Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it scary that there are people who think he hasnt gone far enough, fast enough. With the damage he's done and the non-productivity, I would absolutely hate to see how much worse things would be if he were even further left than he is. Yet then there are some that think he should be. So basically, they want to see America torn down even further and faster, so they can attempt some sort of rebranding America and turning it into some marxist/socialist "utopia". Ouch. I have a better suggestion for you folks....get the hell out of the country.
While yes im sick of the self proclaimed elites in Washington, which is why I support the Tea Party, but I sure as hell am even more fearful and disgusted with liberalism. Liberalism is based on lies, it is a lie and its wrong. Liberalism is a mental disorder.
I was reading some articles on Huffington Post (a site I rarely visit) and was surprised that most of the comments I read were anti-Obama. They felt that Obama was not nearly liberal enough and was looking out for corporate interests over the middle class. ...
This is NOT "common ground" with Tea Party. Tea Party is pro-corporatist and has been reeled in by bait to support corporatist interests hook, line, and sinker.
"...The "tea parties" are promoted as a "grassroots uprising" against "high taxes." Tea stands for "Taxes Enough Already." However, 95% of Americans will received a tax cut in the next year if the upcoming Obama budget passes. Only Americans with incomes above $250,000 will receive a small tax increase -- and even then their taxes will be much lower than almost any time in the last 80 or so years. This increase on the top incomes will help pay for some of the Republican-caused economic damage as well as reduce the budget deficits that the country has faced ever since the same income group received tax cuts after George W. Bush was elected. (This is similar to the tax increase in first Clinton budget that led to the great economy of the 1990s and large budget surpluses.)..."
Bolded statement: you really are delusional aren't you? How can the Republicans have blocked ANYTHING, when the Democrats have had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House, and a Democratic president that would rubber stamp anything coming out of the Pelosi/Reid Congress?
Before I spout off my mouth, I tend to try to check my facts first. You might consider doing the same. The dems don't have the 60 votes to over ride a filibuster in the Senate. The only time they've been able to do it successfully is when they could pull in two moderate republicans--Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Because the dems can't get a bill through the Senate without republican support, they haven't had a free ticket on anything. That's how Universal Health care and/or public option turned into the bill we have today. I know it's more fun to deal in fantasy, but I tend to stick to the truth.
Before I spout off my mouth, I tend to try to check my facts first. You might consider doing the same. The dems don't have the 60 votes to over ride a filibuster in the Senate. The only time they've been able to do it successfully is when they could pull in two moderate republicans--Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Because the dems can't get a bill through the Senate without republican support, they haven't had a free ticket on anything. That's how Universal Health care and/or public option turned into the bill we have today. I know it's more fun to deal in fantasy, but I tend to stick to the truth.
Why don't they force the Reps to actually filibuster anything? All they technically need is 51 votes to do whatever they want but sometimes they can't even get that because some Dems aren't on board.
Before I spout off my mouth, I tend to try to check my facts first. You might consider doing the same. The dems don't have the 60 votes to over ride a filibuster in the Senate. The only time they've been able to do it successfully is when they could pull in two moderate republicans--Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Because the dems can't get a bill through the Senate without republican support, they haven't had a free ticket on anything. That's how Universal Health care and/or public option turned into the bill we have today. I know it's more fun to deal in fantasy, but I tend to stick to the truth.
Before Ted Kennedy died, you had a filibuster proof majority It were some Dems from " flyover country" that weren't on board
Why don't they force the Reps to actually filibuster anything? All they technically need is 51 votes to do whatever they want but sometimes they can't even get that because some Dems aren't on board.
Here's a better question. Why don't you do some research and try to find ONE bill passed by the Senate that the Republican's haven't tried to filibuster this year. There has to be a couple--I just can't find any--but if you look hard enough, there has to be at least one....somewhere....
Yes, the normal standard is 51 votes in the Senate. However, the minority party has the right to endlessly debate, or "filibuster" a bill to prevent it from ever coming to a vote. It takes 60 Senators to motion for cloture, or an end to the debate, so the bill can be voted on. Filibusters used to be used very rarely, but during this administration the Republicans have used it on every (or nearly every--there might be some exceptions, but I couldn't find them) bill proposed by the Dems. That's why people talk about obstructionist republicans. It no longer takes a majority vote to pass the bill--you have to have 60 votes.
This is NOT "common ground" with Tea Party. Tea Party is pro-corporatist and has been reeled in by bait to support corporatist interests hook, line, and sinker.
"...The "tea parties" are promoted as a "grassroots uprising" against "high taxes." Tea stands for "Taxes Enough Already." However, 95% of Americans will received a tax cut in the next year if the upcoming Obama budget passes. Only Americans with incomes above $250,000 will receive a small tax increase -- and even then their taxes will be much lower than almost any time in the last 80 or so years. This increase on the top incomes will help pay for some of the Republican-caused economic damage as well as reduce the budget deficits that the country has faced ever since the same income group received tax cuts after George W. Bush was elected. (This is similar to the tax increase in first Clinton budget that led to the great economy of the 1990s and large budget surpluses.)..."
Why should it be people that making 250,000 + have to pay more? They made their money, it is theirs to do with what they wish, not the governments to choose which special interest it is going to help. Spare me that they will pay less then they did, they shouldn't be paying more than half of everyone elses share to begin with. Except for people that don't pay anything, taxpayers pay enough already.
Before Ted Kennedy died, you had a filibuster proof majority It were some Dems from " flyover country" that weren't on board
They had 11 weeks, and didn't know it was coming--that's not very long when it comes to fine tuning legislation. They did get through some nominations that should have been routine, but that were blocked by the R's.
EDIT--sorry. Meant to link to a time magazine blog, but it won't go through
Why should it be people that making 250,000 + have to pay more? They made their money, it is theirs to do with what they wish, not the governments to choose which special interest it is going to help. Spare me that they will pay less then they did, they shouldn't be paying more than half of everyone elses share to begin with. Except for people that don't pay anything, taxpayers pay enough already.
Because Constitution gives that responsibility to US Congress. TeaBaggers are rich anarchists (and mostly wannabes) who want to overthrow US Govt (WE THE PEOPLE), nothing more.
I'll be damned first before I stand for that !
I have seen enough Tea Party rallies on TV and in person to realize that the followers tend to be:
I hate to shatter your liberal worldview coldbliss, but I'm a Tea Party supporter and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldbliss
Christian (Evangelical, Baptist or some other more conservative Protestant branch)
I'm not a Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldbliss
Suburban and Rural residence.
I live in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldbliss
Much higher concentration of supporters living in "red states" as opposed to the coastal "blue states".
I live in a "blue state".
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldbliss
Something tells me that Tea Party people like country music than any other say Hip-Hop, Jazz, or alternative rock.
I don't listen to country music. I'll listen to pop, alternative rock, rap, hip-hop, R&B, jazz and other genres, but I never listen to country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldbliss
Economically more advantaged than the average US citizen.
I'm middle class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coldbliss
The typical Tea Party supporter is older than 40 years of age and most female activists tend to be married with children.
I'm nowhere near that old.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Tea Party is pro-corporatist and has been reeled in by bait to support corporatist interests hook, line, and sinker.
It were some Dems from " flyover country" that weren't on board
