Good for you just make sure your 3 corner hat doesn't fit to tight

Just be careful you don't sit on it... :lol:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2010/04/07/cnn-producer-medias-tea-party-stereotypes-dont-tell-whole-story

 

"But here's what you don't often see in the coverage of Tea Party rallies: Patriotic signs professing a love for country; mothers and fathers with their children; African-Americans proudly participating; and senior citizens bopping to a hip-hop rapper."

 

But it has been 'proven' that the Tea Party is racist....

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/27/race-obsessed-professor-helps-media-prove-tea-partiers-are-racist

 

"While it's clear that the Tea Party in one sense about limited government, it's also clear from the data that people who want limited government don't want certain services for certain kinds of people. Those services include health care," said Christopher Parker, the assistant professor of political science at the UW who directed the survey.

 

See the sleight of hand there? If someone opposes government-funded "services" such as healthcare, it's obviously because they don't want "certain people" to receive those services.

 

A view from a black conservative.

 

http://www.bookerrising.net/2010/01/black-conservatives-take-lead-role-in.html

 

The Alinsky tactics are now well known. Its getting old.

Fortunately there is no shortage of people under 35 who identify themselves as liberals, or with liberal causes, only to later declare themselves as conservative (generally after they are more fully vested in their careers and raising children and trying to save for college and retirement while paying taxes out the backside only to realize that maybe all those causes that seemed so warm and fuzzy just a decade or two ago aren't as important as balancing the checkbook and putting affordable fuel in the family car.)

 

Where do you think all those aging conservatives came from? Many were wearing paisley tunics, rose-colored glasses, listening to Peter, Paul & Mary and voting for George McGovern in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

I think your reasoning is flawed. The older I get and watch my children interact with others (my handsome blonde haired green eyed lily white boy and my beautiful black haired brown eyed latino daughter) the more I long for a more peaceful world where people are free to love and marry whomever they wish, where the poor in the country are not only taken care of, but the institutions and policies that help foster poverty are demolished, the more liberal I become.

 

The more I understand about the the Love of Christ the more I want our world to embrace the peace embodied in his life and teachings, the more liberal I become.

 

There were tons of conservatives in the 60s and 70s (the "man" or the "establishment") and those people haven't died out. I truly believe that with wisdom comes understanding and as people get older they are more liberal than they appear to be. George Steinbrenner is a fine example.

And spending is only a part of it. What has everybody that I'm around in an uproar is the government takeover of as many things as they can. Healthcare, banks, auto industry along with things like cap & trade

Some of that was in reaction to the economic mess that this administration inherited. I'm not saying the Obama administration necessarily had the best response to all of them, but that was the driving force behind the moves that were made.

Some of that was in reaction to the economic mess that this administration inherited. I'm not saying the Obama administration necessarily had the best response to all of them, but that was the driving force behind the moves that were made.

 

I'd say it's more the excuse they used.

I understand the anguish and concern over spending and its effects on the deficit and national debt, but it's the timing of the recent "outrage" that speaks volumes ... where was this movement when the Bush administration and the Republican-dominated Congress were spending like drunken sailors a few years ago?

 

Clearly, in my mind, the Tea Party is an anti-Obama movement, and that's fine. But there are unseemly elements within its ranks, and those naturally draw a lot of attention.

The beginnings of this movement was 2007 when, guess who?, was in office. It didn't grow overnight, it took a little time and is continuing to grow.

The beginnings of this movement was 2007 when, guess who?, was in office. It didn't grow overnight, it took a little time and is continuing to grow.

Debatable ... and cetrtainly it was Obama's election that lit the spark.

 

Even if your point is valid, most of the early complaints were voiced about the Democratic-controlled Congress ... it was like the last decade or more before that was conveniently forgotten.

Debatable ... and cetrtainly it was Obama's election that lit the spark.

 

Even if your point is valid, most of the early complaints were voiced about the Democratic-controlled Congress ... it was like the last decade or more before that was conveniently forgotten.

Not really all that debatable, it really did begin hard core in 2007. It wasn't just the Dem Congress, Bush was to blame as well. I blame him for his share, as does the majority of conservatives I know. The Dems are notorious for out of control spending, so obviously people point it out. Don't bring Clinton into this, because I'll bring the Republican controlled Congress into it. :lol:

 

The Obama election didn't spark it, but it sure did make it grow and it's easy to see why with the things he stated he wanted while campaigning. He certainly got my attention so I can see why people started joining the Tea Party.