According to a new study, the Tea Party is based in anti-minority attitudes. Say it ain't so! :o
LINK (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X14001793)
Highlights of the study include:
• Racial resentment and political conservatism are both key predictors of Tea Party Movement (TPM) membership.
• TPM members have even higher levels of racial resentment than very conservative non-TPM members.
• Conservatives who evinced greater levels of racial resentment were substantially more likely to claim TPM membership than were other conservatives.
• Tea Party; Racial Resentment; Social Movements; Right-Wing.
What kind of amazes me is that the Tea Party still has any legs to stand on. According to InfoPlease, the TPM started out as a revolt against Obama's plan for keeping the economy going despite the recession that was already in full swing.
QuoteNew Political Movement Quickly Finds Loyal Following
by Beth Rowen
Tea Party Protest
One of several Tea Party protests
Since its inception in February 2009, the Tea Party movement—with the help of viral videos and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter—found a large and loyal following that quickly gained traction and supporters. However, the movement's electoral success in 2010 did not carry over to the 2012 midterm elections. Nevertheless, the Tea Party remained an influential force within the Republican Party, evidenced by its sway over House Republicans during the budget showdown in 2013 that resulted in a partial government shutdown on Oct. 1, 2013.
A Televised Birth of a Movement
CNBC's Rick Santelli is widely credited with launching the grassroots movement. While standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, he unleashed what can only be called a rant against the Obama Administration's proposal to help homeowners facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages.
"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.
Santelli, however, can't claim credit as the sole mastermind of the movement. Prior to his appearance in Chicago, Keli Carender, a Seattle at-home mother also known as Liberty Belle, had been using her blog to get the word out about the populist "Porkulus Protest" she was organizing against President Barack Obama's proposed $750 billion stimulus package. About 100 people showed up for her event in mid-February. Similar events inspired by both Santelli and Carender, followed in quick succession in Denver; Mesa, Ariz.; Tampa, Fla.; and other cities. Tea Party organizers claim that the first nationwide Tea Party protest took place on February 27, 2009, with coordinated events occurring in more than 40 cities.
Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html#ixzz3HpuwH8Qz
And yet, under those two policies, and many others that Obama managed to squeak by the House, we're doing better than any other nation other than Germany.
"The U.S. economy is regaining traction as the year winds down, boosted by an accelerating business sector and a modest pickup among consumers.
Growth appears poised to post a healthy performance of more than 3% in the current quarter, according to several major forecasters, following a choppy first half of the year.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced in the U.S., grew at an annual rate of 4.6% in the second quarter, the Commerce Department said Friday in its third estimate of the gauge. That replaced the agency's previous 4.2% reading and equaled the strongest quarter of the five-year-old recovery, matching the final three months of 2011.
The latest reading, along with other recent economic reports, make the first quarter's 2.1% contraction look increasingly like a weather-driven anomaly. Growth has exceeded 3.5% for three of the past four quarters. If expansion greater than 3% materializes for the third quarter, that would mark the strongest stretch of economic growth since 2004 to 2005, the height of the last decade's expansion.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-economy-grew-at-4-6-rate-in-second-quarter-1411734858 (http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-economy-grew-at-4-6-rate-in-second-quarter-1411734858)"
The issue now appears to be one of slower global growth and no increase in pay for the average worker. The first, we have minimal control over, and the second is being held up by the GOP's stance on the minimum wage and their ever-beloved "Trickle Down Economics".
Still 25% of GOPers consider themselves Tea Partiers, and proudly so. I don't understand how or why, other than the aforementioned racial resentment. And the question is, will that change once Obama is out of the White House? Or will it simply shift to being female resentment if Hillary wins?
Murdoch seems to be taking the WSJ leftward.
Not sure I see the connection between mortgage relief and macro growth Meri.
Also not sure how you can attribute sustained economic growth 6 years (?) after the fact to Obamastimulus.
And on the flip side you have to factor in a doubling of nominal debt. Stimulus is not free.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 12:36:46 PM
Also not sure how you can attribute sustained economic growth 6 years (?) after the fact to Obamastimulus.
Really? You are not sure how you can attribute government stimulus to economic growth when people have been doing that very thing for almost 100 years?
Now whether that is accurate or not is something else. But this is not some radical new idea.
Did you read my post that you quoted?
Tea Party is just the Klan in street clothes. Been telling you people that for years.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2014, 03:57:20 PM
Tea Party is just the Klan in street clothes. Been telling you people that for years.
Horse......shit
Quote from: 11B4V on November 01, 2014, 04:34:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2014, 03:57:20 PM
Tea Party is just the Klan in street clothes. Been telling you people that for years.
Horse......shit
Indeed one of their primary functions.
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2014, 12:10:22 PM
According to InfoPlease, the TPM started out as a revolt against Obama's plan for keeping the economy going despite the recession that was already in full swing.
That's clearly not accurate, as the movement started during the late stages of the Bush administration as a protest against the government bailing out some of the big banks.
Quote from: 11B4V on November 01, 2014, 04:34:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 01, 2014, 03:57:20 PM
Tea Party is just the Klan in street clothes. Been telling you people that for years.
Horse......shit
Care to tell us why? The Tea Party seem to me to be the latest incarnation of right wing populist and nativist groups. The Klan of the 1920's is another form. The Klan of the 1860's and '70's is different in that it was essentially an insurgent movement against the United States.
Quote from: dps on November 01, 2014, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2014, 12:10:22 PM
According to InfoPlease, the TPM started out as a revolt against Obama's plan for keeping the economy going despite the recession that was already in full swing.
That's clearly not accurate, as the movement started during the late stages of the Bush administration as a protest against the government bailing out some of the big banks.
Except it didn't. First Tea Party protest was after Obama was President.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
Care to tell us why? The Tea Party seem to me to be the latest incarnation of right wing populist and nativist groups. The Klan of the 1920's is another form. The Klan of the 1860's and '70's is different in that it was essentially an insurgent movement against the United States.
I don't think the Tea Party has quite matched the Klan in terms of lynchings yet.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 07:10:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
Care to tell us why? The Tea Party seem to me to be the latest incarnation of right wing populist and nativist groups. The Klan of the 1920's is another form. The Klan of the 1860's and '70's is different in that it was essentially an insurgent movement against the United States.
I don't think the Tea Party has quite matched the Klan in terms of lynchings yet.
True, but this is more because lynching has fallen out of favor and is punished rather then a change in impulse. The Klan and the older Know Nothings, and the newer Militia movement reflect a reoccurring tendency in Right wing populism. Today people go on about Muslims and how they their religion is incompatible with Democracy and that there is something fundamentally wrong with their religion that makes them a threat. Their grandfathers said the same thing about Jews and Catholics.
I could as easily say that social democrats and progressive Democrats would be stringing up kulaks except for the fear of punishment. It helps to have some proof to support a claim that two groups are identical.
The proof is in the study. The one quoted in the first post of this thread.
Quote from: Zoupa on November 01, 2014, 09:25:37 PM
The proof is in the study. The one quoted in the first post of this thread.
The study, which is unavailable except for a fee, purports to demonstrate a different thesis than the one argued by Raz.
That Chiricos guy seems interesting.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 07:32:06 PM
I could as easily say that social democrats and progressive Democrats would be stringing up kulaks except for the fear of punishment.
You could.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 07:32:06 PM
I could as easily say that social democrats and progressive Democrats would be stringing up kulaks except for the fear of punishment. It helps to have some proof to support a claim that two groups are identical.
I didn't say they were identical. I'm saying they are manifestations of the same animus.
Beast butt? :huh:
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 01:18:37 AM
I didn't say they were identical. I'm saying they are manifestations of the same animus.
You're right.
However, Seedy did say they're identical. To which Before replied horse shit, then you challenged him. Which leads to the inference that you agree with Seedy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 07:10:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
Care to tell us why? The Tea Party seem to me to be the latest incarnation of right wing populist and nativist groups. The Klan of the 1920's is another form. The Klan of the 1860's and '70's is different in that it was essentially an insurgent movement against the United States.
I don't think the Tea Party has quite matched the Klan in terms of lynchings yet.
This is like saying the modern day nazis have nothing to do with 1940s' nazis because they havent sent anyone to deathcamps. You can do better than that.
Clearly you didn't spend your sabbatical thumbing through Analogies for Dummies.
Quote from: Martinus on November 02, 2014, 04:18:10 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 01, 2014, 07:10:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
Care to tell us why? The Tea Party seem to me to be the latest incarnation of right wing populist and nativist groups. The Klan of the 1920's is another form. The Klan of the 1860's and '70's is different in that it was essentially an insurgent movement against the United States.
I don't think the Tea Party has quite matched the Klan in terms of lynchings yet.
This is like saying the modern day nazis have nothing to do with 1940s' nazis because they havent sent anyone to deathcamps. You can do better than that.
No offense Mart, but today's Nazis got nothing on 1940s Nazis. To even suggest that they do is quite insulting.
The Tea Party now is nothing but the worst of populist, low brow, anti-intellectual reactionary stupid party. Do they cater to racists and bigots? Of course they do - they are a model of the very worst in political lowest common denominator populism.
But that isn't what they are or were based on, it isn't what they started from. Which is really very sad. They've been completely and thoroughly co-opted by the very forces they were formed to fight.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:30:47 AM
The Tea Party now is nothing but the worst of populist, low brow, anti-intellectual reactionary stupid party. Do they cater to racists and bigots? Of course they do - they are a model of the very worst in political lowest common denominator populism.
But that isn't what they are or were based on, it isn't what they started from. Which is really very sad. They've been completely and thoroughly co-opted by the very forces they were formed to fight.
A lot of it probably doesn't have to do with co-opting. There are a lot of similarities with occupy wall street on the left. You start with relatively broad based mass protests on the right / left, and after a few days or weeks the less engaged who tend to be more moderate drift away. At the same time the opposition caricatures those that are left, which causes more moderates to leave because they don't want to be associated with anything radical. In time what you have left are the goofballs.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:30:47 AM
The Tea Party now is nothing but the worst of populist, low brow, anti-intellectual reactionary stupid party. Do they cater to racists and bigots? Of course they do - they are a model of the very worst in political lowest common denominator populism.
But that isn't what they are or were based on, it isn't what they started from. Which is really very sad. They've been completely and thoroughly co-opted by the very forces they were formed to fight.
They never would've gotten beyond the occasional wingnut rally and a really shitty mailing list if their worst political nightmares--a black Muslim from Kenya and Hillary Clinton--weren't running for President.
Quote from: dps on November 01, 2014, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2014, 12:10:22 PM
According to InfoPlease, the TPM started out as a revolt against Obama's plan for keeping the economy going despite the recession that was already in full swing.
That's clearly not accurate, as the movement started during the late stages of the Bush administration as a protest against the government bailing out some of the big banks.
The term "Tea Party" was coined in February 2009.... less than a month after Obama was inaugurated.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:30:47 AM
They've been completely and thoroughly co-opted by the very forces they were formed to fight.
They were formed to fight bigots and racists? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 02, 2014, 04:14:19 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 01:18:37 AM
I didn't say they were identical. I'm saying they are manifestations of the same animus.
You're right.
However, Seedy did say they're identical. To which Before replied horse shit, then you challenged him. Which leads to the inference that you agree with Seedy.
That wasn't how I understood Seedy's statement, but I can understand your interpretation. When we talk about the Klan I tend to think of the Klan of the 1920's which had millions of member most of whom were not violent.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 12:54:51 PM
That wasn't how I understood Seedy's statement, but I can understand your interpretation. When we talk about the Klan I tend to think of the Klan of the 1920's which had millions of member most of whom were not violent.
The Klan of the 1920s may have had lots of members that were individually law abiding and non violent, but probably not collectively. There were lots of lynchings in the time period.
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2014, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:30:47 AM
They've been completely and thoroughly co-opted by the very forces they were formed to fight.
They were formed to fight bigots and racists? :unsure:
No, the people who co-opted them are not the people who make up the bulk of the vocal membership.
They were co-opted by the Koch's and "No government is better than Obama government" radicals. They appeal to the bigots and dumbshits because it works to get them all foaming at the mouth and demanding even more stupid and right wing morons.
This really is the exactly modern equivalent of the Know Nothing party. Sarah Palin is their perfect model politician. Ignorant and proud of it.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 02, 2014, 12:57:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 12:54:51 PM
That wasn't how I understood Seedy's statement, but I can understand your interpretation. When we talk about the Klan I tend to think of the Klan of the 1920's which had millions of member most of whom were not violent.
The Klan of the 1920s may have had lots of members that were individually law abiding and non violent, but probably not collectively. There were lots of lynchings in the time period.
There were lynchings yes, but the practice was in decline from the beginning of the 20th century. There would be spikes, typically associated with economic hardship or panics about communists and such. At it's height the Klan had something like 6 million members, it's unlikely they were all or even most of them were killers. I think this is because the public tolerance for lynching was declining so they couldn't get away with it as often. Oddly they didn't concern themselves with blacks much. Blacks had been pretty much suppressed. In fact Marcus Garvey, a major black leader, actually spoke in front of a group of Klansmen. Mostly they were concerned about the influx of immigrants with alien religions and political ideas.
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 01:33:44 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 02, 2014, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 02, 2014, 09:30:47 AM
They've been completely and thoroughly co-opted by the very forces they were formed to fight.
They were formed to fight bigots and racists? :unsure:
No, the people who co-opted them are not the people who make up the bulk of the vocal membership.
They were co-opted by the Koch's and "No government is better than Obama government" radicals. They appeal to the bigots and dumbshits because it works to get them all foaming at the mouth and demanding even more stupid and right wing morons.
This really is the exactly modern equivalent of the Know Nothing party. Sarah Palin is their perfect model politician. Ignorant and proud of it.
I am not sure it is all that easy to define who "they" are at any point in the Tea Party movement. All we really have to go by are the extreme politicians and positions "they" are said to support.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 03:53:32 PM
In fact Marcus Garvey, a major black leader, actually spoke in front of a group of Klansmen.
Black Nationalists who favored segregation, like Nation of Islam types, typically got along pretty well with the Klan.
The Tea Party was never co-opted. What happened was that some people wanted it to be something that it wasn't, and when they realized that it wasn't what they hoped, they claimed it somehow got hijacked.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 04:36:25 PM
The Tea Party was never co-opted. What happened was that some people wanted it to be something that it wasn't, and when they realized that it wasn't what they hoped, they claimed it somehow got hijacked.
More like it was never really anything.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 04:36:25 PM
The Tea Party was never co-opted. What happened was that some people wanted it to be something that it wasn't, and when they realized that it wasn't what they hoped, they claimed it somehow got hijacked.
This was me. I was excited for a second that it was this anti-establishment thing and got all disillusioned it had been hijacked by the same old stale reactionary right wing people from...eh...I guess hour #2 of the first protest.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 02, 2014, 04:41:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 02, 2014, 04:36:25 PM
The Tea Party was never co-opted. What happened was that some people wanted it to be something that it wasn't, and when they realized that it wasn't what they hoped, they claimed it somehow got hijacked.
More like it was never really anything.
It was a vehicle to express dissatisfaction that Obama won the election. Beyond that it was it was just hot air.
Hot air that has caused a lot of issues with the current government.
I think people overestimate the importance tbh. A few mainstreamers got primaried, but the GOP never came close to being controlled by these people.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2014, 08:26:00 PM
I think people overestimate the importance tbh. A few mainstreamers got primaried, but the GOP never came close to being controlled by these people.
Wait until this time tomorrow, when a lot of committee gavels change hands in the Senate.
Rand. :wub:
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 03, 2014, 08:37:49 PM
Rand. :wub:
Don't get too excited. If it were going to happen in the Senate, it would have happened in the House by now. Don't look at who makes the news, look at who writes the checks.
Is McConnell going to lose?
I posted that for Seedy's benefit.
Asshole.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2014, 08:42:35 PM
Is McConnell going to lose?
Doubtful, but Ted Cruz was born for this moment.
Rand has wonderful hair.
I had wonderful hair. But now I'll never be a crackpot with an easy do-nothing job. Well, not one that pays well.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 03, 2014, 08:42:35 PM
Is McConnell going to lose?
CNN had him as likely to win. And the chick he's running against looked pretty strung out.
Never send a woman to do a man's job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 03, 2014, 09:34:23 PM
CNN had him as likely to win. And the chick he's running against looked pretty strung out.
She's strange looking. :hmm:
Anyway I'll be voting for my boy Mitch tomorrow. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2014, 09:48:37 PM
Anyway I'll be voting for my boy Mitch tomorrow. :cool:
:punk: I will miss Grimey's commercials, though. MITCH THATS NOT HOW YEW HOLD A GUN
John McCain taking over Armed Services isn't a big deal...but Jim Imhof taking over Environment and Public Works? That's a bigger oh noes than all the Jesus-riding-dinosaurs nuts taking over the House Committee on Science. :bleeding:
Hmm, I like it. Inhofe could be the next lightning rod for the Languish Left.
Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2014, 10:05:36 PM
Hmm, I like it. Inhofe could be the next lightning rod for the Languish Left.
That nasty, persistent cough your kid will develop? Remember who to thank.
Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2014, 09:58:53 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2014, 09:48:37 PM
Anyway I'll be voting for my boy Mitch tomorrow. :cool:
:punk: I will miss Grimey's commercials, though. MITCH THATS NOT HOW YEW HOLD A GUN
ha, I've been calling her Grimey too. :lol:
Quote from: merithyn on November 02, 2014, 10:48:42 AM
Quote from: dps on November 01, 2014, 06:33:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 01, 2014, 12:10:22 PM
According to InfoPlease, the TPM started out as a revolt against Obama's plan for keeping the economy going despite the recession that was already in full swing.
That's clearly not accurate, as the movement started during the late stages of the Bush administration as a protest against the government bailing out some of the big banks.
The term "Tea Party" was coined in February 2009.... less than a month after Obama was inaugurated.
Yes, that's accurate AFAIK--the term itself wasn't used until after President Obama was inaugurated, but the movement had started some months before, and was triggered by policies adopted by the Bush administration, not by policies Barack Obama planned to introduce.
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2014, 10:41:36 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 03, 2014, 09:58:53 PM
Quote from: Caliga on November 03, 2014, 09:48:37 PM
Anyway I'll be voting for my boy Mitch tomorrow. :cool:
:punk: I will miss Grimey's commercials, though. MITCH THATS NOT HOW YEW HOLD A GUN
ha, I've been calling her Grimey too. :lol:
I'd hit it.
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2014, 10:58:33 PM
Yes, that's accurate AFAIK--the term itself wasn't used until after President Obama was inaugurated, but the movement had started some months before, and was triggered by policies adopted by the Bush administration, not by policies Barack Obama planned to introduce.
I'm actually somewhat certain that Obama helped amplify the movement on purpose. It's genius. The right gave him a gift and he ran with it by making them super pissed at him. Split the GOP all up. Perfect.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 03, 2014, 11:03:51 PM
I'd hit it.
Ugh no. There's something wrong with her face that makes her look mannish. I think it's a bit asymmetrical too. :)
She does look like she knows her way around the softball field.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2014, 09:03:27 PM
I had wonderful hair. But now I'll never be a crackpot with an easy do-nothing job. Well, not one that pays well.
You should run for office. You're white, male, young, attractive, and have a law degree. No one will care what you stand for, so long as you speak clearly and point fingers.
Quote from: merithyn on November 04, 2014, 11:24:49 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 03, 2014, 09:03:27 PM
I had wonderful hair. But now I'll never be a crackpot with an easy do-nothing job. Well, not one that pays well.
You should run for office. You're white, male, young, attractive, and have a law degree. No one will care what you stand for, so long as you speak clearly and point fingers.
Start local. Run for school board, Ide.
The "more death penalty" and "fuck the humanities" things may even play well in South Carolina. Not sure about the "state ownership of everything" thing, though.
South Carolinians are OK with getting government money so long as they don't have to pay taxes for it. Ideologue can take that line no problem, he can keep the part about raising the money by exterminating the kulaks in the fine print.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 04, 2014, 12:46:55 PM
South Carolinians are OK with getting government money so long as they don't have to pay taxes for it. Ideologue can take that line no problem, he can keep the part about raising the money by exterminating the kulaks in the fine print.
Yeah, maybe some sort of "universal surveillance and repression of UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS to fund TAX BREAKS and reasonable services for GOOD HONEST SOUTH CAROLINIANS, and the DEATH PENALTY for those who mess with GOOD HONEST SOUTH CAROLINIANS" and leave the fact that good honest South Carolinians and Undesirable Elements are both defined somewhat idiosyncratically.
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2014, 10:58:33 PM
...the movement had started some months before, and was triggered by policies adopted by the Bush administration, not by policies Barack Obama planned to introduce.
Yep, this was the genesis of the movement:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/bailout_protests/?postversion=2008092517 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/bailout_protests/?postversion=2008092517)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/anti-bailout-sentiment-builds-online/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/anti-bailout-sentiment-builds-online/)
:o But InfoPlease said...
Quote from: citizen k on November 04, 2014, 02:49:15 PM
Quote from: dps on November 03, 2014, 10:58:33 PM
...the movement had started some months before, and was triggered by policies adopted by the Bush administration, not by policies Barack Obama planned to introduce.
Yep, this was the genesis of the movement:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/bailout_protests/?postversion=2008092517 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news/economy/bailout_protests/?postversion=2008092517)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/anti-bailout-sentiment-builds-online/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/09/24/anti-bailout-sentiment-builds-online/)
So you are saying that ACORN and Democracy for America are part of the origins of the Tea party? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on November 04, 2014, 07:22:33 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 03, 2014, 11:03:51 PM
I'd hit it.
Ugh no. There's something wrong with her face that makes her look mannish. I think it's a bit asymmetrical too. :)
I'm not sure that her face is manish, exactly, but there certainly is something wrong with it. To start with, she looks about 15 years older than her actual age.
More NegroPlease, please.
Whoa, so much hatred against the tp.
What about all the minorities in the tp?
Quite a few.
Last time I checked the tp was a constitutional movement.
Too much religion in that lot, though.
Quote from: Ender on November 06, 2014, 06:33:26 AM
Whoa, so much hatred against the tp.
What about all the minorities in the tp?
Quite a few.
Last time I checked the tp was a constitutional movement.
Too much religion in that lot, though.
You need more thorough checking.
Last time I checked, the tp is soft paper typically applied to the rear end.
Last time I checked money can buy you candy, a mansion with a indoor pool & endless supplies of jello. Money cant buy happiness?
I don't care too much for money; money can't buy me love.
The best things in life are free, but you can leave them to the birds and bees. Now give me money. That's what I want.
Same band. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.meme.am%2Finstances%2F37410031.jpg&hash=05507ab04cd6e1a779a664650e493b40805fd870)
Siege, are you trying to sell us a bill of goods? :yeahright:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 06, 2014, 08:08:38 AM
I don't care too much for money; money can't buy me love.
The best things in life are free, but you can leave them to the birds and bees. Now give me money. That's what I want.
Same band. :lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.memehumor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fmoney-cant-buy-happiness.jpg&hash=271ca8e87449e77d616eaefe961a285259351c32)
(https://utstatic.a.cdnify.io/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/tumblr_l1gaktsdOC1qad3aqo1_1280-840x550.jpg)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2WQ7iH1UCpc%2FT2oLnKQtYoI%2FAAAAAAAAGEk%2Fy9_CTW0LR5o%2Fs1600%2Fmoney-cant-buy-happiness.jpg&hash=4571a28911a0cdfd31367e39f25dc6bbc8560340)