"Since the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party has not only lost support nationwide, but also in the congressional
districts represented by members of the House Tea Party Caucus.
The image of the Republican Party has declined even more sharply in these GOP-controlled districts than across
the country at large."

(Pew Research Center)
http://www.people-press.org/20.....tea-party-districts/

Quoted from Box A Rox

"Since the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party has not only lost support nationwide,

If they lost support, who gained support?  I read the poll, and they had an agree and disagree with the Tea Party poll.  What I want to know, if those polled "disagree" with the Tea Party...Who do they agree with?  They don't tell you that.  There must be a graph that show a correlation of where the people that once supported the Tea Party and who they support now.  Do they now support Democrats, bigger government, liberalism?  Maybe.  They poll people with a this or that question, but the polls never tell you what the persons alternative to their 'disagree' and 'don't support' answers.

Quoted from CICERO

If they lost support, who gained support?  I read the poll, and they had an agree and disagree with the Tea Party poll.  What I want to know, if those polled "disagree" with the Tea Party...Who do they agree with?  They don't tell you that.  There must be a graph that show a correlation of where the people that once supported the Tea Party and who they support now.  Do they now support Democrats, bigger government, liberalism?  Maybe.  They poll people with a this or that question, but the polls never tell you what the persons alternative to their 'disagree' and 'don't support' answers.

It's quite simple.  They once supported the TeaBaggers, and now they don't.  
Because they've lost faith in the TeaBaggers doesn't mean that they've switched alliances to another group.  They
simply disagree with  the TeaBaggers.
(Example:  When American found out that GWB  lied about WMD'S, they no longer supported Bush... they didn't
necessarily switch their support to the Democrats or some other Republican.)

Quoted from Box A Rox

It's quite simple.  They once supported the TeaBaggers, and now they don't.  
Because they've lost faith in the TeaBaggers doesn't mean that they've switched alliances to another group.  They
simply disagree with  the TeaBaggers.
(Example:  When American found out that GWB  lied about WMD'S, they no longer supported Bush... they didn't
necessarily switch their support to the Democrats or some other Republican.)

Soon to be joined by the fleabaggers...Why do you think the major cities evicted them from their campsites? Public opinion has dropped sharply.

Quoted from 55tbird

Soon to be joined by the fleabaggers...Why do you think the major cities evicted them from their campsites?
Public opinion has dropped sharply.

That may be true... the Occupy Movement was a long shot from very beginning, and there are lots of Conservative
DOLLAR$ lined up against them.

Unlike the TeaBaggers, Occupy did succeed as an actual 'grass roots' movement.  They (for a short time) actually
changed the focus of the MSM away from the Right Wing Media 'TAX CUTS SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS', to a
realistic look at the 1% control  of our  government.

Quoted from Box A Rox

(Example:  When American found out that GWB  lied about WMD'S, they no longer supported Bush... they didn't
necessarily switch their support to the Democrats or some other Republican.)

That works for the support and don't support. But it doesn't work with the ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ polling.  If you disagree with a position on an issue or a political philosophy, that means you must agree with a counter position or philosophy to the one you thought disagreeable.

Quoted from CICERO

That works for the support and don't support. But it doesn't work with the ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’ polling.  If you disagree with a position on an issue or a political philosophy, that means you must agree with a counter position or philosophy to the one you thought disagreeable.

WOW!  Cicero... read your post and reconsider.  If you disagree with the specific war in Iraq... that doesn't make you
a peace proponent.

~  You may disagree or changed your mind about the TeaBaggers "Cut Taxes Solution To All Problems" with out being
in favor of Raising Taxes.
~ You may now see the TeaBaggers as a totally funded bogus puppet of Right Wing Media, but still believe in the
TeaBagger view of smaller govt.
  
With Cicero's convoluted logic, if you disagree with the TeaBaggers, you MUST agree with their opposite.  

Quoted from Box A Rox

Unlike the TeaBaggers, Occupy did succeed as an actual 'grass roots' movement.  They (for a short time) actually changed the focus of the MSM away from the Right Wing Media 'TAX CUTS SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS', to a realistic look at the 1% control  of our  government.

Most of America is rebelling against the move toward globalization and the socialsm/communism that occupy was trying to help usher in.  Americans know something is wrong, and some are starting to realize the establishment party choices aren't going to fix it.  Whether it's the powers behind the Occupiers, or the Democrats, and establishment Republicans, they are all attempting to push the country in that direction using varying styles of rhetoric and propaganda.  They are creating confusion among the people and offering false alternatives to Obama's blantent socialist policies, by claiming they are different and promising to shrink the federal government and re-establilsh our Constitutional form of government.  It's a game of 2 card monty in order to create confusion and give the appearence of a legitimate democracy.  

Ron Paul IS the only alternative to break the one party establishment rule in Washington.  

Quoted from Box A Rox

WOW!  Cicero... read your post and reconsider.  If you disagree with the specific war in Iraq... that doesn't make you
a peace proponent.

If I disagree with war in Iraq, it means I agree with NO WAR IN IRAQ.

Quoted from Box A Rox

~  You may disagree or changed your mind about the TeaBaggers "Cut Taxes Solution To All Problems" with out being in favor of Raising Taxes.

If you disagree with "cut tax solutions".  Then you MUST agree with another solution.

So box, yes, if you find something disagreeable, you must have a reason for disagreeing and an agreeable alternative.  How do you determine right and wrong? You can't say something is wrong if you don't have a baseline for right.

Quoted from Box A Rox

That may be true... the Occupy Movement was a long shot from very beginning, and there are lots of Conservative
DOLLAR$ lined up against them.

Unlike the TeaBaggers, Occupy did succeed as an actual 'grass roots' movement.  They (for a short time) actually
changed the focus of the MSM away from the Right Wing Media 'TAX CUTS SOLUTION TO ALL PROBLEMS', to a
realistic look at the 1% control  of our  government.

The beginning of the Occupy movement has been traced to an organizer in Canada and there is some evidence Soros was at least involved on the periphery. The Unions joined shortly after OWS set up shop and before the copycat OWS's were started. This was NOT a grass roots movement.

Quoted from Box A Rox

That may be true... the Occupy Movement was a long shot from very beginning, and there are lots of Conservative
DOLLAR$ lined up against them.

Conservatives didn't need to destroy that movement it was done on it's own, all the conservatives had to do was record and keep track of what disasters happened at these protest sites. What was there 4 shootings, 2 deadly, 6 bodies found in tents, 1 confirmed overdose. Let's not forget the people sh!ting all over the public parks and streets and then attacking and destroying street venders.

Quoted from CICERO

If you disagree with "cut tax solutions".  Then you MUST agree with another solution.

So box, yes, if you find something disagreeable, you must have a reason for disagreeing and an agreeable alternative.  How do you determine right and wrong? You can't say something is wrong if you don't have a baseline for right.

Cicero again displays convoluted logic.
~ "If you disagree with "cut tax solutions".  Then you MUST agree with another solution" ~
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", as they are unacceptable, but I have no alternative...
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", but I agree with 'limited' tax cut solutions.
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", but I agree with 'limited' tax increase solutions.
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", but I agree with a combination of each of the above.

And Cicero's:
yes, if you find something disagreeable, you must have a reason for disagreeing and an agreeable
alternative.
I find lots of things 'disagreeable' in our society, but have no agreeable alternative.  (assuming that murdering
Rush Loudmouth is not an agreeable solution)

Which brings us back to the original post...
Americans, and especially Republicans have turned against the TeaBaggers.
Those Americans may be against TeaBaggers because of a variety of possible reasons:
~The funding and control of the Tea Party by the Koch Bros...
~The promotion and influence of FoxSnooze on the TeaParty...
~They may still support the values of the TeaParty, but not the present direction of the group.
~ Or a hundred other reasons.

Cicero seems to be one of those individuals who see the world within black or white confines... No other possibilities.

A huge Democratic sweep is coming. I predict both houses of the Congress and New York State Legislature will be soundly Democratic on January 1, 2013..

Quoted from Scotsgod08

A huge Democratic sweep is coming. I predict both houses of the Congress and New York State Legislature will be soundly Democratic on January 1, 2013..

won't matter much when President Teleprompter loses... I agree on the house...no way in the Senate, the Dems will be LUCKY to hang to the majority they have.... anything less than 60 in the senate means gridlock.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cicero again displays convoluted logic.
~ "If you disagree with "cut tax solutions".  Then you MUST agree with another solution" ~
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", as they are unacceptable, but I have no alternative...
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", but I agree with 'limited' tax cut solutions.
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", but I agree with 'limited' tax increase solutions.
Or I disagree with "tax cut solutions", but I agree with a combination of each of the above.


Cicero seems to be one of those individuals who see the world within black or white confines... No other possibilities.

How is it you prove my point then say my logic is convoluted?  You just offered 3 example of alternate agreeable solution to your disagreement of the proposed solution, hence, making your disagreement a valid disagreement.  The first one with the "I disagree but I have no alternative" is the Occupy Wall St. idiot disagreement.  Occupiers are disagreeing just to disagree because they are too stupid to think through a problem, but are easily persuaded by propaganda and empty rhetoric.  

I don't see things black and white, but I damn well know that if I disagree with something, I know why I disagree with it and can explain why I disagree, and then I can counter with what I find more agreeable.  Not like the occupiers pissing (literally) and moaning in the streets because they disagree with something but they don't know what it is and what they would find more agreeable.  These people are STUPID.

If you disagree with something but have no alternate agreeable solution, what did you base your disagreement on?