[james0246]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Also the fact that it will require everyone to have health insurance, is extremely unconstitutional...

Technically, that is not true. Congress is not allowed to use the Commerce Clause to directly or indirectly regulate activities, but Congress does have the power, under the Revenue Raising clause, to impose upon the citizens regulatory activities. And since the current economic analysis of "Obamacare" shows the program raising revenue rather than lowering it, the program is deemed constitutional.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Tax Revenue went up under Bush's tax cuts just as it did for Reagan.

That's kind of a misnomer. Bush's entire first term showed a rapid decrease in tax revenue, and much of this was directly because of the tax cuts (and an analysis of the GDP by the end of his term is not very good). His second term, though, did show an increase in tax revenue, especially when the Democrats took over in 2006 . The only way to claim that Bush's tax revenue increased each year is to look at a chart that does not adjust for

Btw, you've been watching a lot of FOX/reading a lot of the Heritage Foundation lately, haven't you? . This is nearly exactly what the commentators on FOX have been talking about for the past year in order to get support for the horrendous Bush Tax Cuts as they expire...

Originally Posted by justinstrife

...sped up the collapse of the USSR.

I've never really understood this reasoning. The USSR was already spreading itself thin by 79' when the Soviet-Afghan war started, and Operation Cyclone (a Democratic run initiative) didn't really get into full effect until 82'-83', and by then the USSR was already well in the red. All the while, Reagan was spending 100s of billions he did not have on weapons that were never used for a war that was fought through covert means only.

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Obama has greatly expanded the role of Government, created Czars and people in positions of influence without Congress having a say(I'm not talking about his Cabinet)

Oh please, what a BS complaint. Reagan and Bush both greatly expanded the role of government as well, but you refuse to mention that? And a Czar/Tsar is nothing more than bureaucrat that works for the President overseeing one specific policy or group of policies (and their power only extends as far as the President supports them).

Originally Posted by justinstrife

he took far too long before he bothered listening to Generals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I believe things are worse there because of it(not that they could ever be great).

He took too long? He took a few extra weeks at best for Afghanistan, and he had already decided to leave Iraq by the first days of his Presidency...

Originally Posted by justinstrife

The ways he wants to change policies, and the direction of this country, are not what the people wanted...

Isn't that a rather large generalization? The majority still put him office, and even with his slipping polls he still has a great deal of support.

As for your Tea Partier status...well that's for you to decide. As for the Tea Party candidates, though, they are a mixed bag. Sharron Angle and Rand Paul are fairly stupid, and I can't imagine a majority of anyone actually supporting them in their election bid. Nikki Haley and Paul LePage seem okay, though Haley often comes across, whether deliberately or not, as a victim, and Paul LePage is a little unknown (besides his BP faux pas, he hasn't done much). And the rest (Kristi Noem, Tim Scott and Anna Little), are all, more or less, political unknowns since they have deliberately flown under the radar. (One thing I've always liked about the tea party movement is how many women have risen within the ranks.)

In all honesty, I would have a lot more respect for the Tea Party movement if it had started under Bush (who created most of the problems the movement originally rallied against), and if the movement had not been taken over by awful politicians like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Dick Armey, etc...