Poll: Is Rand Paul Presidential Timber?

[Ibanez]

The POINT is that a year after the first Tea Party Protest and the start of the movement, Bush was not seen as a spendthrift or evil. Bush had 8 years and the Tea PArty don't mention him. Obama was President for a few weeks and nationwide protests began calling him evil, HItler, a Socialist, etc... Obama was the target of their anger. Not Bush. Tea Partiers excuse Bush because he was Republican.

Bush didn't do anything overtly socialist until the last 3 months of his presidency. And NOONE I know excuses Bush's mistakes.

[ASUMountaineer]

The POINT is that a year after the first Tea Party Protest and the start of the movement, Bush was not seen as a spendthrift or evil. Bush had 8 years and the Tea PArty don't mention him. Obama was President for a few weeks and nationwide protests began calling him evil, HItler, a Socialist, etc... Obama was the target of their anger. Not Bush. Tea Partiers excuse Bush because he was Republican.

Bush didn't do anything overtly socialist until the last 3 months of his presidency. And NOONE I know excuses Bush's mistakes.

PATRIOT Act? DHS?

[89Hen]

Bush didn't do anything overtly socialist until the last 3 months of his presidency. And NOONE I know excuses Bush's mistakes.

PATRIOT Act? DHS?

How are either "socialist"?

[ASUMountaineer]

PATRIOT Act? DHS?

How are either "socialist"?

By the TEA Party's definition, 89. Try to keep up...

[expandspanos]

Ron Paul was.. Rand Paul isn't.

[89Hen]

How are either "socialist"?

By the TEA Party's definition, 89. Try to keep up...

So you are a Tea Party member. I thought you said you weren't.

[ASUMountaineer]

By the TEA Party's definition, 89. Try to keep up...

So you are a Tea Party member. I thought you said you weren't.

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

[Chizzang]

So you are a Tea Party member. I thought you said you weren't.

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

don't even start to play this game with 89
he can go on for days playing this

it's his specialty

[89Hen]

So you are a Tea Party member. I thought you said you weren't.

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

The Tea Party is somewhat split on the Patriot Act, but I don't think any of them would classify it as "socialism".

[YoUDeeMan]

Speaking of deflection...WTF does it matter when a bunch of people started protesting government spending?

How many people started screaming for single payer, or an Affordable Healthcare Act, before it got started by someone? Oh, sure, now there is a growing groundswell as long as other people are paying for it.

It is OK to start sometime, and if a new guy comes in and starts campaigning on even BIGGER government, that might just cause some folks to organize for or against such a thing.

"But...the OTHER GUY did it" is simply a lazy, stupid, ignorant, 2nd grade level argument.

We have clowns saying the "society" or "this nation" should pay for ______, and those same clowns don't bother to pay for the very thing they are asking other people ("nations" and "societies" are made up of people, mostly other people) to support. Typical hypocrites with few morals and low character.


Everyone is a Conk when it comes to their own time and money.

[ASUMountaineer]

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

The Tea Party is somewhat split on the Patriot Act, but I don't think any of them would classify it as "socialism".

Sure thing, bud!

[ASUMountaineer]

Speaking of deflection...WTF does it matter when a bunch of people started protesting government spending?

How many people started screaming for single payer, or an Affordable Healthcare Act, before it got started by someone? Oh, sure, now there is a growing groundswell as long as other people are paying for it.

It is OK to start sometime, and if a new guy comes in and starts campaigning on even BIGGER government, that might just cause some folks to organize for or against such a thing.

"But...the OTHER GUY did it" is simply a lazy, stupid, ignorant, 2nd grade level argument.

We have clowns saying the "society" or "this nation" should pay for ______, and those same clowns don't bother to pay for the very thing they are asking other people ("nations" and "societies" are made up of people, mostly other people) to support. Typical hypocrites with few morals and low character.


Everyone is a Conk when it comes to their own time and money.

Don't be stupid, Cluck. No one is saying "but, the other guy did it" as a defense or deflection of Obama. We're simply pointing out that the concern wasn't there when the other guy from the other party did it. It's an observation, not a deflection. I just laugh at the "conservatives" whose defense of Bush's spending is that, "Obama is spending much more." Fiscal irresponsibility is fiscal irresponsibility.

[ASUMountaineer]

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

don't even start to play this game with 89
he can go on for days playing this

it's his specialty

[89Hen]

The Tea Party is somewhat split on the Patriot Act, but I don't think any of them would classify it as "socialism".

Sure thing, bud!

Great rebuttal.

[89Hen]

The Tea Party is somewhat split on the Patriot Act, but I don't think any of them would classify it as "socialism".

Sure thing, bud!

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelal ... /page/full

44 of the 52 members of the House Tea Party Caucus, including chair Michelle Bachman, voted for the extension (Patriot Act)...

Some accuse Tea Party Caucus members of betraying Tea Party principles of limited government by voting for the bill. Not necessarily. Proponents of limited government are not anarchists, they believe the essential minimal function of government is security and law enforcement. Where to draw the line between adequate law enforcement and government overreach is a legitimate area of debate that does not neatly split down party lines.

So the Tea Party is split and they don't think it's "socialism". It's OK, bud.

[AZGrizFan]

So you are a Tea Party member. I thought you said you weren't.

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

I was speaking strictly from a financial standpoint.

[houndawg]

Speaking of deflection...WTF does it matter when a bunch of people started protesting government spending?

How many people started screaming for single payer, or an Affordable Healthcare Act, before it got started by someone? Oh, sure, now there is a growing groundswell as long as other people are paying for it.

It is OK to start sometime, and if a new guy comes in and starts campaigning on even BIGGER government, that might just cause some folks to organize for or against such a thing.

"But...the OTHER GUY did it" is simply a lazy, stupid, ignorant, 2nd grade level argument.

We have clowns saying the "society" or "this nation" should pay for ______, and those same clowns don't bother to pay for the very thing they are asking other people ("nations" and "societies" are made up of people, mostly other people) to support. Typical hypocrites with few morals and low character.


Everyone is a Conk when it comes to their own time and money.

Don't be stupid, Cluck. No one is saying "but, the other guy did it" as a defense or deflection of Obama. We're simply pointing out that the concern wasn't there when the other guy from the other party did it. It's an observation, not a deflection. I just laugh at the "conservatives" whose defense of Bush's spending is that, "Obama is spending much more." Fiscal irresponsibility is fiscal irresponsibility.

Might as well ask the sky not to be blue.

[89Hen]

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

I was speaking strictly from a financial standpoint.

Patriot Act =/= socialism
Obamacare = socialism

I don't care with which party you affiliate, it's tough to refute that. You can make a case for the Patriot Act being more totalitarian or fascist in nature, but it's not socialism in any sense of the word.

[AZGrizFan]

I was speaking strictly from a financial standpoint.

Patriot Act =/= socialism
Obamacare = socialism

I don't care with which party you affiliate, it's tough to refute that. You can make a case for the Patriot Act being more totalitarian or fascist in nature, but it's not socialism in any sense of the word.

Exactly.

[ASUMountaineer]

Sure thing, bud!

Great rebuttal.

You know it!

[ASUMountaineer]

Ugh, don't go dense on me 89. Have we not been discussing the TEA Party here? This is very simple, but then again you know that.

Z was trying to imply that the TEA Party kept to their standards by only protesting Obama because Bush only did anything "overtly socialist" during his last three months in office. By the TEA Party's definition of "socialist" Bush had certainly done other things that were "overtly socialist."

I was speaking strictly from a financial standpoint.

Perhaps stating so would be to your benefit, next time. So, how do you feel about the Rx Drug Benefit?

[YoUDeeMan]

Don't be stupid, Cluck. No one is saying "but, the other guy did it" as a defense or deflection of Obama. We're simply pointing out that the concern wasn't there when the other guy from the other party did it. It's an observation, not a deflection. I just laugh at the "conservatives" whose defense of Bush's spending is that, "Obama is spending much more." Fiscal irresponsibility is fiscal irresponsibility.

Don't be stupid, ASUM, you are doing what every partisan hack does, partisan hack or not.

[YoUDeeMan]

Might as well ask the sky not to be blue.

The sky is often not blue...in fact it isn't blue most of the time. You, on the other hand...

[AZGrizFan]

I was speaking strictly from a financial standpoint.

Perhaps stating so would be to your benefit, next time.

Try and keep up.

[ASUMountaineer]

Don't be stupid, Cluck. No one is saying "but, the other guy did it" as a defense or deflection of Obama. We're simply pointing out that the concern wasn't there when the other guy from the other party did it. It's an observation, not a deflection. I just laugh at the "conservatives" whose defense of Bush's spending is that, "Obama is spending much more." Fiscal irresponsibility is fiscal irresponsibility.

Don't be stupid, ASUM, you are doing what every partisan hack does, partisan hack or not.

Nice try, Clucky. Please show where I defended Obama by bashing Bush...I'll be waiting.

I simply find it curious that "small government conservatives" that abhor "fiscal irresponsibility" weren't protesting Bush's big-government policies and his fiscal irresponsibility. If that observation upsets you, tough titties.

Look, neither of us support Obama who is a bigger-government, bigger-spending President. The difference is, that I see Bush for what he was: a big-government, big-spending President. Do you disagree with that assessment?