But there were two wars being charged to credit. Iraq, I think we all agree, was a mistake.AZGrizFan wrote:There was also no TARP, no "stimulus", and no bailouts either.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Started with Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, imo.
Go back and look at 2006 midterm elections. There was absolutely no tea party presence in any race I'm aware of.
Brought to you by both parties...AZGrizFan wrote:There was also no TARP, no "stimulus", and no bailouts either.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Started with Ron Paul's 2008 campaign, imo.
Go back and look at 2006 midterm elections. There was absolutely no tea party presence in any race I'm aware of.
We must compromise, huh?Ibanez wrote:Listen to his message. If Tea Partiers were truly more Libertarian, their social message would be more liberal. I'm all for a balanced budget, reducing spending, eliminating waste (even if that means my job goes away). Negotiating is the job of a Congressman. you can't get everything you want, all the time. Or even some of the time. There are others in the country and we must compromise. That does not mean you compromise your principles. The TPs are hardliners that have pushed out the politicians that actually worked across the isle. I may not agree with Lindsey Graham, but he will occasionally work with a democrat. This isn't a Red or blue country, and they've forgotten that.CID1990 wrote:
We must know different Tim Scotts then, I've known him since County Council.
The same could be said for any politician these days...we are so screwed.
But he wants to tell you who you can and can't marry. Who to love. Who you can be your beneficiary.I don't want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.- Rand Paul
If we don't work together, how do you accomplish anything? Democrats and Republicans, these days, want it their way or no way at all. In that environment, things will not work.AZGrizFan wrote:We must compromise, huh?Ibanez wrote:
Listen to his message. If Tea Partiers were truly more Libertarian, their social message would be more liberal. I'm all for a balanced budget, reducing spending, eliminating waste (even if that means my job goes away). Negotiating is the job of a Congressman. you can't get everything you want, all the time. Or even some of the time. There are others in the country and we must compromise. That does not mean you compromise your principles. The TPs are hardliners that have pushed out the politicians that actually worked across the isle. I may not agree with Lindsey Graham, but he will occasionally work with a democrat. This isn't a Red or blue country, and they've forgotten that.
The same could be said for any politician these days...we are so screwed.
Go take a look at the house vote on Obamacare. 220-215, with ONE Republican voting for it (to save his sorry ass in a left-leaning district in Louisiana. Obama, Pelosi and Reid took "compromise" and shoved it up America's ASS in 2009. You reap what you sow.
AZGrizFan wrote:We must compromise, huh?Ibanez wrote:
Listen to his message. If Tea Partiers were truly more Libertarian, their social message would be more liberal. I'm all for a balanced budget, reducing spending, eliminating waste (even if that means my job goes away). Negotiating is the job of a Congressman. you can't get everything you want, all the time. Or even some of the time. There are others in the country and we must compromise. That does not mean you compromise your principles. The TPs are hardliners that have pushed out the politicians that actually worked across the isle. I may not agree with Lindsey Graham, but he will occasionally work with a democrat. This isn't a Red or blue country, and they've forgotten that.
The same could be said for any politician these days...we are so screwed.
Go take a look at the house vote on Obamacare. 220-215, with ONE Republican voting for it (to save his sorry ass in a left-leaning district in Louisiana. Obama, Pelosi and Reid took "compromise" and shoved it up America's ASS in 2009. You reap what you sow.
Compromise had already been shoved up America's ASS for quite a while by 2009. 
BDKJMU wrote:ASUMountaineer wrote:Nah, it's curious that there arethat brush aside one's fiscal irresponsibility when it's convenient.
I never did.
If you'd bothered to pay attention you would know that many TP protested Bush's spending.ASUMountaineer wrote:Fiscal irresponsibility is fiscal irresponsibility. I mentioned nothing of degrees of fiscal irresponsibility, if you and your fellow Tea Partiers take such issue with fiscal irresponsibility why did you wait until Bush was out of office to organize? Was his not damaging? Are Tea Partiers willing to tolerate some fiscal irresponsibility, but draw an arbitrary line at too much fiscal irresponsibility?
And anyone with a lick of sense would know that these types of movements don't spring up in a few weeks or a few months but take years to form.
Insults only get you so far, chief. When was the first Tea Party-organized protest of Bush's fiscally irresponsible policies? Who was the first Tea Party-backed candidate? Prior to the 4/15/09 protests, when did the organized Tea Party hold rallies? K, thanks. Please tell me the last piece of hugely impactful, far-reaching legislation that was ramrodded through on an entirely party line vote prior to Obamacare.houndawg wrote:AZGrizFan wrote:
We must compromise, huh?
Go take a look at the house vote on Obamacare. 220-215, with ONE Republican voting for it (to save his sorry ass in a left-leaning district in Louisiana. Obama, Pelosi and Reid took "compromise" and shoved it up America's ASS in 2009. You reap what you sow.
I don't follow Rand Paul's social politics very much, but that sounds uncharacteristic of him. I do know that he used the gay marriage flap to talk about how it is a good example of why government should not be in the marriage business. That doesn't jibe with someone who would want to legislate against gay marriage.Ibanez wrote:But he wants to tell you who you can and can't marry. Who to love. Who you can be your beneficiary.I don't want to live in a nanny state where people are telling me where I can go and what I can do.- Rand Paul
There is just something not right about Paul, pere et fils; not ideology just something that says "weirdo" when you see them.CID1990 wrote:I don't follow Rand Paul's social politics very much, but that sounds uncharacteristic of him. I do know that he used the gay marriage flap to talk about how it is a good example of why government should not be in the marriage business. That doesn't jibe with someone who would want to legislate against gay marriage.Ibanez wrote: But he wants to tell you who you can and can't marry. Who to love. Who you can be your beneficiary.
He believes it shouldn't be done at the Federal level... but, at the state level... which seems to be consistent.CID1990 wrote: I don't follow Rand Paul's social politics very much, but that sounds uncharacteristic of him. I do know that he used the gay marriage flap to talk about how it is a good example of why government should not be in the marriage business. That doesn't jibe with someone who would want to legislate against gay marriage.
93henfan wrote:Nice work Ivy. You've helped elicit exactly why this country is fucked. There is no middle ground any more.
You're welcome!93henfan wrote:Nice work Ivy. You've helped elicit exactly why this country is ****. There is no middle ground any more.
CID1990 wrote:Well if that is the case then I would agree that it isn't very libertarian of him. That said, I haven't heard much noise out of him on the social side.Ibanez wrote: But he wants to tell you who you can and can't marry. Who to love. Who you can be your beneficiary.
I don't follow Rand Paul's social politics very much, but that sounds uncharacteristic of him. I do know that he used the gay marriage flap to talk about how it is a good example of why government should not be in the marriage business. That doesn't jibe with someone who would want to legislate against gay marriage.
And you're just as much to blame as anyone else, Grover Norquist, Sr.Ivytalk wrote:You're welcome!93henfan wrote:Nice work Ivy. You've helped elicit exactly why this country is ****. There is no middle ground any more.
Except for GannonFan and UNI88, centrism is dead in America.
Chizzang wrote:93henfan wrote:Nice work Ivy. You've helped elicit exactly why this country is fucked. There is no middle ground any more.
We don't need Baldy or BDK. You and me, a couple ball point pens, 2 legal pads and an hour. Done.kalm wrote:Chizzang wrote:
There's a shit ton of middle ground. My liberal ass could sit down with Baldy, BDK, and AZ and solve most of the country's ills over a couple of beers. It's the system that is broken...not the ideas or the people.
Yeah. Everything was great until Jan. '09.blueballs wrote:I hate to break it y'all, but the lack of compromise in DC currently starts in the White House.
Bury it with the middle class.Ivytalk wrote:You're welcome!93henfan wrote:Nice work Ivy. You've helped elicit exactly why this country is ****. There is no middle ground any more.
Except for GannonFan and UNI88, centrism is dead in America.
Thank you for saying exactly what I did.kalm wrote:Chizzang wrote:
There's a shit ton of middle ground. My liberal ass could sit down with Baldy, BDK, and AZ and solve most of the country's ills over a couple of beers. It's the system that is broken...not the ideas or the people.
Of course the common people can find middle ground, but we are not policymakers. For the people that matter, there is no middle ground, and our country is paralyzed now because of it. Wow. Reading comprehension is NOT your strong point, is it?houndawg wrote:Yeah. Everything was great until Jan. '09.blueballs wrote:I hate to break it y'all, but the lack of compromise in DC currently starts in the White House.
This. I don't consider myself a Tea Party person but I am all for fiscal responsibility and accountability at all level of government. The Tea Party was nowhere to be seen until after Obama was in office. That said since all the establishment politicians hate the Tea Partiers, I like that they are raising hell. The system is already broken with 2 parties, how much worse can it get with another group muddying the waters any further.ASUMountaineer wrote:
That's not exactly what you said.93henfan wrote:Thank you for saying exactly what I did.kalm wrote:
There's a shit ton of middle ground. My liberal ass could sit down with Baldy, BDK, and AZ and solve most of the country's ills over a couple of beers. It's the system that is broken...not the ideas or the people.
