Welp…

[LumRaiderFan]

You may not like his manner of stating his point but he actually makes a good point. If the tea party could succeed in getting one of their candidates nominated for the presidency, they would be handing the keys to the White House to the Dems for another 4 years. The good news for you is there is almost no chance that will happen because the majority of the Republican Party realizes this.

 

Bottom line is if we don't start implementing the types of fiscal changes that the Tea party promotes, the establishment GOP and/or the run of the mill Democrat will drive this country further into debt.

 

Whether you agree with that or not, it's the truth.

[westend1]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

 

Interesting article on the TEA Party. This stood out to me.

 

 

 

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.

 

Seventy-seven percent describe Mr. Obama as "very liberal," compared to 31 percent of Americans overall. Fifty-six percent say the president's policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.

 

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans.

 

While most Americans (58 percent) say the president understands their needs and problems, just 24 percent of Tea Party supporters agree. Just one in five say the president shares the values of most Americans.

 

Only one percent of Tea Party supporters approve of the job Congress is doing, compared to 17 percent of Americans overall.

 

Twenty-four percent of Tea Party supporters say it is sometimes justified to take violent action against the government. That compares to 16 percent of Americans overall who say violence against the government is sometimes justified.

 

 

CBS

Sixty-three percent say they get the majority of their political and current events news on television from the Fox News Channel, compared to 23 percent of Americans overall. Forty-seven percent say television is their main source of Tea Party information, the top source; another 24 percent say they get Tea Party information from the internet.

[LumRaiderFan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tea-party-supporters-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

 

Interesting article on the TEA Party. This stood out to me.

 

 

 

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine percent said he is dishonest.

 

Seventy-seven percent describe Mr. Obama as "very liberal," compared to 31 percent of Americans overall. Fifty-six percent say the president's policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.

 

Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got a tax cut under the Obama administration. Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised taxes on most Americans.

 

While most Americans (58 percent) say the president understands their needs and problems, just 24 percent of Tea Party supporters agree. Just one in five say the president shares the values of most Americans.

 

Only one percent of Tea Party supporters approve of the job Congress is doing, compared to 17 percent of Americans overall.

 

Twenty-four percent of Tea Party supporters say it is sometimes justified to take violent action against the government. That compares to 16 percent of Americans overall who say violence against the government is sometimes justified.

 

 

CBS

Sixty-three percent say they get the majority of their political and current events news on television from the Fox News Channel, compared to 23 percent of Americans overall. Forty-seven percent say television is their main source of Tea Party information, the top source; another 24 percent say they get Tea Party information from the internet.

 

I'm sure CBS went to great lengths to be fair and balanced when polling Tea party members....kinda makes you wonder why they take so much interest.

[PAMFAM10]

I bet at one point you thought Ted Cruz would not be a Senator from Texas!   TEA party all the way on this one.
BTW -- what do you have against the philosophy of the TEA party?

All I know is Republican better run christie...Hillary wouldn't even need to campaign nor go to debates if Rafael is the right choice.

[stevenash]

Would love to know the sample size of the tea party and of the "Americans in General".  Also noticed that over half of Americans in General felt the President was moving the country towards socialism.  The article certainly was written without bias( :lol:)  I wonder if Dan Rather was involved in this polling effort?

[Big girl]

LMBO

[Big girl]

I do not believe that half of voters believed he is moving the country towards socialism. There cannot be that many stupid people in the USA. Most of them don't even know the definition of socialism

[TxHoops]

Would love to know the sample size of the tea party and of the "Americans in General". Also noticed that over half of Americans in General felt the President was moving the country towards socialism. The article certainly was written without bias( :lol:) I wonder if Dan Rather was involved in this polling effort?

So the part about over half the Americans believing the President is moving the country towards socialism is unbiased?

[stevenash]

 

I do not believe that half of voters believed he is moving the country towards socialism. There cannot be that many stupid people in the USA. Most of them don't even know the definition of socialism

 

Thanks- that simply means you dont believe any part of the poll

[new tobie]

new tobie, do you ever wonder why no one takes your comments seriously?

If I wanted to be popular on this board, I would just bash Obama everyday and I would be a hero!

[stevenash]

 

So the part about over half the Americans believing the President is moving the country towards socialism is unbiased?

As stated earlier, until one knows something about the sample size of both the tea party and "americans in general",and how the questions were posed to those questioned, its pretty tough to draw any conclusions. I mentioned the part about moving toward socialism because it was conveniently omitted in the original post. Would you have any idea why it was omitted? (I am hopeful that my question is not so heavily burdened with ambiguity that you will be unable to respond)

[LumRaiderFan]

If I wanted to be popular on this board, I would just bash Obama everyday and I would be a hero!

 

Try making a case that defends his policies when they are criticized...you are obviously a fan of the President.

 

Show us why you think the things he does makes sense and are good for the country.

[new tobie]

Try making a case that defends his policies when they are criticized...you are obviously a fan of the President.

 

Show us why you think the things he does makes sense and are good for the country.

Do you remember the shape this country was in in 2007?

Because that's the only reason Mr Obama exist as POTUS!

[stevenash]

And what was it that was done specifically by Mr. Obama that improved the condition of the country as compared to 2007?

[westend1]

 

As stated earlier, until one knows something about the sample size of both the tea party and "americans in general",and how the questions were posed to those questioned, its pretty tough to draw any conclusions. I mentioned the part about moving toward socialism because it was conveniently omitted in the original post. Would you have any idea why it was omitted? (I am hopeful that my question is not so heavily burdened with ambiguity that you will be unable to respond)

Did you need the whole article posted?  I provided a link.    .

[stevenash]

Didn't need the whole article posted.  But thought if you were going to present the results of a poll, all of the results rather than just some of them should be highlighted.  Don't you agree?

[TxHoops]

As stated earlier, until one knows something about the sample size of both the tea party and "americans in general",and how the questions were posed to those questioned, its pretty tough to draw any conclusions. I mentioned the part about moving toward socialism because it was conveniently omitted in the original post. Would you have any idea why it was omitted? (I am hopeful that my question is not so heavily burdened with ambiguity that you will be unable to respond)

Why don't you ask the person who posted it rather than someone who doesn't even know them? Would you agree that is the best source of information for that query? Would you agree you do a lot of ASS.Uming?

[stevenash]

I guess my question was too ambiguous and I am not inclined to play the "it depends on what is is" game.  I simply asked you if you had any idea.  I believe an acceptable response would be either " no, I have no idea or yes, I have a thought on this".  The post in question was a response to a question you posed to me.  I gave you my reasoning and there is absolutely, unequivocally no" Assuming" in my response.  The last time I checked, I thought it was legal for me to ask questions of anyone, particularly on a message board where questions and answers are exchanged on a regular basis.  As you said earlier, if I am wrong about this, I am willing and eager to learn.

[TxHoops]

I guess my question was too ambiguous and I am not inclined to play the "it depends on what is is" game. I simply asked you if you had any idea. I believe an acceptable response would be either " no, I have no idea or yes, I have a thought on this". The post in question was a response to a question you posed to me. I gave you my reasoning and there is absolutely, unequivocally no" Assuming" in my response. The last time I checked, I thought it was legal for me to ask questions of anyone, particularly on a message board where questions and answers are exchanged on a regular basis. As you said earlier, if I am wrong about this, I am willing and eager to learn.

It's not an ambiguous argument. It's a "I won't presume to know what someone's motive was, if any, in a non-action." That's why I suggested you ask them. I don't know westend, never met westend, and I certainly don't think it's my place to jump inside his or her head and tell you whether the data was not mentioned intentionally. For their to be motivation, intent must first be established. Again, the best source for the question would be westend. Better?

(Footnote: it is, of course, perfectly within your right to ask questions on a message board so long as they are not violative of the board's rules. And I have never seen you ask a question or post which would be. It is also acceptable for a person not to answer a question for any reason they choose. Although they do not have to, I do generally give you a reason if I do not answer, and it's never because I don't like the answer. Now you can resume your Macaulay Culkin style questioning ala "Uncle Buck.")

[stevenash]

I too, do not know Westend and have never met him.  Hence we are quite similar in that respect.  I do have a pretty good idea where he stands politically and, considering your activity on this board, it would be hard for me to believe you are unaware of his political predilections even though that is the case you are trying to build.  I  just don't see the need for the word/semantic games as you are the only person here who has problems with me regarding ambiguity and parliamentary procedures.  I think I will just continue with my "less than enlightened" methods of communication as nobody else seems to be troubled by it.  One more tiny item.  While the bulk of my education is from the school of hard knocks and not from a prestigious university, I can still tell you that your use of the word THEIR ( as in "for their to be motivation") ought to be spelled t h e r e.

[TxHoops]

I too, do not know Westend and have never met him. Hence we are quite similar in that respect. I do have a pretty good idea where he stands politically and, considering your activity on this board, it would be hard for me to believe you are unaware of his political predilections even though that is the case you are trying to build. I just don't see the need for the word/semantic games as you are the only person here who has problems with me regarding ambiguity and parliamentary procedures. I think I will just continue with my "less than enlightened" methods of communication as nobody else seems to be troubled by it. One more tiny item. While the bulk of my education is from the school of hard knocks and not from a prestigious university, I can still tell you that your use of the word THEIR ( as in "for their to be motivation") ought to be spelled t h e r e.

When someone resorts to a spelling argument, you know you have them. Sorry I misspelled a word in one of my posts. If I spent my time correcting spelling, grammatical errors, etc. on this board (including some of yours), I would likely have time for nothing else in my life. But congratulations on your find!

[stevenash]

Thank you.  I thought you would be pleased with that small effort because you have made it very clear that we need to be more precise and less ambiguous on this message board.  I agree with you when you say that "when someone resorts to a spelling argument, you know you have them".  But I thought we both knew that you have had the upper hand for some time?  I don't mind that because I have this sense that my opinions, values, and communicative abilities have as much value as those of anyone else who spends time here.  Resultantly, I will just continue with my outmoded methods because, until now, nobody has voiced serious objection to them..

[TxHoops]

Let's be clear about something because I can see you believe my motives are something they are not. I have been trained to be sure of what is being asked before answering a question. So if someone asks something that could have more than one meaning, you ask for clarification. Ambiguous terms by definition could have a multitude of meanings. Second, I have been taught to not make presumptions about what someone else is thinking or at least not to articulate them without confirmation from that person. They are the best source for that information and I really think assumptions/presumptions are a slippery slope. So it's not an attack on your interrogatorive skills, which I see you practice ferverantly on this board. It's simply habit from years of practice.

[stevenash]

I understand and appreciate that.  I have to conduct myself in my work in a particular manner and have to be very cautious about making any potentially misleading or inflammatory remarks.  I too must be precise and accurate when it comes to calculating returns, volatility, etc and if I am not, somebody will likely hire one of your brethren to pursue me.  But this is just a message board.  I am thinking that it is sort of like a couple of guys sitting at a bar talking about all sorts of things.  I don't feel the need to maintain that precise business conduct when I am having a conversation that really doesn't have a serious impact on anyone.

 

I am guilty of the following assumptions/conclusions.  The current administration is very inept when it comes to economics.  The current administration  is frequently disingenuous.  The President , although very bright and well educated, is sorely lacking in leadership abilities.  The main priority of this President is to advance his social agenda regardless of the cost.

[TxHoops]

I understand and appreciate that. I have to conduct myself in my work in a particular manner and have to be very cautious about making any potentially misleading or inflammatory remarks. I too must be precise and accurate when it comes to calculating returns, volatility, etc and if I am not, somebody will likely hire one of your brethren to pursue me. But this is just a message board. I am thinking that it is sort of like a couple of guys sitting at a bar talking about all sorts of things. I don't feel the need to maintain that precise business conduct when I am having a conversation that really doesn't have a serious impact on anyone.

Of course this is a less formal and less important setting. I don't disagree. However, I was just pointing out I am a creature of habit and my brain is wired a particular way.