HOME | DD
CaniLupine β Tea Party? Now?
Published: 2009-08-01 01:30:28 +0000 UTC; Views: 2082; Favourites: 23; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
A bumper sticker for all those "Tea Party" people who are screaming at Obama's stimulus package, but stayed silent while Bush pushed us from a record budget surplus to a record budget deficit...Hypocrites.
NOTE: THIS STICKER WAS MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF OBAMA'S TERM, BEFORE "OBAMACARE" EXISTED.
Related content
Comments: 93
If you listened to any conservative voices other than the hacks at foxnews you would know conservatives were speaking out against Bush....
π: 0 β©: 0
They were right behind him patting him on the back saying "Good job, Mr. President". X)
π: 1 β©: 1
The TEA party is not made for Obama. It was here against Obama because when it was formed, they are a conservative group and Obama is a Liberal. It is true Bush spent alot... but that's because he spent like a Liberal. So when Obama points the finger at Bush for being in debt (while we've gone farther into debt this term than both of Bush's wasteful spending terms) 4 years into his preseidency, who's the hypocrit?
π: 0 β©: 1
"It is true Bush spent alot... but that's because he spent like a Liberal."
No True Scotsman argument, much?
π: 1 β©: 0
[link] The guy is still screwing us over, and he's not in office!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yep, he left one hell of a mess. Worst president in US history.
π: 0 β©: 1
One of them at the least (I still think Nixon takes the cake for being a real crook)
π: 1 β©: 1
Actually, there were plenty of conservatives and libertarians (Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, etc.) who were pissed about Bushβs reckless spending and warmongering. They just werenβt as prominent then as they are now because all the liberals decided to jump on board with Obama, even though heβs continuing Bushβs failed policies.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, but none of the conservatives want to get rid of Most of Bush's policies, such as the tax cuts that have really done a number. And say what you want about Obama extending them, but he tried to get rid of them, but he was cock blocked by the conservatives.
π: 0 β©: 1
I didn't like the man, thought he spent way too much of American money, but God do I miss him!
π: 0 β©: 1
For comedic reasons I presume?
π: 0 β©: 1
There were many things that I found better about him that this guy.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm not going to say anything else.
π: 0 β©: 1
No please do. Im not like most people (Right and left wing) with the idiotic name calling. I like to just talk about facts.
π: 0 β©: 1
Eh, I honestly like our president. He's dealing with a lot of shit right now and after the circus of GOP debates, I honestly can't see how the Republicans think they have a shot sometimes. I mean yes, they got the best option out there, but the best option out of what?
π: 0 β©: 1
Please go deeper into what he's dealing with. Just curious
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, a party that won't budge on anything to make him look bad despite him trying constantly to please him, he inherited a recession that he is being blamed for, the other party is only focusing on kicking him out when they should be trying to actually help, a health care policy that should have been put into place long ago, all this women's body crap that shouldn't be on the table in the first place (why the hell should a bunch of old men decide what a woman does to her body?), him coming out in support of gay rights being criticized fir bi reason other than that it's gay rights...
I'm sure there might be some inaccuracies there, but that's from my point of view. I mean, I'm sure there is more to it than what I mentioned.
π: 0 β©: 1
Obama inherited Bush's debt, but we have not improved, we have declined. His healthcare policy is crap. It doesn't even matter whats in it at this point, It's manditory which makes it a bad thing. I am poor and do not believe in more government hand outs than are NEEDED and do not believe in distribution of the wealth. And... The gay rights issue is contriversial. I, for one, believe in equal rights, but do not believe in the right to gay marriage, Gays had the right to marry a member of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.
It all depends on where you stand, and like i said, i disagree with you alot, but i respect your right to your opinion.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, thanks for not making a big deal out of it.
π: 0 β©: 1
No problem, I wish more people would stand for what they believe in without strait up attacking everything that someone else does. There are ways to resolve issues, and this constant fight is not how you do it. Of coarse argue where arguement is necissary, but nothing gets solved if you're not willing to talk until you have a solution, IN THE MIDDLE of two oppinions, you know what im saying?
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
I know what you mean.
π: 0 β©: 1
Someone will eventually come along and ruin it by calling us both hypocrits for this... It's a sad world.
π: 0 β©: 1
That it is. I can name one who would, but probably can't since I blocked him.
π: 0 β©: 1
United we Stand and Devided we fall. As long as the gov't keeps us devided, problems can't be solved!
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd drink to that if I could/
π: 0 β©: 1
Growing Frustration under Bush
Movement blooms during Obama
π: 0 β©: 0
Because Obama is a hundred times worse than Bush could ever hope to be.
π: 0 β©: 1
How so? Obama didn't start two unnecessary wars and turn a budget surplus into a deficit. Bush was the worst president in US history. Republicans are just pissed they didn't win.
π: 1 β©: 1
He spent 6 trillion and interfered in other nations' affairs; Libya and Uganda. The public was against it and so was congress, so he did it anyways. At least in Iraq most of congress supported it. Keep in mind that Bush ran a 7 trillion deficit in 8 years, but Obama ran a 6 trillion one in 4 years. He passed the communist healthcare bill that nobody even wanted and will just end in disaster. He bailed out banks that should have been left to die. The stimulus package that was supposed to create jobs... no taxpayer saw a cent of it. He propagates social programs in an attempt to buy the votes of the recipients. He constantly treats his government comrades and his family to expensive, lavish vacations and dinners at taxpayer expense. He JUST ordered all institutions to provide their employees with birth control. He not only circumvented congress, he also ignored the first amendment and essentially gave the finger to the public. He chased businesses to China and Mexico with his obscene tax rate, class warfare, and his war on corporations. He attempted to shut down our missile defense to keep North Korea from attacking the South.
Obama passed a law that denies American citizens accused of terrorism their right to habeus corpus. It should sound familiar. He EXPANDED the patriot act. He shoved more stuff in there. He is the only president in history to actually support a law that exempts ONE PERSON (Warren Buffet) from taxation. So much for being the representative of the poor, right? He lied about ending the wars immediately after taking office, and he ruined the economy. Bush just spent a lot. Obama actually actively ruined the economy. He also refuses to get tough on illegal immigration. At least Bush did SOMETHING. Obama welcomes all illegals with free healthcare, free education, etc etc. I wish I could get that. I wonder how much that costs. He is an embarrassment every time he bows or apologizes to another world leader.
By comparison... Bush started two wars (he had the support of the people, at least) and ran a deficit.
That's actually not everything. I have a real list here, but that was starting to look like a rant. As for Bush being the worst president in American history, I'd say that goes to Obama, our Comrade in chief. I hope he doesn't win a second term. I wish he hadn't won the first term.
π: 0 β©: 1
Sounds like you need to learn what communism actually is.
Stop drinking the neo-con koolaid and look at some real facts. Turning a blind eye to the evils of the GOP does nothing.
And in terms of the next president, Obama is far better than the ultra-con trash that's running against him, with the exception of Ron Paul.
π: 1 β©: 1
I know what communism is.
I hate the GOP almost as much as the democrats. They're all together in it to screw over the American people, and they're not conservative enough for me.
I am a Ron Paul supporter even though I was a Bachman/Cain supporter at first (before they dropped out). However, I think a pet rock would be better than Obama. An empty seat would be better than Obama, that's for sure.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Not conservative enough?" As in, you're one of those people that would shred the US Constitution in favor of forcing backwards "morals" down the throats of the American people?
Or do you truly believe in a smaller government that will not interfere with our personal lives, even in matters that the "bible" doesn't approve of? I can respect a TRUE conservative that supports REAL limited government.
π: 1 β©: 1
I don't believe in a government that takes care of you. I don't believe in a government that gives itself the right to spread religion, either. The government is there to protect religion, and it's the job of the people, not the government, to spread religion. It's the job of the faithful, not the legislation, that is supposed to spread the word of God.
π: 0 β©: 1
The only part I disagree with is the top part. I pay taxes, so I'd better see something in return.
But in "spreading the word of god," the bible preaches caring for the poor. Jesus was a model Socialist.
π: 1 β©: 1
But you pay too many taxes and you get nothing in return! You receive what the constitution guarantees, but other people receive the fruits of your labor. Oh, you also get debt, and when the government spends too much, it's your fault because you weren't paying enough. Now, were our government the way the founding fathers imagined it, you'd be paying a 15% flat tax, corporations would pay a 10% corporate tax, and there would be a surplus, not debt.
Jesus wasn't a socialist. He said to give to the poor, but He also wanted it done voluntarily; that's the key. There isn't a verse in the Bible ordering all those with a job to give up their income to pay for the drunk down the street or telling Caesar to steal from the middle class. Isn't stealing frowned upon in the Bible?
π: 0 β©: 1
[link]
"For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed." Romans 13:6β7
Slapped with the bible by an Atheist, ouch!
π: 1 β©: 1
Uh... you barely slapped me with a piece of paper considering what you brought up isn't even accurate; its context is somewhere on another continent. Fine, I'll bite. ouch.
Anyways, it says that because God doesn't want us starting revolts because we pay a 1% higher tax. Don't revolt over the small stuff, which, if you've read the Declaration of Independence, that idea is repeated. Still, doesn't it say "thou shalt not steal"? It's not very Christian to steal money from hardworking families to make ends meet to pay for someone else's contraception. The Bible also says that if you won't work, then you won't eat. A welfare state is clearly anti-Christian.
Slapped with the Bible by a Christian! ouch! Although, I'd much rather read it than slap people with it. It's just not friendly.
π: 0 β©: 1
Wrong again!
"Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."" Matthew 19:21
Point out where the bible says taxes are stealing. If you can't, kindly admit you're wrong and move on.
π: 1 β©: 1
I'm not wrong, though. Supporting a welfare state, though, is.
You misused that verse again. We're going to have difficulties with this, aren't you? Let me try.
"Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
2 Corinthians 9:7
"Our ordersβbacked up by the Master, Jesusβare to refuse to have anything to do with those among you who are lazy and refuse to work the way we taught you. Don't permit them to freeload on the rest. We showed you how to pull your weight when we were with you, so get on with it. We didn't sit around on our hands expecting others to take care of us."
2 Thessalonians 3:6,7
I rest my case. Be generous and give to the poor, but the government has no right to force you to. You should do it because it's the right thing to do.
π: 0 β©: 1
Welcome to the world of biblical contradictions.
π: 1 β©: 1
Those aren't contradictions. I didn't see any. I saw "pay taxes and keep quiet" and "be a good person and donate to the poor voluntarily and cheerfully".
Maybe I'm missing something. If atheists became that way after reading the bible, they must have had a crappy version. Some will do that.
π: 0 β©: 1
You're missing an awful lot.
You keep claiming that taxes are stealing from the people, and the bible says "thou shalt not steal." If the bible considered taxes to be stealing, why would it say to pay them? There's also nothing in there that says taxes shouldn't be used to help the poor.
Face it, your claims hold no water.
π: 0 β©: 2
Actually, his claims hold a lot of water. Yours, on the other hand, are as flimsy as a spider's web that is poorly made and easily blown away with the slightest breeze.
For one thing, stop using the Bible, a book that you know little of, to contradict his points. You have not thoroughly studied the Bible and I sincerely doubt that you have learned both Hebrew and ancient Greek, therefore you have no earthly idea if your translation that you just so happen to be using is remotely accurate. It is why I am not getting into the whole the Bible says "blah blah blah" since I do not really know Hebrew and ancient Greek and am not particularly inclined at the moment to spend the time searching through words and verses with Greek and English dictionaries in front of me to convince someone who, honestly, does not really care about what the Bible has to say anyway.
To get on with my second point, I can testify that the Bible does say (and I mean accurately say) to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. There's a lot of word studies I can go into to prove my point on this, but I think if you are actually interested in them you will take the time to find out for yourself. BUT, it says give to YOUR government what is due the government. If the government is asking more than what is due to them, THAT IS considered steeling (common sense is applied here). Not all taxes are steeling. The government needs funds for the country's needs (where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few). You cannot FORCE people to give to the poor. That's called, again, steeling. The poor is not Caesar, therefore we do not owe them anything. WE DO, however, give to them and help them out of the joy of our souls and the goodness of our hearts. Feed, clothe, and take care of the poor out of our own volition and do not force people to give to the poor. With welfare, the government is taking taxpayer dollars and giving it to people, who most likely, have not worked a day in their lives. I would not mind having some of my own funds help people in this way if it weren't for the fact that people who do not work for their wages end up getting money that I did not give them of my own volition. Robin Hood is not needed in this day and age since there are many rich people who are more than willing to provide to the poor (and poor people are also more than willing to provide for people poorer than they without the need of the government taking the means for their paychecks).
Also, the government is steeling (and I use steeling in this context) from small businesses who NEED their funds to create more jobs and buy the materials to make their products. They might be living comfortable lives, but I can assure you that small businesses do not live the life of luxury. The more a small business ca provide jobs, the more hope there is for the poor to be able to get a better paying income. Ever thought of that?
And, just another thought, maybe if people these days weren't so focused on themselves, then maybe the poor would be helped more? But, in this, I blame moral relativism. The moment morals are no longer absolute is the moment that the poor are no longer helped.
Thank you for reading this wall of text! Have a nice day!
π: 0 β©: 0
No, OUR taxes are stealing from the people. OUR taxes aren't being used to help the poor. Do you think it's right to take taxes from families just barely making ends meet to help pay for the drug addict down the street so that he'll vote democrat? Do you think that's okay? Do you think it's okay to tax people already taxed too much to send foreign "aid" to Pakistan or pay for the defense of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan? Do you think it's okay that our taxes are given to illegals for free education and healthcare when even our own CITIZENS can't afford them? And most of all, do you think it's okay that money is stolen to fund a welfare state- to keep people dependent on a government?
Do you honestly believe that the Bible supports any of that? Or do you think the Bible says that what you give to the poor is your business and should be done because it's the right thing to do, and if the poor refuses to lift a hand for themselves then they shouldn't steal it from others who need it more?
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>