Democrats SUCK!!

[Henry Hawk]

Puleeeze!!  Government malfeasance like what they're supposedly against existed long before Obama's first term.   What were the motivational factors that led this collective group of purported 'patriots' to suddenly get spurred to action circa late January 2009?

C'mon HH!  You and 'me' aren't that stupid.   

Try doing a little research.......I know for a fact that Santelli SPARKED a lot of emotion....that was the first I had heard about a tea party being started.   I went to a rally here in Indy, and it was NOT based on race what so ever.

I really get tired of this BS.  That is why I was reluctant to respond in the first place.  This whole racial thing is nothing but smoke and mirrors by those who do not want to admit that Obama was a bad pick.  He has NO leadership skills.  That is his biggest problem.  period.

[Locutus]

He wants to expand, and was expanding, government and they are against it so they formed.  What's so hard to understand about that?  Seems to me there were different groups formed for every other president too and it concerned policies so why should it be different for this president?  Should he be treated special?  Should we go along with everything he does?  Does being black give him a special pass?

See above. 

You can't name one group like the Tea Party whose genesis on the national stage coincided with the inaguration of any president save Obama.

[Henry Hawk]

See above. 

You can't name one group like the Tea Party whose genesis on the national stage coincided with the inaguration of any president save Obama.

Not sure WHAT you are talking about.......it was February 20, 2009 when Santelli had his moment of frustration and urged Americans who are fed up with the wreckless government spending.  April 15th of 2009, was when the REAL rallies began.....and the message was LOUD and CLEAR.  Against government spending.  The rest was all propaganda bullshit by the liberal media.

[Palehorse]

. . . The rest was all propaganda bullshit by the liberal media.

Yeah right. . .   

I've read the signs and heard the spewing. (It's a lot like the stuff you parrot here).

[me]

Puleeeze!!  Government malfeasance like what they're supposedly against existed long before Obama's first term.   What were the motivational factors that led this collective group of purported 'patriots' to suddenly get spurred to action circa late January 2009?

C'mon HH!  You and 'me' aren't that stupid.   

Obama care, which he actually had nothing to do with but someone started calling it that and Pelosi and Reed started pushing it, is one thing.  It had nothing to do with the color of his skin although the liberals find it convenient to blame it on that. 

[Locutus]

Not sure WHAT you are talking about.......it was February 20, 2009 when Santelli had his moment of frustration and urged Americans who are fed up with the wreckless government spending.  April 15th of 2009, was when the REAL rallies began.....and the message was LOUD and CLEAR.  Against government spending.  The rest was all propaganda bullshit by the liberal media.

As has been previously pointed out, reckless government spending had been going on for many years prior to January of 2009.  You're trying to convince me that these previous couch potatoes just happening to change into "in your face" political activists when Obama was inaugurated was mere coincidence?  C'mon HH; you're not that stupid. 

[Locutus]

Obama care, which he actually had nothing to do with but someone started calling it that and Pelosi and Reed started pushing it, is one thing.  It had nothing to do with the color of his skin although the liberals find it convenient to blame it on that. 

Obamacare has all the markings of previous Republican health care proposals, including Mitt Romney's.  The only problem the Republicans seem to have with the whole thing is that Obama and the Democrats passed it.  Also, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act didn't come along until 2010 which was a full year after these Tea Party assholes sprang into action.

You're not making a convincing argument.

[Locutus]

See above. 

You can't name one group like the Tea Party whose genesis on the national stage coincided with the inaguration of any president save Obama.

^ Still waiting on an answer to that one. 

[Locutus]

According to The Arizona Republic:

    "Obama foes at one point sang, "Bye Bye Black Sheep," a derogatory reference to the president's skin color, while protesters like Deanne Bartram raised a sign saying, "Impeach the Half-White Muslim!"



Certainly no racism there. 

[me]

Obamacare has all the markings of previous Republican health care proposals, including Mitt Romney's.  The only problem the Republicans seem to have with the whole thing is that Obama and the Democrats passed it.  Also, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act didn't come along until 2010 which was a full year after these Tea Party assholes sprang into action.

You're not making a convincing argument.

As I recall no one wanted Hillary's either and that was before Obama so why is this different?  Mitt Romney's was "state" not national so only that state was involved and it didn't get the coverage the nation wide did.  I'm sure there would have been just a big an outcry against it had he been proposing it as president for the entire US.  He also states parts of it "didn't" work and he would change those parts if he were made president.  Did you see any of the other proposals make it?  Did you see all the other proposals even get as much publicity as this one did.  Were they as large and involved and secretive about what all was in them as this one was?  Were they as expensive to implement? 

[me]

According to The Arizona Republic:

    "Obama foes at one point sang, "Bye Bye Black Sheep," a derogatory reference to the president's skin color, while protesters like Deanne Bartram raised a sign saying, "Impeach the Half-White Muslim!"



Certainly no racism there. 

When they start lumping people into a category they are doing the propaganda thing and spreading untruths so yes, I guess I am.  That group, just like the occupy wall street group, had some bad eggs that split off and want to cause unrest and some imposters who want their 15 min of "glory".  At least Fox was truthful in saying that the occupy wall st people had been infiltrated when things started getting violent and didn't make out like they were all like that.  There are always bad eggs in any group and you know it.  The Tea Party are mostly older, non violent, well educated, retired, and some blue collar workers, who just want smaller government.  Plus, contrary to what they, the main stream media tries to convenience people of, there are several blacks in the organization and they are hit hard by the liberals, who say they aren't racist, as far as being called names and belittled for being in the group.

[Locutus]

When they start lumping people into a category they are doing the propaganda thing and spreading untruths so yes, I guess I am.  That group, just like the occupy wall street group, had some bad eggs that split off and want to cause unrest and some imposters who want their 15 min of "glory".  At least Fox was truthful in saying that the occupy wall st people had been infiltrated when things started getting violent and didn't make out like they were all like that.  There are always bad eggs in any group and you know it.  The Tea Party are mostly older, non violent, well educated, retired, and some blue collar workers, who just want smaller government.  Plus, contrary to what they, the main stream media tries to convenience people of, there are several blacks in the organization and they are hit hard by the liberals, who say they aren't racist, as far as being called names and belittled for being in the group.

So again I ask, where were they when this was going on previously?  Where were they when George W. Bush expanded federal spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ?  Where were they?  Surely this must have concerned them greatly if what you say is true.  But it didn't; did it?  They sat on their couches, watched the news, reality shows, etc., and not once raised their collective voices to what was going on.  It was only after Obama was inaugurated that it began to concern them.

Explain that to me in a logical manner.  You're still not making a convincing argument.

[Locutus]

As I recall no one wanted Hillary's either and that was before Obama so why is this different?  Mitt Romney's was "state" not national so only that state was involved and it didn't get the coverage the nation wide did.  I'm sure there would have been just a big an outcry against it had he been proposing it as president for the entire US.  He also states parts of it "didn't" work and he would change those parts if he were made president.  Did you see any of the other proposals make it?  Did you see all the other proposals even get as much publicity as this one did.  Were they as large and involved and secretive about what all was in them as this one was?  Were they as expensive to implement? 

It's different because it's a plan that REPUBLICANS supported at varying times including Mitt Romney. 

	Obamacare	Romneycare
Individual mandate:	Yes	Yes
Penalty for not buying insurance:	Minimum of $695 a year	Minimum of $1,200 a year
Employer mandate:	Yes for companies with over 50 employees	Yes for companies with 11 or more employees
Penalties for employers not providing insurance:	$750 per employee for companies with over 50 employees	$295 per employee for companies with over 11 employees
Subsidized insurance:	Yes; for anyone earning up to 400% of poverty level	Yes; for anyone earning up to 300% of poverty level. Free for anyone earning up to 150% of poverty level.
Young adults:	Children stay on parents' plan until 26	Children can stay on parents' plan until age 26 or until they have not been a dependent for 2 years – whichever is sooner.
Benefit limits:	Forbidden on both annual and lifetime basis	Not forbidden, although most MA insurers do not place limits
Retroactive rescinding of coverage:	Forbidden	Forbidden
Pre-existing conditions:	Insurers required to cover	Insurers required to cover, but can limit coverage of certain conditions to 6 months
Preventative care:	Free	Co-pay, but must be covered without a deductible
Contraception:	Included under free preventative care	Not mentioned
Effective date:	March 23, 2010, Specific provisions phased in through to 2020	April 12, 2006

[me]

It's different because it's a plan that REPUBLICANS supported at varying times including Mitt Romney. 

Maybe some in the party but not the people since the entire U S wasn't asked to vote on the Romney bill only those in his state and a small state at that.  Some of the conservatives even agreed with Obamacare but not everyone.  That old racist thing is really wearing thin.  People objected to Hillary's HCB too when Bill was president and no one called those who objected woman haters because it was a woman who wanted it passed.  You just don't see it do you?

[Henry Hawk]

It's different because it's a plan that REPUBLICANS supported at varying times including Mitt Romney. 

I don't even know where to start Locutus....

First of all, Romney's plan was for Mass, NOT the entire United States.   If you cannot understand that, I don't know how to explain it.

Second, It is NOT as if the conservatives JUST woke up and decided to get pissed at government spending.  They was plenty vocal during the Bush Administration.  You can go back to some of my posts and I bitched about Bush NOT using his veto pen. 

Third, there IS a point in time when the water boils over........Obama spending a trillion dollar stimulus, that ALL the conservatives KNEW would NOT spur our economy kind of pisses us off.  He promised shovel ready jobs that DID NOT happen.........he promised the unemployment would not go up........it did, and we KNEW it would.

Had nothing to do with skin color, it had EVERYTHING to do with ideology.  How much MORE of this ideology do you need to realize that it is NOT going to make our economy go BOOM!

Now I will sit back and watch the name-calling return.