Absolutely. When I was lucky enough to sink my claws into a modest (yet priceless) Stimulus contract, I had to fill out a federal form that asked ‘How many new jobs created?’ and ‘How many jobs preserved?’. Since we were in the middle of layoffs, all numbers fell into the ‘jobs preserved’ category, including my job.
Obama obviously has the data, and my guess is that the ‘job preserved’ number is much greater than ‘jobs created’.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Here’s an op-ed written by professors (oh no, professors!) who did a study (oh no, facts!) on who Tea Baggers really are.
Well, they are white, ultra-religious Repubs who hate immigrants and blacks. Sound familiar??
Same old John Birchers as ever. Backed and funded by rich corporate welfare recipients as the Koch brothers.
Read the article. Nobody will, though.
Zeb will say, “blah blah professor” in his moronic way (because he has nothing else to say). Some others will discredit the professors or the universities.
Why can’t you guys just admit who you are?[/quote]
Actually I did read the article. I found it interesting, though the demographics of the tea party are nothing new. The thing I found most interesting is at the end where the author comments on how it could affect the Republican party in the future. And for the record, you don’t need to come into every thread angry all the time.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Nobody read the article, right? See? I can predict your behaviors. It’s not from The Spotlight or Fox, so it’s the liberal media.
Oh, Fox. Liberal media? Who is the biggest media conglomerate in the WORLD?
What about the study itself? No comments? Professors are really dummies, right Zeb?
Harvard? Liberal haven?
Notre Dame? Catholics?
Those institutions stink, right?
Bob Jones University is where all the “strategery” happens, right?
Wait… I hear Zeb with no response but, “blah blah professor, fraud, lyer, poopie pants.”
Racist says, “what?”
[/quote]
You are a tool, professor of what, I keep seeing zeb bringing it up. seriously what is your background and what do your teach, sorry surveys are not facts, they are subjective measures. It could be stated that it is a fact they answered this way, but to assert that, that makes your presumptions about the populations a fact is to misconstrue the data.
but yes it does make sense if you think about it. SINCE YOU BROUGHT THE RACIST PROPAGANDA, let’s stay on that note.
Of course the Tea party would be primarily white, they are the ones that pay majority of the taxes, so they are the ones who have an issue with the taxes. Would make since they are religious as well, again, the bible teaches to be good stewards of your money, your possessions because they are really GOD’s. And of course they would be against having to work to support more mouth’s to feed (iphones to give away to crumb feeders). I mean this is all generalization not applicable to each individual, but it is what you are stating.
So like you ,I can infer into your statements. You are calling minorities lazy leaches on society, you are calling religious white people smarter, more prudent and the producers of the economy with your statements about the study. How does that fit. Because that is how you retort others.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I get what you are saying.
I wish there would be a fiscal conservative that is not all “family values.” Because really, for me when the government is telling you what you can do (and who) in the privacy of your bedroom (assuming everyone if consenting adults) the government has gotten too big.
It would be great if someone who was running would just say “I am here to help fix the economy, do not ask me about the culture wars.”[/quote]
I’m glad you wrote this, Tex.
ON THIS VERY BOARD, and when people were being interviewed at the rallies; “soldiers” of the Tea Party made it clear that they were all about fiscal responsibility and smaller government…and that other “hot bed” social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, gays in the military, etc.) were NOT part of the agenda. Their reasoning was sound, and actually something that I agreed with. These “cultural” issues served to distract from their central issue of smaller, limited government.
No more. As I stated earlier on a thread, actual power and influence changes things, and it has.
“Acceptable” Tea Party candidates are now more and more having to sign “agreements” and “pledges” that, yes, include decreasing spending and limited government rhetoric…but more and more include things like stands on “defining marriage”, “core values” and the like.
What started (by THEIR admission) as a “purely” fiscally conservative movement is now morphing into a powerful movement to the Far Right of the political spectrum.
Mufasa [/quote]
I guess I do not quite see the pairing of small gov’t and ‘family values’. Smaller government, at least in my eyes, is not a government about controlling people’s lives. Yet, the far Right seems to be all about controlling people’s lives. The pairing reeks of hypocrisy and I really do not like hypocrisy.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I get what you are saying.
I wish there would be a fiscal conservative that is not all “family values.” Because really, for me when the government is telling you what you can do (and who) in the privacy of your bedroom (assuming everyone if consenting adults) the government has gotten too big.
It would be great if someone who was running would just say “I am here to help fix the economy, do not ask me about the culture wars.”[/quote]
I’m glad you wrote this, Tex.
ON THIS VERY BOARD, and when people were being interviewed at the rallies; “soldiers” of the Tea Party made it clear that they were all about fiscal responsibility and smaller government…and that other “hot bed” social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, gays in the military, etc.) were NOT part of the agenda. Their reasoning was sound, and actually something that I agreed with. These “cultural” issues served to distract from their central issue of smaller, limited government.
No more. As I stated earlier on a thread, actual power and influence changes things, and it has.
“Acceptable” Tea Party candidates are now more and more having to sign “agreements” and “pledges” that, yes, include decreasing spending and limited government rhetoric…but more and more include things like stands on “defining marriage”, “core values” and the like.
What started (by THEIR admission) as a “purely” fiscally conservative movement is now morphing into a powerful movement to the Far Right of the political spectrum.
Mufasa [/quote]
I guess I do not quite see the pairing of small gov’t and ‘family values’. Smaller government, at least in my eyes, is not a government about controlling people’s lives. Yet, the far Right seems to be all about controlling people’s lives. The pairing reeks of hypocrisy and I really do not like hypocrisy. [/quote]
Well stated.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Ok, I won’t call them shit heads if you won’t call them republicans :)[/quote]
LOL!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
There was some talk several months (or more) ago that suggested Perry might want the VP slot. I think that makes since. Consider how he has ruled in Texas, from the VP position he can set the groundwork and place his people for a presidency after 8 (or 4) years.
Oh, my dad (in Texas) told me on the national news last night (not sure which channel but one of the main ones) talked about how Texas has a $1 fee on each months electric bill that is to help those who are unable to afford electricity to pay their bills. Perry took half of that money to help meet the $27 billion needed to match the budget. So Perry took this money from the very poor, dooped the state’s taxpayers, instead of pulling money from the slush fund (which would have covered the budget shortfall and a practice he had done twice already) and nearly decimated the public education funding. I do not think he will look good under media spotlight.[/quote]
There is no living breathing republican who challenges Obama that the press will not attempt a total beat down on. [/quote]
There may be some truth to that; but Perry hands people the stick to hit him with.
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I get what you are saying.
I wish there would be a fiscal conservative that is not all “family values.” Because really, for me when the government is telling you what you can do (and who) in the privacy of your bedroom (assuming everyone if consenting adults) the government has gotten too big.
It would be great if someone who was running would just say “I am here to help fix the economy, do not ask me about the culture wars.”[/quote]
I’m glad you wrote this, Tex.
ON THIS VERY BOARD, and when people were being interviewed at the rallies; “soldiers” of the Tea Party made it clear that they were all about fiscal responsibility and smaller government…and that other “hot bed” social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, gays in the military, etc.) were NOT part of the agenda. Their reasoning was sound, and actually something that I agreed with. These “cultural” issues served to distract from their central issue of smaller, limited government.
No more. As I stated earlier on a thread, actual power and influence changes things, and it has.
“Acceptable” Tea Party candidates are now more and more having to sign “agreements” and “pledges” that, yes, include decreasing spending and limited government rhetoric…but more and more include things like stands on “defining marriage”, “core values” and the like.
What started (by THEIR admission) as a “purely” fiscally conservative movement is now morphing into a powerful movement to the Far Right of the political spectrum.
Mufasa [/quote]
I guess I do not quite see the pairing of small gov’t and ‘family values’. Smaller government, at least in my eyes, is not a government about controlling people’s lives. Yet, the far Right seems to be all about controlling people’s lives. The pairing reeks of hypocrisy and I really do not like hypocrisy. [/quote]
Well stated.
[/quote]
Amen!
Like I said before, this election will not be about social issues. It’s the economy, stupid.
That said, I would never elect a tea party candidate, no matter what they say about fixing the economy being their only priority. Everyone knows where they stand on social issues, and everyone knows they will push their social agenda once in office.
Other republicans though? I wouldn’t rule out voting for a republican who was financially conservative, especially with the economy being where it is right now. As long as she/he is at least neutral on the social issues, I would consider putting her/him in office.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I get what you are saying.
I wish there would be a fiscal conservative that is not all “family values.” Because really, for me when the government is telling you what you can do (and who) in the privacy of your bedroom (assuming everyone if consenting adults) the government has gotten too big.
It would be great if someone who was running would just say “I am here to help fix the economy, do not ask me about the culture wars.”[/quote]
I’m glad you wrote this, Tex.
ON THIS VERY BOARD, and when people were being interviewed at the rallies; “soldiers” of the Tea Party made it clear that they were all about fiscal responsibility and smaller government…and that other “hot bed” social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, gays in the military, etc.) were NOT part of the agenda. Their reasoning was sound, and actually something that I agreed with. These “cultural” issues served to distract from their central issue of smaller, limited government.
No more. As I stated earlier on a thread, actual power and influence changes things, and it has.
“Acceptable” Tea Party candidates are now more and more having to sign “agreements” and “pledges” that, yes, include decreasing spending and limited government rhetoric…but more and more include things like stands on “defining marriage”, “core values” and the like.
What started (by THEIR admission) as a “purely” fiscally conservative movement is now morphing into a powerful movement to the Far Right of the political spectrum.
Mufasa [/quote]
I guess I do not quite see the pairing of small gov’t and ‘family values’. Smaller government, at least in my eyes, is not a government about controlling people’s lives. Yet, the far Right seems to be all about controlling people’s lives. The pairing reeks of hypocrisy and I really do not like hypocrisy. [/quote]
Yup. The Left wants their version of big government and the Right wants theirs. They’re both very hypocritical.
I found this interesting, they are looking for dirty laundrey on Perry.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
I found this interesting, they are looking for dirty laundrey on Perry.
[/quote]
From the article:
Fairly sure gay people aren’t covering for Perry, but maybe the ads targeting the log cabin type I’ve never met.
Gosh, do you think any hard-up strippers would bother replying? Even if they never came within 100’ of Rick Perry?
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I get what you are saying.
I wish there would be a fiscal conservative that is not all “family values.” Because really, for me when the government is telling you what you can do (and who) in the privacy of your bedroom (assuming everyone if consenting adults) the government has gotten too big.
It would be great if someone who was running would just say “I am here to help fix the economy, do not ask me about the culture wars.”[/quote]
I’m glad you wrote this, Tex.
ON THIS VERY BOARD, and when people were being interviewed at the rallies; “soldiers” of the Tea Party made it clear that they were all about fiscal responsibility and smaller government…and that other “hot bed” social issues (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, gays in the military, etc.) were NOT part of the agenda. Their reasoning was sound, and actually something that I agreed with. These “cultural” issues served to distract from their central issue of smaller, limited government.
No more. As I stated earlier on a thread, actual power and influence changes things, and it has.
“Acceptable” Tea Party candidates are now more and more having to sign “agreements” and “pledges” that, yes, include decreasing spending and limited government rhetoric…but more and more include things like stands on “defining marriage”, “core values” and the like.
What started (by THEIR admission) as a “purely” fiscally conservative movement is now morphing into a powerful movement to the Far Right of the political spectrum.
Mufasa [/quote]
I guess I do not quite see the pairing of small gov’t and ‘family values’. Smaller government, at least in my eyes, is not a government about controlling people’s lives. Yet, the far Right seems to be all about controlling people’s lives. The pairing reeks of hypocrisy and I really do not like hypocrisy. [/quote]
Well stated.
[/quote]
Amen!
[/quote]
Agreed!
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
Nobody read the article, right? See? I can predict your behaviors. It’s not from The Spotlight or Fox, so it’s the liberal media.
Oh, Fox. Liberal media? Who is the biggest media conglomerate in the WORLD?
What about the study itself? No comments? Professors are really dummies, right Zeb?
Harvard? Liberal haven?
Notre Dame? Catholics?
Those institutions stink, right?
Bob Jones University is where all the “strategery” happens, right?
Wait… I hear Zeb with no response but, “blah blah professor, fraud, lyer, poopie pants.”
Racist says, “what?”
[/quote]
I like that your “facts” have “Opinion Pages” in large, bold letters printed above them.
Would like a link to the survey please, just to know what questions were actually asked to determine their “racism”.
I think at a moment in time where the MSM has actually photoshopped black Tea Partiers out of pictures to support their narrative, that is hardly too much to ask.
I think the link is in the NYT article. I’m not gona do the work for you, though. That wouldn’t be very American of me would it? lol.
Seriously, you should not have problems finding it. The book itself is for sale now, I think.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Well; it’s official
On Saturday, in South Carolina, Gov. Rick Perry will officially announce that he will be running for the GOP nomination for President.
I started a new thread for a few reasons:
Discussion about the Governor is scattered among various threads.
The ones devoted to discussion about him have become fairly long.
None of the threads are directed toward two fundamental questions;
I. How do you think that he fairs among the GOP field? Will he get the nomination?
II. How would he fair against President Obama?
I really don’t know much about the Governor, so I don’t have much insight.
Let’s Discuss.
Mufasa[/quote]
I truly like his proposals to alter the Constitution and undo all the CRAP that progressives (progress toward what, I wonder?) have foisted on this country. Our Founders never intended for the judiciary to run the country or for Congress to destroy the peoples’ means of saving (money).
Go get 'em, Rick! It CAN be done!!
You talk about the founders, then you want to alter the Constitution? That’s about right.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
You talk about the founders, then you want to alter the Constitution? That’s about right.[/quote]
You’re a moron.
The founders never envisioned the constitution to be perfect. The words “more perfect union” in the preamble and Jefferson’s comments about needing generational revolutions show that clearly.
The constitution was a new and experimental republican system intended to restrain the federal government while maintaining an open market among the states.
[quote]garcia1970 wrote:
I think the link is in the NYT article. I’m not gona do the work for you, though. That wouldn’t be very American of me would it? lol.
Seriously, you should not have problems finding it. The book itself is for sale now, I think.[/quote]
No link to be seen and if the book is as sloppy as the article I am probably not interested