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

[Lootifer]

lol!

[pimpdave]

Sorry shieldgenerator7. The authors of the study are named Dr. Hosblott and Dr. Neidermeyer, but they polled many experts to collate their findings about whether or not the Tea Party has gone too far this time.

They don't come up in google search results. Mind giving me a link?

Hey SG7, I have some disappointing news. It turns out I can't share the link to the study right now. Apparently Newsweek is interested in publishing it, so those of us who got it as an email attachment have had to promise to keep a lid on it until Doctors Hosblott and Neidermeyer hear back. But don't worry, I'll be sure to share the link when I can.

However, it's just going to confirm that the Tea Party has, indeed, simply gone too far this time.

[kentington]

Sorry shieldgenerator7. The authors of the study are named Dr. Hosblott and Dr. Neidermeyer, but they polled many experts to collate their findings about whether or not the Tea Party has gone too far this time.

They don't come up in google search results. Mind giving me a link?

Hey SG7, I have some disappointing news. It turns out I can't share the link to the study right now. Apparently Newsweek is interested in publishing it, so those of us who got it as an email attachment have had to promise to keep a lid on it until Doctors Hosblott and Neidermeyer hear back. But don't worry, I'll be sure to share the link when I can.

However, it's just going to confirm that the Tea Party has, indeed, simply gone too far this time.

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

[shieldgenerator7]

Oh wow the link so's secret it can't be shared. wow

Well thanks for telling me. No wonder I'm in the dark. I didn't get that e-mail attachment. Good luck living with knowledge the rest of us don't have access to

[pimpdave]

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

No of course not. Don't be ridiculous. I am discussing politics and offering my opinion. Night Strike, however, means only to annoy and insult me. Look at his posts.

Now please stop derailing this thread and trying to turn it into another opportunity for people to attack me personally. I don't do that in other people's threads. Why aren't you calling out the people attacking me?

[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?

[whitestazn88]

Reported for posting personal information.

[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 or Phatscotty or any of the others criticizes Obama and deceitfully calls him socialist, you consider it political discourse. When I accurately criticize the Tea Party, it's suddenly trolling?

Need to make sure this gets at the top of the next page.

[Phatscotty]

The Tea Party only exists in your head

[pimpdave]

The Tea Party only exists in your head

Or so you would like us all to believe!

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe the Tea Party has gone too far beyond our heads.