|Just out of curiosity....
||[Apr. 16th, 2009|07:26 am]
...where were the teabaggers when George W. was spending
200 500 800 billion dollars a year in Iraq?
They were busy calling anyone who objected to that unpatriotic.
A lot of them objected to the spending growth during Bush's term, but because he was doing other things they liked, they didn't form a protest movement. They did work on electing real Republicans (that is, less moderate than Bush, who really was a moderate).
Some of them approved of spending for a war against terrorism (regardless whether you think that's what Iraq is about, that's what *they* think it's about), but don't approve of bailing out the banks, plus the pork in the stimulus bill that doesn't actually stimulate the economy.
And some didn't like it, but the magnitude of the deficit during the Bush administration wasn't nearly what is projected
during the Obama administration. It is not predicted to ever be as *low* during the Obama administration as the *highest* deficit during the Bush administration.
The "Unitary Executive" theory of governance that Bush followed is, in itself, sufficient proof that Bush was in no moderate.
Depends which ones you mean. The majority of libertarians were opposed to the Iraq war.
What I've gathered is that the teabaggers were always there for years, but it was just a handful of those ca-razy Libertarians, who object to paying taxes on things like Meat and Water Inspection, A Police Force, etc.
It's just that this year, a few thousand (and it was only a few thousand: Notice how all the live demonstrations in the country were actually mostly in Philidelphia?) 'Publicans crashed the party, bringing their own agenda and take on why taxes and reckless government spending are bad This Time.
Why do you hate America, Citizen?
At frat parties, getting teabagged while passed out drunk.