Your first link is to a poll by Pajamas Media TV. I’m sorry, but I think it’s safe to reject that out of hand.
Your second two links are to Rasmussen telephone polls. See Nate Silver’s take on Rasmussen, their bias, and their telephone polling here: Rasmussen – FiveThirtyEight.
Now, he does not reject them out of hand, and until he says otherwise, I’ll accept your pointing to them as a source.
I think, on the other hand, that if you are relying only on them and Pajamas Media polling, you’re looking for support for your conclusion rather than evidence of the actual level of support/sympathy in the country for the Tea Party.
Having said that, if that’s what you want to do, and you accept that your position is not particuarly well supported and likely biased, so be it. I’ll have no more quibble.
Been bummed, stoned, hassled, harassed and had the living shit kicked out of me. Can’t recall if I’ve ever been “skronqued”. Is it something you might have done? Would I follow you around hoping you might do it again?
“Personal responsibility” and “coddling” are buzzwords used by politicans to make people feel sensible and grown-up so they don’t know they’re being emotionally manipulated. Whey they really mean is, “We need to make government less humane, so it will help fewer people who need help but don’t deserve it.”
This also helps enforce the strict-daddy philosophy as the proper role of those in power, making it easier to keep the public scared of what you need them scared of.
Do you reject polls by Daily Kos or MediaMatters out of hand? Before using that poll, I checked the sourcing of it, and it seems legit. It’s a 1000 person sample of likely voters, using the methods licensed from Rasmussen and carried out by an independent polling agency.
Of course, Daily Kos got snookered by a company providing false poll data, and it’s always a possibility here as well. But the other polls put the numbers in the same ballpark.
Notice that I said that half the nation was ‘sympathetic’ to the tea party movement. I didn’t say that half the nation supported them or would vote for them. Hard support for the tea party drops down in the range of 20-30%.
My apologies; I am incorrect. I meant “Reform Party.”
This is an expression Canadian friends of mine said was common in the 1980’s. The literal meaning is “has sexual intercourse”, the typical meaning is “fucked like wild pigs on speed.” The context is one where someone has sex with a hippie chick and suddenly wakes up the next day deciding that hemp is God, free love is mandatory, Flower Power will convince those nice Viet Cong to call a truce, and all the evils of the world are perpetrated by Satanic establishment “suits.”
Twenty years ex post facto they’re a harrassed middle-aged middle-manager with 2 mortgages, 2 minivans, 3 kids, 3 Labradors, a prostate the size of a casaba melon, and a cheating ex-hippie chick wife who is taking daily deep anal from the bisexual Goth poolgirl.
I don’t hate you. I pity the hell out of you. All I know of you is what you have posted and that is pathetic beyond belief.
But I will correct you on one thing: progressives do NOT want to improve the human condition. Quite the opposite; they lose their entire base if the human condition improves.
Q. E. D.
And because you are a totally worthless little twit, I’m going to put you on ignore so that I don’t have read your ignorant pukings any more.
Sure there is, it’s the set of people who support fewer firearm regulations, laws enabling both open and concealed carry, and castle doctrine laws.
This is illogical unless you assume the only motive anyone ever has is political power. That’s like saying pro-lifers do NOT want to enshrine a permanent abortion ban, because they’d lose their entire base.
It’s the heart of the pro-gun movement, but I say pro self-defense because I think the guns are a just a component of it. Arguably the most visible component, but it’s much more than that. Even the NRA says the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting.
I’ve been in hundreds of arguments with anti-gun people on this message board over 10 years, and when it boils down to it perhaps more than 90% of them really are against the right of effective self-defense. I’ve seen all the arguments possible - I’ve got a notebook somewhere of them.
It’s what I consider a large aspect of conservatism: the individual takes first - not only, not sole - responsibility for their own self-defense. Where hardline conservatives get it wrong is by assuming that the individual has the sole or only responsiblity. We are and live in a Community, and conservatism believes the Community exists for the mutual benefit, health, and welfare of its individuals. But the individuals must step up to the plate, to use a hideous baseball analogy, and have the primary role.
As opposed to liberalism, which believes the State should have first - not sole, not only - responsibility for your defense. Unfortunately, most liberals I debate with take the hardline view, which is that the State has the sole or only responsibility. The worst case are those who believe that not only should the State be the primary role of defender, but that the police should not be held both collectively and individually liable for our defense, thus leaving us helpless on an individual level. That is the worst and frankly most scary version of all.
I won’t debate it here; if you disagree so be it, and honestly, have a nice weekend.
Excuse me, BrainGlutton, but your flat statement frankly sounds meaningless to me.
(I realize that this is the Pit, but it started out as a GD. So, Pit lovers, please pardon the mild tone. )
I’ve worked for several small businesses in Upstate NY. The owner-operators would prefer to stay in business (as conservatives apparently would facilitate) rather than lose their businesses (as liberals apparently would let happen).
Yes, yes, I’m aware of what happened with banks and the stock market, etc., in recent years. I’m just saying that the perception of small business people is that liberal approaches are damning in New York State, and elsewhere.
And my observation is that this leads them to vote Republican (a “political system”).
Maybe, though, if you explained what you meant by “as such” I would understand what your thinking is.
You mean like when the tea party nearly had a seizure when they cut some of the waste in Medicare part C? We need to get medicare costs under control. The adult thing to do was get rid of the 15% premium we were paying for part C benefits but the tea party threw a tantrum and the Republican party cheered it on.
I remember the Perot folks and frankly their ONLY appeal was the fact that they were a third party. The Tea party doesn’t even have that, it is a repackaging of the Republican party. Its like when Philip Morris changed its name to Altria except that Philip Morris only lied about the effects of tobacco.
You want an answer? Fine; if your version of conservatism isn’t evil, isn’t driven by bigotry, fanaticism and greed, then you don’t matter. You are at best a bystander, and more likely than not supporting people who are the enemy of your beliefs and you personally (since IIRC you’re a woman). Claiming to be the One Nice Conservative doesn’t make conservatism as a whole any less evil and irrational, nor does it make what the conservative movement actually does resemble what you want them to do.
In other words, claiming to be a good conservative is like claiming to be a good member of the KKK; joining the KKK and claiming to not be a racist doesn’t make the KKK any less racist, or excuse you from responsibility for the results of supporting them.
What is this “pro-self-defense movement”?
)