hey, Sam. You’re aware that the bailouts were signed by Bush and supported by Sarah Palin, are you not?
Also, they worked. They kept us out of a depression and the economy ahs begun to recover.
To the OP, a teabagger is pretty much self-identified. Anyone who identifies themself with the “movement” (such as it is) is a teabagger.
You’re comparing DemocRAT to teabagging? Really?
Teababbers called themselves that first.
I also see “demon rat” a lot. Also “socialist,” “communist,” nazi," “radical,” “coward,” and a plethora of racial and sexual denigrations applied constantly to anyone left of center. Whining about “teabagger” is a little thin-skinned and hypocritical.
So we should refer to the the President as cocksucker Obama then?
I don’t give a shit what you call him. I’m not going to cry about it. No skin off my nose. I’ve said worse about Republican Presidents. That’s the great thing about America. You can call the President a cocksucker.
You can call him a cocksucker but he can’t be one.
uh huh. Sounds thin skinned to me.
I think I’ll just call him President Obama and leave you to your devices.
Right. But only when a Democrat is president.
Right. It’s only protest-worthy when a Democratic president does it though.
Aaaactually…let’s give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.
While I think there are many Tea Partiers who are pissed because the President is black, Democrat, or both, I should think it entirely plausible that there are people who were getting mad at Bush’s spending, said nothing because one, he’s a Republican and the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat :rolleyes:, and two, if the resentment came after the second election they may have figured they might as well just wait until he’s out of office and someone else comes in to change things around. When they saw that Obama continued or intended to continue many of Bush’s policies, that’s when they got pissed off.
I think that’s plausible. I also can’t shake the feeling that we wouldn’t be hearing a peep out of anyone who currently claims to be a Tea Partier had McCain won, but that’s just my feeling and I know better than to pass judgment based on personal bias. For all I know, there could well be some conservative folks who would have gotten equally as mad at McCain if he’d kept on with Bush’s policies.
Who gives a shit who’s the president? Democrat, Republican, they are all the same. For the record, I was protesting Bush from day one. The wars, the deficit, the Patriot Act, all of it.
But, I learned that we need to protest against the real owners of this country. The bankers, the military contractors and the corporate interests that run both parties.
But, like I said, things have gotten much worse since Obama has been president. It isn’t all, or even mostly, his fault. It was more Bush’s fault. But people are not protesting Obama in my mind. They are protesting our government as a whole. We have seen an unprecedented coverage of the scandals and people have become more educated about our economy and the fundamental problems with our financial system.
Since the recession started just before Bush left office and accelerated under Obama it makes sense that people would be more motivated to organize and protest. The fact that they are mad at all incumbents, not just democrats, is instructive.
Many are finally waking up to the fact that both parties support the same policies.
Do you disagree?
The tea party. Massive spending? Corporate tax breaks? Corporate bail outs? Deadly and costly wars? No problem…so long as a Republican is in office.
Right - which is why the tea party is protesting Bush? Oh…wait. That’s the opposite of what is happening.
Yeah, this is exactly my point.
I’m sorry. I can’t make it through this GD bickering in a GQ thread.
The answer is just like any other political affiliation: A Tea Party member is someone who self-identifies as such. Any other use of the term in incorrect, and probably used to make fun of one’s opponent.
Though I do find it hard to understand how a non-American like Sam Stone can identify as being part of an American political movement…
They were so upset that they re-elected him and the Republican congress that did it. Yes, yes, but the democrats woul’dve been worse! Right? Well, if the people you’re voting for can betray every reason you vote for them, but they’ve convinced you to keep voting for them anyway, you are absolutely responsible for the bullshit they do. If the Republicans had lost 2004 in a landslide victory, do you think they might’ve learned a lesson about this supposed betrayal of their constituency’s ideals?
This may be so, the trigger event that got the ball rolling. But the funny thing is here is that I bet if you polled teabaggers 85%+ of them would say the TARP/bailout was Obama’s. Bush laid low during this time and the election news cycle was going full blast, so even though the Republicans supported this and Bush signed it, I bet the teabaggers think they’re railing against Obama on that one.
Obama is actually not “my boy” - I think he’s mostly a good guy who was given a complete shit sandwich and is trying his best to cope with it, but I do disagree with many of his actions and policies so far.
I’m someone who would actually like to see a genuine tea-party-like movement, where people legitimately protested against the size and power of the government and its subservience to the powerful. I’m actually prime tea party recruiting material, if it were a genuine movement - I’m all for the idea of legitimate protest of the bullshit we’ve had to endure from the federal government.
So if your movement, which I should love, manages to alienate me, you’re doing it wrong. I’m not saying you personally - as far as I know, you seem like a reasonable guy with genuine beliefs. But from what I can gather, you aren’t the majority. The majority are partisan idiots who will join any movement to attack the other side. Who will quietly sit by and watch if one side breaks their supposed principles but rabidly attack if the other does the same thing. If, in 2012, a Republican wins the presidency and continues all of these bullshit federal policies and spending, the tea party movement will die out. Even though their principles are still being betrayed, they’ll have convinced themselves that they’ve won, because hey, any republican beats any democrat, no matter what they actually do, right!?
I can’t help but think that this movement is bullshit as it stands, that while there are people like you who are genuinely part of a movement, it’s almost entirely co-opted by people who would happily accept another Bush-like presidency so long as the guy they’re voting for has a little (R) next to his name.
The greatest increase in spending was his last year of office.
There are genuinely people who are upset over federal, state, and local spending and they cross party lines (as does the Tea Party to some extent).
Start with this concept for the word Tea:
Taxed
Enough
Already?
Add to it the historical elements of the Boston Tea Party. Move forward from there.
Point of order: this isn’t a GQ thread.
Are Tea Partiers protesting Obama becuase he “continued Bush’s policies” or because he’s a “socialist”?
How heavily taxed are they?
A bit perplexing then. Their main enemy is Obama and the congress that just gave them some tax cuts.
They’re concerned that they aren’t represented in Congress? I mean, sure, the president is Kenyan, but their congressmen are legit? Right? Or are they lizard people?!
If any of the Tea Partiers had been born prior to 2000, what would they have done with the Clinton surplus? Would they have supported Bush’s tax cuts?