspelled once as Kennington (by BBS), must be the leader of the Tea Party Death Squad trying to distract everyone from the real matters like Santorum = Word Nazi.

no, byproduct refers to something natural. by produce is the remnants of anal sex. which is not natural. which is why gay marriage should be illegal.

-this message has been approved by rick santorum.

kentington wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I'm glad you guys are finally recognizing that the Tea Party is a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is a by produce of anal sex.

The least you could do is use the right words when taintalizing my thread. By product*

-Word Nazi

inb4 all Tea Party members are Word Nazis therefore Kentington, often misspelled once as Kennington (by BBS), must be the leader of the Tea Party Death Squad trying to distract everyone from the real matters like Santorum = Word Nazi.

I think Kennington suits you more. It has a classier ring to it. Imagine yourself as a Good Ol' Southern Boy of the 18th century. Awesome facial hair, cool clothes. How can you reject your real name, Kennington?

Ray Rider wrote:I fail to understand why people continue to take Pimpdave's Tea Party threads seriously...

No clue. He's obviously a troll.

whitestazn88 wrote:no, byproduct refers to something natural. by produce is the remnants of anal sex. which is not natural. which is why gay marriage should be illegal.

-this message has been approved by rick santorum.

Reported for Derailing by mentioning Rick Santorum.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

kentington wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I'm glad you guys are finally recognizing that the Tea Party is a frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is a by produce of anal sex.

The least you could do is use the right words when taintalizing my thread. By product*

-Word Nazi

inb4 all Tea Party members are Word Nazis therefore Kentington, often misspelled once as Kennington (by BBS), must be the leader of the Tea Party Death Squad trying to distract everyone from the real matters like Santorum = Word Nazi.

I think Kennington suits you more. It has a classier ring to it. Imagine yourself as a Good Ol' Southern Boy of the 18th century. Awesome facial hair, cool clothes. How can you reject your real name, Kennington?

It does sound classier, but my clothes are lumberjackish and my facial hair is just a regular beard. Maybe I need to change some things and then change my name.

Anyone familiar with the Tea Party knows their #1 message is less government.
Anyone familiar with Rick Santorum will know he is/has been a big government Republican.

Although Santorum does score some points with the Tea Party on a few specific issues, I do not believe Santorum would actually reduce the deficit, which means the US dollar would continue to get weaker and gasoline prices would continue to rise while wages and growth will continue to forecast stagflation.

Oh yeah, and this...


Santorum "I will do my best to oppose the Tea Party."
PimpDavid should be supporting Santorum.

So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

Ray Rider wrote:I fail to understand why people continue to take Pimpdave's Tea Party threads seriously...

I don't know.. my personal opinion is that he is raising awareness regarding a very credible and dangerous threat to the framework of society.

pimpdave wrote:So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

And yet Obama in 3 years has topped the record setting deficits that it took Bush 8 years to achieve. But don't worry, let's ignore that fact and let Obama have 4 more years as President. It's perfectly sustainable.

pimpdave wrote:So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

You are making up your own narrative there. The Tea Party started in 2007 This argument is sooooo 2009. It's one of the funniest thing I have seen in a while that you, who have been so obsessed with the Tea Party, are just now starting to ask yourself some of the very basic question in the initial step of critical thinking. Your premise is and has always been wrong, based on incorrect "facts" and even basic chronological epic-fails.

Your statement would be more correct of you replaced the racial aspect (if possible) with Obamacare, spreading the wealth around, being your brothers keeper, along with hiring a plethora of open Communists and Socialist into his staff.

I do not have a history of supporting Bush. Myself and many other Conservatives and Independents I know were very pissed off at Bush, so much to the point that I had people calling me a liberal for many years. Bashing Bush is definitely one of my old favorite past-times.

The Tea Party did not like the Republicans of 2000-2006. We hated Bush just as much if not more than any Democrat ever did, there was only one major difference. We actually knew the reasons why Bush sucked, as opposed to zombied media pawn talking points and attacks, plus we were lied to and used while Bush furthered the Progressive agenda under the cover of Compassionate Conservatism. Bush was hardly a real Conservative.

The Tea Party kicked out many of the Republicans in 2010 and changed the Republican party and we are going to keep changing it along with taking the Senate and the White House this November. We will even see some Tea Party Democrats elected

I have a new word for your vocabulary PimpDavid: Tea Party Super Majority (TPSM)

Night Strike wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

And yet Obama in 3 years has topped the record setting deficits that it took Bush 8 years to achieve. But don't worry, let's ignore that fact and let Obama have 4 more years as President. It's perfectly sustainable.

Whoa, big deal. Bush went with deficit spending, and so did Obama!

You gotta admit it. If Bush faced an economic downturn like Obama did, then Bush would've went with the bailouts. They both refer to the same Keynesians, and both presidents don't know much economics. Even Bush had the papers churning for the future bailouts as Obama came in.

It makes no difference. Both sucked, so if you sincerely adhere to Tea Party principles, then admit that both sucked in order to be consistent . Otherwise, you're being a hypocrite; you're not really into the Tea Party thing--it's just a phase to hate on Obama.

Bush supported the bailouts. So did John McCain.

I did not believe there was a direct correlation between the Tea Party and President Obama's election until the last year or so. I truly believe that the Tea Party was a result of Rick Santelli's speech on television (about how we shouldn't pay for stupid peoples' mortgages); at least, that was the reason for my membership. When the Tea Party started becoming a haven for any Republican who believed in big government conservatism, it became a hypocritical organization. No self-respecting small government Republican should be associated with any organized Tea Party.

Night Strike wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

And yet Obama in 3 years has topped the record setting deficits that it took Bush 8 years to achieve. But don't worry, let's ignore that fact and let Obama have 4 more years as President. It's perfectly sustainable.

only reason why we are in this mess is BUSH,he pretty much screwed the usa in the ass....and obama had to clean his shit up,jobs are going up,better then what bush had.Far as i can see he has not done a bad job so far

thegreekdog wrote:Bush supported the bailouts. So did John McCain.

I did not believe there was a direct correlation between the Tea Party and President Obama's election until the last year or so. I truly believe that the Tea Party was a result of Rick Santelli's speech on television (about how we shouldn't pay for stupid peoples' mortgages); at least, that was the reason for my membership. When the Tea Party started becoming a haven for any Republican who believed in big government conservatism, it became a hypocritical organization. No self-respecting small government Republican should be associated with any organized Tea Party.

Can you name some of these "self respecting small government Republicans"? The Tea Party started because there was no place in the Republican party of 2000-2008 for a person who believes in small government. At least that is the reason for my membership. Bush's and Mccain's support for the bailouts were like jet fuel for the Tea Party, and was another reason why it was such a major success.

You are right Rick Santelli was a major reason for it too.

I am sticking to what I have always said. Just because the Tea Party exploded onto the scene and got hot, and all the neo-cons and big government Republicans jumped on the bandwagon, does not mean the Tea Party has turned into the bandwagoners. The fight between us continues, and is not over by a longshot. Don't give up so easily. If you have to find a different group that you believe in better, go ahead. I guarantee we will both be voting the same either way, whatever someone or something calls themselves.

Only very recently are we able to see the results of the Tea Party and the historic results of the 2010 election come into play. It has been about 15 months since the Tea Party got elected, and the effects are here. It did not happen at the federal level as much as we all wanted it to, but boy o buy did it happen on the grassroots local level!

It's morning in America!

karel wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

pimpdave wrote:So why does every member of the Tea Party have a history of supporting George W. Bush's big government and recording setting deficit plus huge bank bailout, and didn't have a problem until they started making racist signs to protest a man with a black father?

It's because the Tea Party is a racist (not to mention violent) organization.

And yet Obama in 3 years has topped the record setting deficits that it took Bush 8 years to achieve. But don't worry, let's ignore that fact and let Obama have 4 more years as President. It's perfectly sustainable.

only reason why we are in this mess is BUSH,he pretty much screwed the usa in the ass....and obama had to clean his shit up,jobs are going up,better then what bush had.Far as i can see he has not done a bad job so far

Bush Derangement Syndrome is still alive and well!

What's that stat Phatscotty frequently posted? Something like 52 straight months of growing employment after the recession after 9/11? Oh yeah, let's forget about everything else that happened during Bush's term and instead focus on 2008. By the way, Obama hasn't cleaned anything up and has instead thrown even more shit all of the room. And jobs aren't really going up under Obama. There aren't even enough new jobs every month for the number of people becoming eligible to be counted in the workforce. The unemployment number just keeps going down because people have stopped looking for work and because of governmental "accounting", they no longer count in the statistics. Real unemployment is at about 17%, not 8.2%, which is way worse than under Bush.

better then what bush ever did or could ever do

karel wrote:better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

Night Strike wrote:

karel wrote:better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

karel wrote:better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

karel wrote:better then what bush ever did or could ever do

Yep, Obama is doing great at driving people out of the labor force and adding thousands of new regulations to the federal register. None of those have any negative effects on our economy.

If McCain had won, and survived the stress of being President that seems to have aged Obama, so we're dismissing the Palin part of his potential presidency, what do you think he would have done differently?

I never claimed McCain was a conservative. However, we wouldn't have the massive takeover of health care dragging down our economy. We hopefully would not have had the "stimulus" that only stimulated the coffers of state governments. We would have already started construction on the Keystone Pipeline and hopefully other drilling projects. We would not have handed out millions of dollars to failing solar companies. We would not have a hostile administration who uses the threat of executive orders to enact radical policies like cap and trade that Congress won't. We would not have a president who demands unending expansion of taxes on the wealthy and fostering class warfare in virtually every speech.

Yeah, all those low rates of taxes that Obama introduced, are somehow high rates of taxes? Nonsense. So we can strike out taxes.

We can do that and move on, right? To your other points?