I am declaring war on the Tea Party supporters...

[YoUDeeMan]

not a chance.

Damn...my honest, life giving, charitable posts have saved yet another angry, lazy, non-productive, racist liberal from joining other such similarly challenged Darwin Award winners in the grave...for now.

I am at a loss as to why I bother to voluntarily help these people continue their miserable lives...it is just the goodness in me shining through. Maybe I will be known as Saint Cluck someday.

Hey, cm, if you manage to make any money someday, be sure to tithe me 10%. Otherwise you might be seen as an ungrateful survivor.

[CID1990]

+1.

Especially about the military part... every time I see one of these talking heads talk about support for the military I want to vomit. Even a total idiot knows what they really think (but thankfully cannot say.... any more. I am sure there are some who would love to wait down at the arrivals terminal for San Francisco airport and "greet" arriving service people)

The last time I checked... it was a volunteer system
and I would argue that the average American citizen sits somewhere between "who gives a **** and oh well"

Do I think we should be Team America World Police: No
Do I think we should be in Iraq: No
Do I blame "the Military" for any of this: No

If you want honor and dignity then you need to do honorable and dignified things...

Volunteer system.... check. (but not the point)

Who gives a sh!t and 'oh well', doubt it. (Still not the point)

Agree about team america... check. (STILL not the point)

Iraq ... disagree but immaterial because it just is not the point.

Agree on no blame for the military, it IS, after all, civilian controlled (but the point is still not to be found here)

Writ large, people in this country, particularly the camps that did not behave so well in 1970 (I'm looking at YOU, Baby Boomers) and there was an equal and opposite reaction in the other direction since Desert Storm. Looking at the big picture, and viewing the military as a single organism, the left has found a way to collectively hold its nose while gushing love and support for "our troops", but if you bring the military down to its single smallest denominator, the soldier, he still gets contempt from the left. I have seen it over and over and over again. Maybe not you, Cleets, but it happens, and it is the real sentiment from the left. Any time a single soldier is out there by himself in the media, whether it is a private soldier or a general like Petraeus, he gets pilloried. Show one iota of potential misconduct, and the left heaps all of their pent up frustration and gall all over the alleged perpetrators. It is constantly there, simmering right under the surface.

You may return to changing the subject.

[Chizzang]

The last time I checked... it was a volunteer system
and I would argue that the average American citizen sits somewhere between "who gives a **** and oh well"

Do I think we should be Team America World Police: No
Do I think we should be in Iraq: No
Do I blame "the Military" for any of this: No

If you want honor and dignity then you need to do honorable and dignified things...

Volunteer system.... check. (but not the point)

Who gives a sh!t and 'oh well', doubt it. (Still not the point)

Agree about team america... check. (STILL not the point)

Iraq ... disagree but immaterial because it just is not the point.

Agree on no blame for the military, it IS, after all, civilian controlled (but the point is still not to be found here)

Writ large, people in this country, particularly the camps that did not behave so well in 1970 (I'm looking at YOU, Baby Boomers) and there was an equal and opposite reaction in the other direction since Desert Storm. Looking at the big picture, and viewing the military as a single organism, the left has found a way to collectively hold its nose while gushing love and support for "our troops", but if you bring the military down to its single smallest denominator, the soldier, he still gets contempt from the left. I have seen it over and over and over again. Maybe not you, Cleets, but it happens, and it is the real sentiment from the left. Any time a single soldier is out there by himself in the media, whether it is a private soldier or a general like Petraeus, he gets pilloried. Show one iota of potential misconduct, and the left heaps all of their pent up frustration and gall all over the alleged perpetrators. It is constantly there, simmering right under the surface.

You may return to changing the subject.

Hey CID1990 That's quite a persecution complex you have there... you might want to get that looked at

again: Then don't volunteer into the volunteer system if the meanies are too mean
again: The Average American is somewhere between "you're a dumb ass and so what"
again: Iraq is the point - when you misuse the military the military gets a portion of the blame (right or wrong)

You sound like you think a soldier randomly deserves everybody's respect and honor - my daddy was a soldier so I feel you brother - but anytime you think something should be the default state you're going to be disappointed

And in case you didn't notice: The right uses the Military as a patriotic tool - and as a hammer to pound every nail... doesn't that upset you too...?

Or is it just about the imagined respect you think you should be getting..?

[CID1990]

Cleets you need to check your dosage because you have been WAY off this week.

I don't have a problem with people not supporting the military. That's their right, and just as appropriate as those who blindly support the military.

What I have been trying to get at (obviously not successfully) is the FAKE support for the military from a large portion of the left. If they would not immediately be relegated to the trash heap, folks like Herr Olbermann et al. would be pissing all over the entire military.

I have a heck of a lot more respect for those a$$holes who protest at military funerals, because at least they don't try to hide the fact that they are sorry pr!cks.

[native]

Volunteer system.... check. (but not the point)

Who gives a sh!t and 'oh well', doubt it. (Still not the point)

Agree about team america... check. (STILL not the point)

Iraq ... disagree but immaterial because it just is not the point.

Agree on no blame for the military, it IS, after all, civilian controlled (but the point is still not to be found here)

Writ large, people in this country, particularly the camps that did not behave so well in 1970 (I'm looking at YOU, Baby Boomers) and there was an equal and opposite reaction in the other direction since Desert Storm. Looking at the big picture, and viewing the military as a single organism, the left has found a way to collectively hold its nose while gushing love and support for "our troops", but if you bring the military down to its single smallest denominator, the soldier, he still gets contempt from the left. I have seen it over and over and over again. Maybe not you, Cleets, but it happens, and it is the real sentiment from the left. Any time a single soldier is out there by himself in the media, whether it is a private soldier or a general like Petraeus, he gets pilloried. Show one iota of potential misconduct, and the left heaps all of their pent up frustration and gall all over the alleged perpetrators. It is constantly there, simmering right under the surface.

You may return to changing the subject.

Hey CID1990 That's quite a persecution complex you have there... you might want to get that looked at

again: Then don't volunteer into the volunteer system if the meanies are too mean
again: The Average American is somewhere between "you're a dumb ass and so what"
again: Iraq is the point - when you misuse the military the military gets a portion of the blame (right or wrong)

You sound like you think a soldier randomly deserves everybody's respect and honor - my daddy was a soldier so I feel you brother - but anytime you think something should be the default state you're going to be disappointed

And in case you didn't notice: The right uses the Military as a patriotic tool - and as a hammer to pound every nail... doesn't that upset you too...?

Or is it just about the imagined respect you think you should be getting..?

CID and the Colonel are a lot more articulate than me, Cleets, but the bottom line truth is that you are a worthless dickhead.

[Appaholic]

Hey CID1990 That's quite a persecution complex you have there... you might want to get that looked at

again: Then don't volunteer into the volunteer system if the meanies are too mean
again: The Average American is somewhere between "you're a dumb ass and so what"
again: Iraq is the point - when you misuse the military the military gets a portion of the blame (right or wrong)

You sound like you think a soldier randomly deserves everybody's respect and honor - my daddy was a soldier so I feel you brother - but anytime you think something should be the default state you're going to be disappointed

And in case you didn't notice: The right uses the Military as a patriotic tool - and as a hammer to pound every nail... doesn't that upset you too...?

Or is it just about the imagined respect you think you should be getting..?

CID and the Colonel are a lot more articulate than me, Cleets, but the bottom line truth is that you are a worthless dickhead.

...& you obviously hate America, Christianity & Capitalism....in that order....

[AZGrizFan]

The last time I checked... it was a volunteer system
and I would argue that the average American citizen sits somewhere between "who gives a **** and oh well"

again: The Average American is somewhere between "you're a dumb ass and so what"

Make up your mind, hippie. Is it 'who gives a shit and oh well" or is it "you're a dumb ass and so what"?

[Chizzang]

Make up your mind, hippie. Is it 'who gives a shit and oh well" or is it "you're a dumb ass and so what"?

Whatever...
Fake media support..?
When has that douche bag Olberman ever pretended to have anything other than complete disdain for the military..?
And: In my world Honor and Dignity are earned not bestowed upon

and to be honest I almost always agree (in part or in whole) with CID1990's posts - I just think sometimes we (all of us) can be sensitive to certain issues or topics and react to them, real or imagined, at the slightest infringement

I have found in my life that military folks (active or retired) are overly sensitive to "respect issues" and native is a classic example - absolutely classic - and so was Citdog, one of my best buddies and probably the most complicated and fractured person I've ever had the pleasure of being friends with. It isn't easy, the man has issues but he's also as genuine as could possibly be and speaks his mind even when he knows he's wrong on so many levels

and I like that - a lot

So here's to Citdog and every S.O.B. who put their ass on the line in some far off place with no shopping malls or air conditioning... I sincerely appreciate your sacrifice

BUT: Don't EXPECT because you sacrificed that everybody should be bowing at your feet... you volunteered and you knew it what it was - it was your job that you signed up for

My dad former officer and military doctor has a lot to say on this topic... my sentiments are not original

[JohnStOnge]

Where the **** were you when your god Reagan was running up deficits on useless military spending and stockpiling of nuclear weapons?

Cat, I don't know how old you are but I was a young adult when Reagan was elected. He clearly adopted the philosophy that the USSR could be beaten by accellerating the arms race...that the USSR couldn't keep up and would implode. His critics clearly argued that doing that would just make things worse. We can never know if there was a cause and effect relationship between the fact that Reagan accelerated the arms race. But the USSR did implode and Reagan's critics with respct to that issue basically ended up with egg on their faces. The things they predicted did not come to pass. The thing Reagan predicted did come to pass.

Another thing: Though he wasn't perfect in implementation Reagan clearly expressed the philosophy that the influence of the Federal government needed to be reduced. Obama clearly expressed the philosophy that the influence of the Federal government needs to be increased.

Bush was somewhere in between. But he certainly did not repsresent the kind of philosophy Obama represents. Obama's clearly believes in a far larger role for the Federal government. All you need to do is look at his now well known quote on the role of the Supreme Court:

"But "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Now, I disagree completely with the outlook suggested by that quote. You may agree with it. But it reflects a totally different animal than Bush and especially Reagan. It is totally understandable that people could be at least tolerant of what Bush and especially Reagan had in mind and be totally opposed to what Obama has in mind.

[OL FU]

Where the **** were you when your god Reagan was running up deficits on useless military spending and stockpiling of nuclear weapons?

Cat, I don't know how old you are but I was a young adult when Reagan was elected. He clearly adopted the philosophy that the USSR could be beaten by accellerating the arms race...that the USSR couldn't keep up and would implode. His critics clearly argued that doing that would just make things worse. We can never know if there was a cause and effect relationship between the fact that Reagan accelerated the arms race. But the USSR did implode and Reagan's critics with respct to that issue basically ended up with egg on their faces. The things they predicted did not come to pass. The thing Reagan predicted did come to pass.

Another thing: Though he wasn't perfect in implementation Reagan clearly expressed the philosophy that the influence of the Federal government needed to be reduced. Obama clearly expressed the philosophy that the influence of the Federal government needs to be increased.

Bush was somewhere in between. But he certainly did not repsresent the kind of philosophy Obama represents. Obama's clearly believes in a far larger role for the Federal government. All you need to do is look at his now well known quote on the role of the Supreme Court:

"But "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Now, I disagree completely with the outlook suggested by that quote. You may agree with it. But it reflects a totally different animal than Bush and especially Reagan. It is totally understandable that people could be at least tolerant of what Bush and especially Reagan had in mind and be totally opposed to what Obama has in mind.

Nice post.

There is also the argument for tipping points in public opinion.

The argument of where was the tea party during Reagon is really not a plausible. That was 20 plus years ago and the shift to smaller less instrusive government was obvious. Yes there were deficits and large one's for the time, but the deficits occurred for totally different reasons than today.

The argument on Bush has some legitimacy but I think a tipping point has been reached. The stated deficits under Bush were largest at $500B ( I think). Large but only mildly scary. Last year's was $1.4T This year's is projected to be $1.3T and the government is projecting trillion dollar deficts for the next 10 years. We can argue whether that is Bush's defict or Obama's all day, but you can't argue the shock value of that increase. Also, while Bush pushed a moderate increase in governmental influence in people's lives (and most of it was pushed for security reasons and I didn't agree but that reason seems to bother most Americans less which for the life of me I don't understand), Obama has pushed a substantial increase in influence (and mostly in the economic areas which seems to make many Americans steam).

Thus the tipping point where people open there eyes and say WTF is going on.

While I am sure some tea partiers probably find it easier to hate government while a black Democratic president is in office, to attribute the entire movement to racism is either not to think, not to understand or simply an attempt at demonizing a movement with which you don't agree.

[mainejeff]

3) Since most Tea Party members are smarter than the average American, and earn more than your average American.........

[Chizzang]

While I am sure some tea partiers probably find it easier to hate government while a black Democratic president is in office, to attribute the entire movement to racism is either not to think, not to understand or simply an attempt at demonizing a movement with which you don't agree.

I completely agree with this statement above..!!!

[native]

... here's to Citdog and every S.O.B. who put their ass on the line in some far off place with no shopping malls or air conditioning... I sincerely appreciate your sacrifice ...

It was good of you to say so, but your original attack of CID was unjust, off target, and uncalled for.

[native]

Cat, I don't know how old you are but I was a young adult when Reagan was elected. He clearly adopted the philosophy that the USSR could be beaten by accellerating the arms race...that the USSR couldn't keep up and would implode. His critics clearly argued that doing that would just make things worse. We can never know if there was a cause and effect relationship between the fact that Reagan accelerated the arms race. But the USSR did implode and Reagan's critics with respct to that issue basically ended up with egg on their faces. The things they predicted did not come to pass. The thing Reagan predicted did come to pass.

Another thing: Though he wasn't perfect in implementation Reagan clearly expressed the philosophy that the influence of the Federal government needed to be reduced. Obama clearly expressed the philosophy that the influence of the Federal government needs to be increased.

Bush was somewhere in between. But he certainly did not repsresent the kind of philosophy Obama represents. Obama's clearly believes in a far larger role for the Federal government. All you need to do is look at his now well known quote on the role of the Supreme Court:

"But "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Now, I disagree completely with the outlook suggested by that quote. You may agree with it. But it reflects a totally different animal than Bush and especially Reagan. It is totally understandable that people could be at least tolerant of what Bush and especially Reagan had in mind and be totally opposed to what Obama has in mind.

Nice post.

There is also the argument for tipping points in public opinion.

The argument of where was the tea party during Reagon is really not a plausible. That was 20 plus years ago and the shift to smaller less instrusive government was obvious. Yes there were deficits and large one's for the time, but the deficits occurred for totally different reasons than today.

The argument on Bush has some legitimacy but I think a tipping point has been reached. The stated deficits under Bush were largest at $500B ( I think). Large but only mildly scary. Last year's was $1.4T This year's is projected to be $1.3T and the government is projecting trillion dollar deficts for the next 10 years. We can argue whether that is Bush's defict or Obama's all day, but you can't argue the shock value of that increase. Also, while Bush pushed a moderate increase in governmental influence in people's lives (and most of it was pushed for security reasons and I didn't agree but that reason seems to bother most Americans less which for the life of me I don't understand), Obama has pushed a substantial increase in influence (and mostly in the economic areas which seems to make many Americans steam).

Thus the tipping point where people open there eyes and say WTF is going on.

While I am sure some tea partiers probably find it easier to hate government while a black Democratic president is in office, to attribute the entire movement to racism is either not to think, not to understand or simply an attempt at demonizing a movement with which you don't agree.

Two fantastic posts!

[kalm]

The argument of where was the tea party during Reagon is really not a plausible. That was 20 plus years ago and the shift to smaller less instrusive government was obvious. Yes there were deficits and large one's for the time, but the deficits occurred for totally different reasons than today.

The argument on Bush has some legitimacy but I think a tipping point has been reached. The stated deficits under Bush were largest at $500B ( I think). Large but only mildly scary. Last year's was $1.4T This year's is projected to be $1.3T and the government is projecting trillion dollar deficts for the next 10 years. We can argue whether that is Bush's defict or Obama's all day, but you can't argue the shock value of that increase. Also, while Bush pushed a moderate increase in governmental influence in people's lives (and most of it was pushed for security reasons and I didn't agree but that reason seems to bother most Americans less which for the life of me I don't understand), Obama has pushed a substantial increase in influence (and mostly in the economic areas which seems to make many Americans steam).

Thus the tipping point where people open there eyes and say WTF is going on.

While I am sure some tea partiers probably find it easier to hate government while a black Democratic president is in office, to attribute the entire movement to racism is either not to think, not to understand or simply an attempt at demonizing a movement with which you don't agree.

Reagan was a given a severe recession and was fighting the cold war. Obama was given a severe recession and is fighting the war on terror. Inflation was the difference, but there are also many similarities.

If there were as much anger over bank bailouts versus helping the lazy free loaders the tea party would be much more legit.

[YoUDeeMan]

3) Since most Tea Party members are smarter than the average American, and earn more than your average American.........

Hey, Chuckles...reading might be beyond your abilities, but give it a try anyway...you might learn something.

"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/po ... f=politics" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Chizzang]

... here's to Citdog and every S.O.B. who put their ass on the line in some far off place with no shopping malls or air conditioning... I sincerely appreciate your sacrifice ...

It was good of you to say so, but your original attack of CID was unjust, off target, and uncalled for.

Excuse me...
If you actually read what I wrote and not just knee jerk react you'll see that it was A) Not an attack and B) not unjust but actually spot on...

You native, are exactly what I'm talking about in my posts and I know some former military folks who your behavior would make very sad...

[AZGrizFan]

I agree with catamount man.........but his quest to get an honest answer is futile.

mainejeff and catamount man: Now THERE'S a pair to draw to.

[Appaholic]

... here's to Citdog and every S.O.B. who put their ass on the line in some far off place with no shopping malls or air conditioning... I sincerely appreciate your sacrifice ...

It was good of you to say so, but your original attack of CID was unjust, off target, and uncalled for.

Says the man who responded by calling Chizzang a worthless dickhead..... Don't kill the messenger Native, Chizzang was expressing an opinion held by many, but verbalized by few, as it's a faux pas to express in society. Do soldiers deserve respect? Of course they do, but no more than the volunteer fireman or volunteer EMT in my small community. Soldiers get paid, VFD do it for the love of their neighbors. So let's take the filter off for a little bit & acknowledge that today's soldiers are not so much protecting America's freedoms, but trying to secure the freedom of other country's citizens. Admirable & dangerous, but not enough for me to get my knees dirty over. It's amazing how the toughest of our citizens seem to be the most sensitive to perceive the slightest hint of disrespect....& by persons that supposedly don't deserve reciprocal respect since we didn't serve....

[OL FU]

The argument of where was the tea party during Reagon is really not a plausible. That was 20 plus years ago and the shift to smaller less instrusive government was obvious. Yes there were deficits and large one's for the time, but the deficits occurred for totally different reasons than today.

The argument on Bush has some legitimacy but I think a tipping point has been reached. The stated deficits under Bush were largest at $500B ( I think). Large but only mildly scary. Last year's was $1.4T This year's is projected to be $1.3T and the government is projecting trillion dollar deficts for the next 10 years. We can argue whether that is Bush's defict or Obama's all day, but you can't argue the shock value of that increase. Also, while Bush pushed a moderate increase in governmental influence in people's lives (and most of it was pushed for security reasons and I didn't agree but that reason seems to bother most Americans less which for the life of me I don't understand), Obama has pushed a substantial increase in influence (and mostly in the economic areas which seems to make many Americans steam).

Thus the tipping point where people open there eyes and say WTF is going on.

While I am sure some tea partiers probably find it easier to hate government while a black Democratic president is in office, to attribute the entire movement to racism is either not to think, not to understand or simply an attempt at demonizing a movement with which you don't agree.

Reagan was a given a severe recession and was fighting the cold war. Obama was given a severe recession and is fighting the war on terror. Inflation was the difference, but there are also many similarities.

If there were as much anger over bank bailouts versus helping the lazy free loaders the tea party would be much more legit.

I think you would find bank bailouts are a cause of anger with some tea partiers. One of the reason I wouldn't consider myself a tea partier is that they are a hodge podge of differing views. Some are social conservatives, I'm Not. Some are fiscal conservatives like me. Some are knee jerk reactors, I hope I am not.

They have become involved. Whether I agree with them or not I am certainly not going to demean their integrity because of the actions of a few. If that is acceptable, then there is not a group in America that is worth a shit.

The situations inherited by Obama and Reagon had some small similarities but very small. The recession started after Reagon become president but was caused by fight against inflation. The major difference is that Obama is for higher taxes. Reagon was not (obviously). Obama is for more government programs, Reagon, except for the military, was not. The argument that Reagon expanded government ignores facts. Generally any expansion of government promoted by Reagon was in the military. Most other expansions occurred due to the nature of politics. There had to be compromises with a democractic congress. But the two people we are discussing had geometrically opposing positions. The differences between the two are more pronounced than any similarity. But as I said, to ask where the tea partiers were when Reagon was president is a non-starter. A different time, a different era and a totally different situation. To ask where they were under Bush has more legitimacy.

[kalm]

Reagan was a given a severe recession and was fighting the cold war. Obama was given a severe recession and is fighting the war on terror. Inflation was the difference, but there are also many similarities.

If there were as much anger over bank bailouts versus helping the lazy free loaders the tea party would be much more legit.

I think you would find bank bailouts are a cause of anger with some tea partiers. One of the reason I wouldn't consider myself a tea partier is that they are a hodge podge of differing views. Some are social conservatives, I'm Not. Some are fiscal conservatives like me. Some are knee jerk reactors, I hope I am not.

They have become involved. Whether I agree with them or not I am certainly not going to demean their integrity because of the actions of a few. If that is acceptable, then there is not a group in America that is worth a ****.

The situations inherited by Obama and Reagon had some small similarities but very small. The recession started after Reagon become president but was caused by fight against inflation. The major difference is that Obama is for higher taxes. Reagon was not (obviously). Obama is for more government programs, Reagon, except for the military, was not. The argument that Reagon expanded government ignores facts. Generally any expansion of government promoted by Reagon was in the military. Most other expansions occurred due to the nature of politics. There had to be compromises with a democractic congress. But the two people we are discussing had geometrically opposing positions. The differences between the two are more pronounced than any similarity. But as I said, to ask where the tea partiers were when Reagon was president is a non-starter. A different time, a different era and a totally different situation. To ask where they were under Bush has more legitimacy.

Reagan provided amnesty to illegals and declared the War on Drugs both of which dramtically expanded government. Reagan cut taxes but he was also responsible for the largest tax increases in history. And why doesn't military spending count?

I get what you're saying and there are certainly different approaches to dealing with a recession and/or balancing a budget. Bush I raised taxes, Clinton modestly raised taxes while cutting welfare and military spending, and even Hoover, late in the term, enacted public works related stimulus that Roosevelt adopted.

Much of Obama's approach as a lender of last resort is nothing new and in theory can result in a return to private sector growth and autonomy. Unless you think he's a commie.

[OL FU]

I think you would find bank bailouts are a cause of anger with some tea partiers. One of the reason I wouldn't consider myself a tea partier is that they are a hodge podge of differing views. Some are social conservatives, I'm Not. Some are fiscal conservatives like me. Some are knee jerk reactors, I hope I am not.

They have become involved. Whether I agree with them or not I am certainly not going to demean their integrity because of the actions of a few. If that is acceptable, then there is not a group in America that is worth a ****.

The situations inherited by Obama and Reagon had some small similarities but very small. The recession started after Reagon become president but was caused by fight against inflation. The major difference is that Obama is for higher taxes. Reagon was not (obviously). Obama is for more government programs, Reagon, except for the military, was not. The argument that Reagon expanded government ignores facts. Generally any expansion of government promoted by Reagon was in the military. Most other expansions occurred due to the nature of politics. There had to be compromises with a democractic congress. But the two people we are discussing had geometrically opposing positions. The differences between the two are more pronounced than any similarity. But as I said, to ask where the tea partiers were when Reagon was president is a non-starter. A different time, a different era and a totally different situation. To ask where they were under Bush has more legitimacy.

Reagan provided amnesty to illegals and declared the War on Drugs both of which dramtically expanded government. Reagan cut taxes but he was also responsible for the largest tax increases in history. And why doesn't military spending count?

I get what you're saying and there are certainly different approaches to dealing with a recession and/or balancing a budget. Bush I raised taxes, Clinton modestly raised taxes while cutting welfare and military spending, and even Hoover, late in the term, enacted public works related stimulus that Roosevelt adopted.

Much of Obama's approach as a lender of last resort is nothing new and in theory can result in a return to private sector growth and autonomy. Unless you think he's a commie.

No offense but saying amnesty to illegals and the war on drugs is comparable to national health care, a $800B stimlus bill, support for cap and trade and on and on and on with respect to increasing government authority is more than a stretch. They aren't even close in scope.

[kalm]

Reagan provided amnesty to illegals and declared the War on Drugs both of which dramtically expanded government. Reagan cut taxes but he was also responsible for the largest tax increases in history. And why doesn't military spending count?

I get what you're saying and there are certainly different approaches to dealing with a recession and/or balancing a budget. Bush I raised taxes, Clinton modestly raised taxes while cutting welfare and military spending, and even Hoover, late in the term, enacted public works related stimulus that Roosevelt adopted.

Much of Obama's approach as a lender of last resort is nothing new and in theory can result in a return to private sector growth and autonomy. Unless you think he's a commie.

No offense but saying amnesty to illegals and the war on drugs is comparable to national health care, a $800B stimlus bill, support for cap and trade and on and on and on with respect to increasing government authority is more than a stretch. They aren't even close in scope.

Remember, I originally said some similarities and acknowldedged the differences in philosophy.

But for the sake of argument, how much money has been spent over the years on illegals who were granted amnesty and the War on Drugs?

For example, I have a friend who is a cop in a rural county and a couple of times of year gets to use National Guard helicopters to locate pot growing operations from the air. That's just one single cop in one small county. For
get about the 100,000 other drug enforcement officers, both local and federal, and the money spent in prosecution, and incarceration...

[OL FU]

No offense but saying amnesty to illegals and the war on drugs is comparable to national health care, a $800B stimlus bill, support for cap and trade and on and on and on with respect to increasing government authority is more than a stretch. They aren't even close in scope.

Remember, I originally said some similarities and acknowldedged the differences in philosophy.

But for the sake of argument, how much money has been spent over the years on illegals who were granted amnesty and the War on Drugs?

For example, I have a friend who is a cop in a rural county and a couple of times of year gets to use National Guard helicopters to locate pot growing operations from the air. That's just one single cop in one small county. For
get about the 100,000 other drug enforcement officers, both local and federal, and the money spent in prosecution, and incarceration...

There are some arguments that are worth the time. This one isn't. Whether the cost is comparable is not really the point. how intrusive and all encompassing is. health care, cap and trade, impact everyone. It is government reaching into the life of every individual. I am not arguing the rights and wrongs here that is for a different threaed. The point I was making was the argument that there are tipping points that wake people up and Obama's agenda is that tipping point.

It is ok not to agree with the Tea Party. But it is either misinformation or disingenious to assume that the entire movement (for lack of a better word) is simply a racist reaction to a black president.

[Chizzang]

There are some arguments that are worth the time. This one isn't. Whether the cost is comparable is not really the point. how intrusive and all encompassing is. health care, cap and trade, impact everyone. It is government reaching into the life of every individual. I am not arguing the rights and wrongs here that is for a different threaed. The point I was making was the argument that there are tipping points that wake people up and Obama's agenda is that tipping point.

It is ok not to agree with the Tea Party. But it is either misinformation or disingenious to assume that the entire movement (for lack of a better word) is simply a racist reaction to a black president.

Agreed..
But "the tipping point" doesn't logically seem like more spending, as that's been going on since Reagan set spending records - the tipping point seems more likely to be the one completely unique factor.. and couple that with signs with the word nigger on them and it doesn't take Sherlock Holms to come to any conclusions

My Point: The Republicans don't like the Tea Party being called racists reactionaries I certainly understand and in some ways completely agree - but it would be a lot easier to "get behind" the Tea Party or at least take them seriously if they did two things...
1) Didn't have Nigger on their signs
2) Complained about unique issues new to this administration

Just my 2 cents...
I actually like having the Tea Party around it's a fun topic and a great study of human nature and pop culture