Well, you're free to speculate, but I'm afraid that's all it is because you haven't given me anything I can process analytically, though I don't suppose you'd say there wasn't anything to get upset about over Bush's 8 years either that was worth protesting, would you?
Can't say that I'm a member of the Tea Party (I'm a bit too cynical on the whole process independent of party to be a supporter of anyone until they demonstrate something in action first), but I recall being pretty damned upset when Bush AND Obama entered into federal bail-outs of big business, and I'd been critical of Bush long before that. It's not an uncommon phenomenon as you might think. They were only the most overt and attention-getting examples of what has been happening mostly under the radar and in more discreet ways by both parties for time-out-of-mind.
I couldn't give two turds about whether Obama bowed or not, where he was born in the States or not (though I have no reason to doubt he was born Stateside), and all of the other stuff I have to roll my eyes at because theyr'e so damn stupid to hear. I've had conversations with actual tea party members who agree with me on these things to boot, and have no love for Republicans as a party either. So pardon me, because as weak as anecdotal evidence is, I'll take it over speculation as being just slightly more reliable, with the understanding that reality is slightly more nuanced than the vision of the world you're presenting me with.
In short: Argue Better
"And yes. A lot of the Tea Party stuff WOULD go away without the Koch brothers, because they're funding a significant percentage of it."
Solid, well researched numbers (including percentage of money coming in outside of theirs, including personal funds of those individuals like those I mentioned to their local groups), or its just more speculation. Give me something that has real backing. You're the one making positive claims.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Re: FTFY
Date: 24/2/11 06:29 (UTC)Can't say that I'm a member of the Tea Party (I'm a bit too cynical on the whole process independent of party to be a supporter of anyone until they demonstrate something in action first), but I recall being pretty damned upset when Bush AND Obama entered into federal bail-outs of big business, and I'd been critical of Bush long before that. It's not an uncommon phenomenon as you might think. They were only the most overt and attention-getting examples of what has been happening mostly under the radar and in more discreet ways by both parties for time-out-of-mind.
I couldn't give two turds about whether Obama bowed or not, where he was born in the States or not (though I have no reason to doubt he was born Stateside), and all of the other stuff I have to roll my eyes at because theyr'e so damn stupid to hear. I've had conversations with actual tea party members who agree with me on these things to boot, and have no love for Republicans as a party either. So pardon me, because as weak as anecdotal evidence is, I'll take it over speculation as being just slightly more reliable, with the understanding that reality is slightly more nuanced than the vision of the world you're presenting me with.
In short: Argue Better
"And yes. A lot of the Tea Party stuff WOULD go away without the Koch brothers, because they're funding a significant percentage of it."
Solid, well researched numbers (including percentage of money coming in outside of theirs, including personal funds of those individuals like those I mentioned to their local groups), or its just more speculation. Give me something that has real backing. You're the one making positive claims.