930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Herr Professor Doktor Doom on April 15, 2009, 10:24:19 pm
-
Did anyone catch any Republican teabaggers out and about today?
I spotted a few teabaggers around Lafayette Park (http://dcalex.blogspot.com/)... and I must say, they were the biggest bunch of losers I have seen in some time...
-
thats odd, i heard the number of losers in DC has dropped dramatically since November of 2006.
-
http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4330108
The Fark thread has some absolutely hilarious pictures; I can't believe how ignorant some people can be. The best part is, I guarantee most of the people protesting tax hikes today do not and will not ever make enough to ever be effected.
It seems like people picked today to protest against basically every liberal ideology, every picture seems to be protesting something different.
-
It's hard to talk when you're teabagging...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Ed5iLu4M
-
Is it safe for work? :)
It's hard to talk when you're teabagging...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Ed5iLu4M
-
Is it safe for work? :)
Sure. It's CNN.
-
what makes you think they are all republicans (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4274)? if anything, the vast majority of these events are self-organized and run by people who are probably far more moderate than the typical "republican", especially on social issues. they are rightfully upset by the passage of the "stimulus" bill, the budget that contained over 7,000 earmarks, the administration's proposed budget that makes bush's spending look like a miser, increases our deficit to levels unseen before, and other policies of congress and the administration that will increase wasteful government spending and place an increasingly larger burden upon taxpayers over the next 10 years. i mean, let's not forget, around 50% of the people in this country already end up with zero tax liability- and instead, get a subsidy from the government, which is paid for by the rest of us. in other words, the issue isn't about current taxes, it's about prolifigate and unsustainable government spending that can only result in deficits that will be shouldered by future earnings in the way of higher taxes and less growth.
this isn't good news for either party......obviously for democrats since they are "more government? yes please" and for republicans because of the 6 of the last 8 years. . . .although i fully expect both parties, with the help of the MSM, to eventually stop covering them and addressing their issues, hoping that this will just go away.
-
I would assume that most of them are Republicans for several reasons (note: when I write Bush I mean Bush and the Republicans):
1. Bush created MASSIVE dept and no Teabaggers protested
2. Bush created a much bigger government (largely due to creating the Dept. of Homeland Security) and no protest
3. Bush created the Patriot Act which many argue restricted civil liberties and personal freedom and no protests
4. From all the videos I have seen, the vast majority of them voted for "Sarah" which would align them with Republicans
so I think it is very easy to confuse them with Republicans... and/or morons
-
It was a little odd that they chose 15 days after the majority of the participants (say, 95%) just got a tax break to have an anti-tax protest.
-
what makes you think they are all republicans?
well the democrats arent out there protesting. i believe thats what he meant. (and you know that!)
the democrats were all in line at the bank cashing their refund checks!
-
I would assume that most of them are Republicans for several reasons (note: when I write Bush I mean Bush and the Republicans):
1. Bush created MASSIVE dept and no Teabaggers protested
2. Bush created a much bigger government (largely due to creating the Dept. of Homeland Security) and no protest
3. Bush created the Patriot Act which many argue restricted civil liberties and personal freedom and no protests
4. From all the videos I have seen, the vast majority of them voted for "Sarah" which would align them with Republicans
so I think it is very easy to confuse them with Republicans... and/or morons
on 1, that's a dumb argument. whatever bush did, obama is doubling. if the left really cared about the debt, which they supposedly did under bush, being silent as obama doubles it is just as bad as the right remaining silent on bush. not all republicans supported this massive government spending increases under bush- people like john mccain, jim demint, mark sanford and, especially, jeff flake all routinely took the administration to task for it's spending....and that's without mentioning what's left of the libertarian/republican alignment (which this administration is doing a great job of putting back together)....
3 is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. . .in any event, obama certainly doesn't appear to be distancing himself from the more distasteful aspects of it (state secrets, anyone).
on 4, i would not trust your sources. . .
as for 2. . .i would think that creating a deparment devoted to protecting its citizens would merit some size, especially since it consolidated several agencies from various parts of the government into one agency.
finally, so what if people remained silent during the bush the younger years? simply because they were silent during those years is no reason to ridicule them for finally making a stand against a massive increase in wasteful and unnecessary government spending, the likes of which this country has never seen, all to push through a package aimed at increasing the size and reach of the federal government.
-
the budget that contained over 7,000 earmarks
Only in Bush's first year did the Budget contain less that 7000 earmarks until 2007 when the new Congress reduced the amount. Where was the outrage then? Or last years Bush stimulus - the tea baggers were......?
# of earmarks by year....
1994-2000: approx 10,500 total.
2001: 6333
2002: 8341
2003: 9362
2004: 10,656
2005: 13,997
2006: 9,963
2007: 2658
2008: 11,043
I'll get to the rest later, but that was easy one. I'll even break that down for total amount spent soon too, because I know you want to see it.
-
the budget that contained over 7,000 earmarks
Only in Bush's first year did the Budget contain less that 7000 earmarks until 2007 when the new Congress reduced the amount. Where was the outrage then? Or last years Bush stimulus - the tea baggers were......?
you know full well that there was opposition to the stimulus packages the past 2 years (if for nothing else because i kept complaining about the stimulus packages to you). . .simply because the MSM didn't cover them doesn't mean they weren't there. and that doesn't include the bailout protests, which were far more widespread.
as for the earmarks. . .hope and change, hope and change. . .
-
I would assume that most of them are Republicans for several reasons (note: when I write Bush I mean Bush and the Republicans):
1. Bush created MASSIVE dept and no Teabaggers protested
2. Bush created a much bigger government (largely due to creating the Dept. of Homeland Security) and no protest
3. Bush created the Patriot Act which many argue restricted civil liberties and personal freedom and no protests
4. From all the videos I have seen, the vast majority of them voted for "Sarah" which would align them with Republicans
so I think it is very easy to confuse them with Republicans... and/or morons
on 1, that's a dumb argument. whatever bush did, obama is doubling. if the left really cared about the debt, which they supposedly did under bush, being silent as obama doubles it is just as bad as the right remaining silent on bush. not all republicans supported this massive government spending increases under bush- people like john mccain, jim demint, mark sanford and, especially, jeff flake all routinely took the administration to task for it's spending....and that's without mentioning what's left of the libertarian/republican alignment (which this administration is doing a great job of putting back together)....
3 is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. . .in any event, obama certainly doesn't appear to be distancing himself from the more distasteful aspects of it (state secrets, anyone).
on 4, i would not trust your sources. . .
as for 2. . .i would think that creating a deparment devoted to protecting its citizens would merit some size, especially since it consolidated several agencies from various parts of the government into one agency.
finally, so what if people remained silent during the bush the younger years? simply because they were silent during those years is no reason to ridicule them for finally making a stand against a massive increase in wasteful and unnecessary government spending, the likes of which this country has never seen, all to push through a package aimed at increasing the size and reach of the federal government.
do you really believe all this stuff you write?
-
As in, do I believe in FACTS... yeah, usually. (opps, I thought the last remark was about me...)
-
do you really believe all this stuff you write?
sometimes. . .i have a rather skewed view of this stuff. . .like, i believe in the 10th amendment, federalism and keeping the size of the federal government small...it's a hodgepodge of various libertarian/republican view points.
-
do you really believe all this stuff you write?
sometimes. . .i have a rather skewed view of this stuff. . .like, i believe in the 10th amendment, federalism and keeping the size of the federal government small...it's a hodgepodge of various libertarian/republican view points.
I am taking a US History class now (as I have some gen eds to take that i skipped in order to finish my degree) and we are leaning of the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. My teacher is a Nigerian fellow who seems to hate America and its founding fathers. but whatever.
The 10th amendment is cool. I honestly feel that Obama is trying to fix things the best way he knows how, for the goals of Libertarians and such seem nice, there seems to be a lot to fix before they would ever work.
I like when people say "let the economy fix itself". obviously those people havent lost their job. Either way, I spend much less time reading about politics than you and many others on here, so i try to stay out of the debate too much. But I imagine if states were granted more power, we'd soon be yearning for the days the Fed was in control...
-
its a bit distasteful to invoke the american revolution over a 3% tax increase for 5% of the population. especially when thats what obama got elected on just 5 months ago
-
as for the earmarks. . .hope and change, hope and change. . .
In 3 months, you wanted him to eliminate all earmarks? I'll take a 15% reduction and work towards next year.
After all, a Republican President and a Republican Congress did nothing but increase them over 6 years despite promising to eliminate them. I didn't hear you (or the Teabaggers) up in arms then..."Reformer with Results?"
-
The Boston Tea Party was to protest taxation without representation WHICH is kinda opposite from what we have going on now. The vast majority of Americans are getting lower taxes (I believe 95%) and the rest are still getting a lower tax rate than when Reagan was in office. If these people were out protesting because DC does not have full representation and pays federal taxes that would be one thing... but they are not.
-
they probably didnt dress like Native Americans either.
-
do you really believe all this stuff you write?
There's a huge difference between "believes" and "knows what's possible" - venerable is a lot more pragmatic in real life then he is when espousing his libertarian based theories.
His last two paragraphs for example - he's not happy about Homeland Security, but knows that politically something had to be done to make America "feel" safer so it was bigger government in order to win re-election in 2004, so he has to defend it. If it was Dem, he would have been ALL OVER IT.
In addition, his last paragraph is bit of a mea culpa because he knows the conservatives wasted a huge opportunity in 2000-2006 by doing everything he opposes and he probably was too quiet about it (despite my constant prodding and reminding him that they won't get a chance like that for another 20-40 years). He also tends to make blanket statements like "the biggest increase evah" when, in terms of real dollars and projected out over time, the argument fails, especially in comparison to the 8 GWB years, but it's a sound bite and allows him to argue in the now. He probably does believe in most of it, but he knows the reality is that his beliefs are pipe dreams.
-
I am taking a US History class now (as I have some gen eds to take that i skipped in order to finish my degree) and we are leaning of the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. My teacher is a Nigerian fellow who seems to hate America and its founding fathers. but whatever.
The 10th amendment is cool. I honestly feel that Obama is trying to fix things the best way he knows how, for the goals of Libertarians and such seem nice, there seems to be a lot to fix before they would ever work.
I like when people say "let the economy fix itself". obviously those people havent lost their job. Either way, I spend much less time reading about politics than you and many others on here, so i try to stay out of the debate too much. But I imagine if states were granted more power, we'd soon be yearning for the days the Fed was in control...
the let the economy people are those free market economists who think the market should operate without much government interference.....it's the opinion of those economists that government tends to mess up markets more than help them. this is evidenced by the government determining which companies are too big to fail, so government lets merrill lynch fail, but bails out AIG. . .the market that was created allowed companies to conduct business (the merits of their business and how the made money is beside the point), and when the market finally turned on them, the government, instead of letting the market decide who survives, the government steps in and imposes it's decision onto the market. that is inefficient, in economics. obviously, in politics, if someone wants to get re-elected, he can't simply say, eh, sorry, that's how the market works (although it would great if there was some honesty), or else he's likely not going to be re-elected.
i simply disagree with "the best way obama knows how" because that means more federal government intervention and interference in the market. on the political side, that is a concern to me because increased government spending and running up deficits cannot continue indefinitely, at some point government is going to have to decide to stop spending, keep spending but print more money (inflation), keep spending and increase taxes (decrease productivity) or keep spending and push collection to the future (inflation and shifts the burden onto future profits and productivity). this administration seems content with the last one for the time being- i have no doubt that, egged on by a democratic congress, they'll get around to increasing everyone's taxes, not just those who make more than $250K, because there is simply not enough tax revenue from that part of the population to cover all of this administrations' spending priorities.
btw, jefferson is the perfect embodiment of the american political pysche. . .keep the federal government small, give power to the states, and let it remain in the hands of the farmers- but, once in office, he advocated for almost none of those things. that's why you have people on the left and right quoting him on different issues.
-
as for the earmarks. . .hope and change, hope and change. . .
In 3 months, you wanted him to eliminate all earmarks? I'll take a 15% reduction and work towards next year.
After all, a Republican President and a Republican Congress did nothing but increase them over 6 years despite promising to eliminate them. I didn't hear you (or the Teabaggers) up in arms then..."Reformer with Results?"
he certainly could have vetoed it. . .a CR keeps government in business by using the same amount of funding from the previously approved budget. instead of taking a stand right away on this topic, he blamed bush (even though congress was run by democrats, of which he was one of).
there certainly were republicans who have been advocating for years against pork.
-
the let the economy people are those free market economists who think the market should operate without much government interference.....it's the opinion of those economists that government tends to mess up markets more than help them. this is evidenced by the government determining which companies are too big to fail, so government lets merrill lynch fail, but bails out AIG. . .the market that was created allowed companies to conduct business (the merits of their business and how the made money is beside the point), and when the market finally turned on them, the government, instead of letting the market decide who survives, the government steps in and imposes it's decision onto the market. that is inefficient, in economics. obviously, in politics, if someone wants to get re-elected, he can't simply say, eh, sorry, that's how the market works (although it would great if there was some honesty), or else he's likely not going to be re-elected.
Elizabeth Warren put it very succinctly last night (start at the 2 minute mark). (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224262&title=Elizabeth-Warren-Pt.-2) Market Regulation keeps our economy from going into crisis.
The vast majority of Americans will forgo huge wins in the market for stability and that's why we need regulation despite what economists think works in a vacuum.
-
there certainly were republicans who have been advocating for years against pork.
Did they not ask for any earmarks while advocating against them?
-
the let the economy people are those free market economists who think the market should operate without much government interference.....it's the opinion of those economists that government tends to mess up markets more than help them.
i am not talking about economists, i am talking regular people
theres a difference when an economist says it and when some hick on the local news interview with a O's hat on does. (see, rhett, maybe the hat DOES make you look like wt)
-
The Boston Tea Party was to protest taxation without representation WHICH is kinda opposite from what we have going on now. The vast majority of Americans are getting lower taxes (I believe 95%) and the rest are still getting a lower tax rate than when Reagan was in office. If these people were out protesting because DC does not have full representation and pays federal taxes that would be one thing... but they are not.
this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get? april 15 is the day that our taxes are due to fund the operation of the federal government. . .this administration and congress is choosing to increase spending well beyond what was seen under bush; so, april 15 is the day to protest what some people believe to be runaway government spending and government spending beyond its means. . .
in much the same way the boston tea party was about protesting england taxing america unfairly, april 15 was protesting the way the federal government is spending uncontrollably and putting that burden upon all taxpayers, in one form or another. it's not simply about tax rates.
-
there certainly were republicans who have been advocating for years against pork.
Did they not ask for any earmarks while advocating against them?
if you want to find an earmark request from jeff flake or john mccain, have at it.
-
do you really believe all this stuff you write?
There's a huge difference between "believes" and "knows what's possible" - venerable is a lot more pragmatic in real life then he is when espousing his libertarian based theories.
mostly. . although if i'm truly successful at my job, i will have deregulated myself out of it. . .
-
so they choose tax day, invoke a protest about taxes that we all learned about in elementary school about an issue that really isnt about taxes. and you wonder why so many people dismiss it
-
this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get?
Because they are using historical references that are not reflective of what they are arguing. You can not reference the Boston Tea Party and then say, well that was about X and we are about Y. The message is different.
-
\
if you want to find an earmark request from jeff flake or john mccain, have at it.
As much as he tries to defend it, there is no way the $10 Million request for the Rehnquist center was not an earmark and not requested by John McCain.
-
this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get?
Again, lead by example. Federal Budgets during the Bush years:
2010: $3.60 trillion (Obama)
2009: $3.10 trillion (Last Bush)
2008: $2.90 trillion
2007: $2.77 trillion
2006: $2.7 trillion
2005: $2.4 trillion
2004: $2.3 trillion
2003: $2.2 trillion
2002: $2.0 trillion (First Bush)
2001: $1.9 trillion (last Clinton)
2000: $1.8 trillion
1999: $1.7 trillion
1998: $1.7 trillion
1997: $1.6 trillion
1996: $1.6 trillion
-
this is about spending. . . . . . . .why is this so hard to get?
Again, lead by example. Federal Budgets during the Bush years:
2010: $3.60 trillion (Obama)
2009: $3.10 trillion (Last Bush)
2008: $2.90 trillion
2007: $2.77 trillion
2006: $2.7 trillion
2005: $2.4 trillion
2004: $2.3 trillion
2003: $2.2 trillion
2002: $2.0 trillion (First Bush)
2001: $1.9 trillion (last Clinton)
2000: $1.8 trillion
1999: $1.7 trillion
1998: $1.7 trillion
1997: $1.6 trillion
1996: $1.6 trillion
i think what this argues for, if anything, is that having a democrat in the white house and republicans in charge of congress is best. :)
-
according to CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#1092014), from this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget):
"President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush's presidency. ...
By CBO's calculation, Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019.
Worst of all, CBO says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level."
-
The tally of people attending tea-parties nationwide is around 250,000, give or take.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/tea-parties-appear-to-draw-at-least.html
Thus, I thought this was well put.
?Did Sean Hannity get out from behind a desk and attend the immigration amnesty rally in Los Angeles to which 500,000 people showed up last year? Did Fox News dedicate around-the-clock coverage and nearly unbearable homerism to the Iraq War protests which over a million Americans attended (150,000 in San Francisco alone) five years ago? Did Glenn Reynolds claim that government needs to Listen Up and Get the Message and Pay Attention and all this shit when 800,000 people (NYPD estimate; protesters claimed over a million, but such estimates are inevitably high) marched in New York City in 2004 to protest the RNC? Do any of these hacks wax patriotic about the millions upon millions of people who did something real and substantive in electing the new President - not standing around bitching, not listening to talk radio millionaires give speeches in a park amidst misspelled, homemade signs - last November? Of course not. Why? Because ?those people? aren?t Real Americans. See, Real Americans means white people. Angry, middle-aged, rural or suburban white people."
http://charitini.com/post/96850732/did-sean-hannity-get-out-from-behind-a-desk-and
-
according to CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#1092014), from this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget):
Again, you make this sounds like it's something new and disturbing. Remember when GWB said there would be $5.6 Billion surplus when he left office and the CBO laughed at him. Instead he left us in the whole how deep?
$459 Billion.
Practice what you preach and stop being an alarmist.
-
run for offices.
the end.
-
according to CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Chapter1.5.1.shtml#1092014), from this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget):
Again, you make this sounds like it's something new and disturbing. Remember when GWB said there would be $5.6 Billion surplus when he left office and the CBO laughed at him. Instead he left us in the whole how deep?
$459 Billion.
Practice what you preach and stop being an alarmist.
i think i would take $459 billion over $1.75 trillion.....
-
i think i would take $459 billion over $1.75 trillion.....
You know it's not going to be that bad, nor is it going to be as rosey as Obama predicts. This is a ten-year plan, not something set in stone. It will be altered many times along the way.
-
wasn't this whole mess caused by too much easy money to begin with? how is the problem suddenly going to become the solution?
let me take off my O's cap for a second, and admit that since late 07 i've been a ron paul guy, whether that means rep, lib, wacko, or most likely flamebait to you is a matter of perspective. any case, a lot of "us" zany less gov't/tax/war folks seem to feel that the protests were fox and "the neocons" trying to hijack some of the more successful aspects of the paul campaign to get "us" to come back to the flock, so to speak. that and/or to give butthurt mccain voters a way to protest obama without protesting obama, if that makes any sense.
i'll be interested to see if protests from the left still muster the same level of outrage about the shell game of ending the iraq war in favor of the afghan one.
and considering the current trend, we'll probably be lucky if the number ends up less than 2 trillion.
-
The republicans are a disgrace.. they didn't have any problems when Bush was running the country into the ground with deficits DURING AN ECONOMIC EXPANSION which is precisely when you should not be spending more than you are getting (tax cuts for wealthy, needless flushing of money and lives down the toilet for wars) but now they have problems with deficits in a time of virtual economic depression?
Come on...Give me a break people..go read an econ book or something..
-
Time photo essay (http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1891549,00.html)
these people look like morons of the highest order. i thought you were kidding when you wrote that they had "don't blame me, i voted for sarah" posters. and i can't believe they're still trying to push the the socialism label.
-
My favorite quote so is from a CNN report (well, what did not air) where a woman confronts the CNN reporter asking her why she stopped filming. The reporter states there are too many postrs with inapproriate images and the women blurts out "There's not that many signs with Hitler on them..." classic.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fTT9xlgZ9CU/SKmRFAT8duI/AAAAAAAAJEc/NXl9-XS_mbc/s400/WhitePeopleAreCrazy.gif)
-
I think we can all get behind protesting this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090417/ap_en_mu/the_dead_return):
How Barack Obama resurrected The Dead
By JOHN ROGERS, Associated Press Writer John Rogers, Associated Press Writer ? Fri Apr 17, 6:43 am ET
LOS ANGELES ? He's still got a little work to do on the economy, but already President Barack Obama has accomplished at least one task that had appeared all but impossible just a year ago: He's put The Dead back on the road.
-
if you want to protest something involving obama, how about this.
obama ran on the platform that he was gonna clean up washington: "no more business as usual." plus he was going to get to the bottom of the guantan. bay torture scandal and lay down the law. he won with ideas such as these. well the cia was busted, documents were released, and what they did involving torture and war crimes was deemed illegal. but they were left off the hook by the white house. obama looked the other way when it came to the great americans committing these atrocities. business as usual, mister president. go stick your hope and change up your ass, you controlled robot. after ww2, we went so hard after japan we nearly broke the damn country . . . but when god bless americans do those same things . . . oh nevermind, jesus obama is there to save the day, for the corrupt. fuck anybody that supports him.
-
Obama is a hell of a poker player. . . .and he's got a huge stack . . .and knows how to bully the table . . .
and seriously, what f*ck is wrong with the republican party?? i used to at least respect them, but they are just a f*cking loose fraternity of clowns right now . . . any organization that puts f*cking Michael Steele in a leadership position after making Sarah Palin the VP nominee and can't fight back when Rahm manipulates the media into making a story of Rush being the real leader is f*cking retarded.
-
I sincerely believe that a successful Democracy requires a strong opposition. So yes, on one level I relish the Republicans making total douches of themselves with these "tea parties" (which were anything but grassroots). I think they actually scared away even more sensible Americans than they already have by coming closer than ever to openly embracing the far right/libertaranoid/militia agenda that gave us Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s. But it is also sad for our country. I think Obama has shown potential to be a great president -- but I don't feel the same way about Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her flock. I think the Democrats could end up hurting themselves when they should be consolidating power and getting some important things done.
And yet, the Republicans as a party are not fit for national office of any sort right now. We don't need a third party -- we need a replacement for the GOP that offers sensible, non-religious, non hate-based conservatism (and also understands the modern economic principle that deficits are generally bad, but you don't cut spending and essential services in a recession.)
-
I think they actually scared away even more sensible Americans than they already have by coming closer than ever to openly embracing the far right/libertaranoid/militia.
you do realize that a significant number of those people you're referencing are likely to agree with the left totally on a number of issues they find important... civil liberties, anti- bush's wiretapping, ending wars and "police actions",etc, albeit for different reasons-but it sounds like you still see them as worse than what we just had for 8 years.
it's always kind of bugged me that gov't is allowed to run ever increasing defecits year after year as the debt grows... regardless of economic conditions, no other entity(individual, company) is allowed to exist unchanged in that situation. why is it a terrible idea to reduce the burden the productive economy has to shoulder to support the government?
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fTT9xlgZ9CU/SKmRFAT8duI/AAAAAAAAJEc/NXl9-XS_mbc/s400/WhitePeopleAreCrazy.gif)
I want this on a t-shirt
-
http://www.tshirthub.com/cr-m-whitepeople.html
And only $10.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_fTT9xlgZ9CU/SKmRFAT8duI/AAAAAAAAJEc/NXl9-XS_mbc/s400/WhitePeopleAreCrazy.gif)
I want this on a t-shirt
-
I sincerely believe that a successful Democracy requires a strong opposition. So yes, on one level I relish the Republicans making total douches of themselves with these "tea parties" (which were anything but grassroots). I think they actually scared away even more sensible Americans than they already have by coming closer than ever to openly embracing the far right/libertaranoid/militia agenda that gave us Timothy McVeigh in the 1990s.
51% of americans have favorable view of the tea parties (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees)
other nuggets:
just 13% of the political elite offered even a somewhat favorable assessment while 81% said the opposite. Among the Political Class, not a single survey respondent said they had a Very Favorable opinion of the events while 60% shared a Very Unfavorable assessment.
One-in-four adults (25%) say they personally know someone who attended a tea party protest. That figure includes just one percent (1%) of those in the Political Class.
While 83% of Republicans and a plurality (49%) of unaffiliated Americans have a favorable view of the tea party protests, only 28% of Democrats say the same.
A majority (54%) of Mainstream Democrats had a favorable opinion of the tea parties.
Those last two points are interesting. . .I'm guessing there is a distinction between mainstream democrats and "political class" democrats.
-
he said sensible americans, not rasmussen responders
-
what makes you think they are all republicans (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4274)?
"Republicans were far more interested in the protests than others. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans followed news reports, with 50% following Very Closely. By comparison, just 47% of Democrats and 50% of adults not affiliated with either major party say they followed the reports at least somewhat closely.
(...)
While 83% of Republicans and a plurality (49%) of unaffiliated Americans have a favorable view of the tea party protests, only 28% of Democrats say the same."
-
what makes you think they are all republicans (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/4274)?
"Republicans were far more interested in the protests than others. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Republicans followed news reports, with 50% following Very Closely. By comparison, just 47% of Democrats and 50% of adults not affiliated with either major party say they followed the reports at least somewhat closely.
(...)
While 83% of Republicans and a plurality (49%) of unaffiliated Americans have a favorable view of the tea party protests, only 28% of Democrats say the same."
and what's your point? i think this simply shows my point that they weren't all republicans.
-
all republicans? probably not. mostly republican? probably so. would this have any legs without republicans? not a chance.
to me, the tea-bag protests are in large part anti-obama protests and have less to do with calls for tax reform and government spending (look how many holes can be poked in their complaints) - same way that any controversial action on bush's part would have the anti-bushies out in force (whether they cared about the exact topic of protest or not).
for the record, i have a favorable view of the tea-bag protests - entertaining as hell!
-
is "Political Class" Rasmussen's term for the intelligent and reasonably-educated?
Looks like the Teabaggers are coming back in the fall to continue the hallowed right-wing tradition of trying to manipulate the memory of 9/11 for short-term political gain...
http://wonkette.com/407960/teabaggers-now-plan-to-ruin-911-with-912-attack-on-washington
-
related (IMO) story:
Why Republicans are devouring one book (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21477.html)
"I think it?s conclusive when you read the book, although I don?t believe she said so, that the New Deal was actually a bad deal, and today we have a president who believes that the New Deal was a good deal, and would have been a far better deal if FDR would have spent a lot more money,? Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said.
-
related (IMO) story:
Why Republicans are devouring one book (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21477.html)
"I think it?s conclusive when you read the book, although I don?t believe she said so, that the New Deal was actually a bad deal, and today we have a president who believes that the New Deal was a good deal, and would have been a far better deal if FDR would have spent a lot more money,? Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said.
So the Republicans are fixated on one new book that validates their views, and ignoring all the many books and studies conducted over decades that don't? Why is that not surprising? :D
-
related (IMO) story:
Why Republicans are devouring one book (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21477.html)
"I think it?s conclusive when you read the book, although I don?t believe she said so, that the New Deal was actually a bad deal, and today we have a president who believes that the New Deal was a good deal, and would have been a far better deal if FDR would have spent a lot more money,? Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said.
it's a good book, you should read it. . .i read it last year; it sort ends abruptly after raising willkie as a worthy opponent, then dumping on him as the election grows near. isn't it the least bit puzzling that the great depression lasted so long? if fdr's policies were so good for the economy, why did the depression end only after the u.s. entered world war 2? that certainly is what this paper from ucla (http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409) asks....
i certainly don't see the value that keynes did in hiring one group of people to dig a hole, then hiring another group of people to fill it. . .does it decrease unemployment and increase government spending? sure, but it is neither efficient nor productive.
-
I already debunked both the paper and the book citing a Nobel Laureate along the way. Ridiculous how quickly we forget and rehash old arguments.
-
I thought I knew what teabagging meant: to dip a man's testicles in and out of your mouth. But during a recent conversation about the Republican teabagging craze, my boyfriend told me that teabagging meant to put your balls into someone else's mouth. A person without balls, he insists, can't do the teabagging. But many people I know think they are the teabagger and their partner is the one being teabagged. An internet search turns up both definitions. So, Dan, I'm asking you?as an expert on all things both political and sexual?do any of us hetero females have a chance of teabagging President Obama? Don't get me wrong: I want to teabag the president for all the right reasons. I'm a supporter. I just want in on any political activity that involves Obama's balls in my mouth.
?The Earnest Aspirant
Let's say you were in the West Wing with Barack Obama's sack resting comfortably in your mouth. Perhaps you had done something meritorious?defeated the Somalian pirates, sworn in Senator Al Franken?and you were being awarded the Presidential Wattle of Freedom. The New York Times might report, "The president of the United States and a Savage Love reader were spotted 'teabagging' in the Oval Office today."
But while you can teabag with the president, TEA, you don't have what it takes to administer a teabagging to the president. To teabag someone, you need a scrotum with which to teabag them: The teabagger dips sack; a teabaggee receives dipped sack. It's a little confusing, I realize, in that it's the opposite of a blowjob: The person with a dick in his or her mouth is giving the blowjob; the person being sucked is receiving the blowjob. But language is funny that way.
-
related (IMO) story:
Why Republicans are devouring one book (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21477.html)
"I think it?s conclusive when you read the book, although I don?t believe she said so, that the New Deal was actually a bad deal, and today we have a president who believes that the New Deal was a good deal, and would have been a far better deal if FDR would have spent a lot more money,? Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said.
i certainly don't see the value that keynes did in hiring one group of people to dig a hole, then hiring another group of people to fill it. . .does it decrease unemployment and increase government spending? sure, but it is neither efficient nor productive.
I haven't read Keynes for many years, but I'm pretty certain that he would not advocate hiring people to dig useless holes as the best solution. I think he'd argue that much better would be to support activities with a multiplier effect -- such as government infrastructure projects, which not only put people to work, but accrue lasting benefits to the economy as well. That's what FDR's Works Project Administration was all about -- nearly 80 years later, we still reap economic benefits from the structures built under that program.
This is what mom's-basement-dwelling Ayn Rand fans completely ignore... the huge value that government-built infrastructure such as highways, railways, the internet, and urban transit provide our economy. There is no way that competing private firms could accomplish something like the interstate highway system.
I think Obama did a bad job of managing the stimulus bill-writing process, but overall, the stimulus bill is more about accomplishing needed projects, rather than digging holes then filling them. It's pretty telling that when Bobby "Page from 30 Rock" Jindal, John McCain and the other Republicans tried to single out flaws in the stimulus, they could only find a few tens of millions of dollars worth of projects to mock in a bill of close to $1 billion.
-
is "Political Class" Rasmussen's term for the intelligent and reasonably-educated?
More from Rasmussen- But, in the end, the opinions of the Political Class mattered more than the opinions of voters. Today, by a 61% to 23% margin, the Political Class still believes the bailouts for the financial industry were a good idea. By a 64% to 23%, they say the same about the auto bailouts. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_bailout/most_americans_say_bailouts_were_bad_idea_political_class_disagrees)
-
related (IMO) story:
Why Republicans are devouring one book (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21477.html)
"I think it?s conclusive when you read the book, although I don?t believe she said so, that the New Deal was actually a bad deal, and today we have a president who believes that the New Deal was a good deal, and would have been a far better deal if FDR would have spent a lot more money,? Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said.
i certainly don't see the value that keynes did in hiring one group of people to dig a hole, then hiring another group of people to fill it. . .does it decrease unemployment and increase government spending? sure, but it is neither efficient nor productive.
I haven't read Keynes for many years, but I'm pretty certain that he would not advocate hiring people to dig useless holes as the best solution. I think he'd argue that much better would be to support activities with a multiplier effect -- such as government infrastructure projects, which not only put people to work, but accrue lasting benefits to the economy as well. That's what FDR's Works Project Administration was all about -- nearly 80 years later, we still reap economic benefits from the structures built under that program.
This is what mom's-basement-dwelling Ayn Rand fans completely ignore... the huge value that government-built infrastructure such as highways, railways, the internet, and urban transit provide our economy. There is no way that competing private firms could accomplish something like the interstate highway system.
I think Obama did a bad job of managing the stimulus bill-writing process, but overall, the stimulus bill is more about accomplishing needed projects, rather than digging holes then filling them. It's pretty telling that when Bobby "Page from 30 Rock" Jindal, John McCain and the other Republicans tried to single out flaws in the stimulus, they could only find a few tens of millions of dollars worth of projects to mock in a bill of close to $1 billion.
"Keynes backed up his theory by adding government expenditures to the overall national output. This was controversial from the start because the government doesn't actually save or invest as business and private business do, but raises money through mandatory taxes or debt issues (that are paid back by tax revenues). Still, by adding government to the equation, Keynes showed that government spending - even digging holes and filling them in - would stimulate the economy when businesses and individual were tightening budgets. His ideas heavily influenced the New Deal and the welfare state that grew up in the postwar era." cite (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Giants-Of-Finance-John-investopedia-14346373.html)
similarly, (http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/02/stimulus_keynes.html) "If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coalmines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again (the right to do so being obtained, of course, by tendering for leases of the note-bearing territory), there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a good deal greater than it actually is. It would, indeed, be more sensible to build houses and the like; but if there are political and practical difficulties in the way of this, the above would be better than nothing."
the problem is that government spending is almost, by definition, inefficient and wasteful (i.e., by subsidizing programs takes money that would have otherwise been spent, or saved, the government overspends and encourages wasteful spending). . .that's almost what keynes hopes for.....and what keynes ignores is the far more valuable effects of non-governmental spending, which is far more efficient and results in far greater productivity. the money collected by the government to pay off this increased spending, via higher taxes, results in less productivity and less collective private wealth....and less private investment. government becomes a self-fullfilling prophecy. . .
-
This is brilliant. By throwing a sandwich at a DC deli worker for trying to charge a 5 cent bag tax, this teabagger summed up the Tea Party better than a thousand words could:
http://dcist.com/2010/08/dont_tread_on_my_change_purse.php
-
Palin said she spoke "not as a politician...but as the mother of a soldier."
This woman absolutely has no shame.
-
http://newleftmedia.com/2010/08/glenn-becks-restoring-honor-rally-interviews-with-participants/
anybody see this yet . . . fucking classic!
-
Palin said she spoke "not as a politician...but as the mother of a soldier."
This woman absolutely has no shame.
I wonder if her kids secretly hate her? She's publicly used Bristol, her soldier son, and even her downs syndrome baby for personal/political gain.
-
Palin said she spoke "not as a politician...but as the mother of a soldier."
This woman absolutely has no shame.
I wonder if her kids secretly hate her? She's publicly used Bristol, her soldier son, and even her downs syndrome baby for personal/political gain.
with the amount of fame, money, talk time, free stuff, travels, the hero welcome her son will receive . . . you actually think the palins are hatin' life, g? they up off the shizzle.
-
I don't know where to post this, so I guess I'll post it here, pretty interesting stuff...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti-global-warming-scientist-reverses-course
-
I wonder if her kids secretly hate her? She's publicly used Bristol, her soldier son, and even her downs syndrome baby for personal/political gain.
Not really. They're loaded and kind of like people being trained to instantly play the race card in any situation, when you've been used as a political pawn your entire lives, you're used to it.
-
Speaking of the teabaggers.....lol:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-dumbest-shirts-at-the-glenn-beck-rally
-
Speaking of the teabaggers.....lol:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-dumbest-shirts-at-the-glenn-beck-rally
Teabonics n. pl.
Derisive term for misspelled and ungrammatical Tea Party protest signs. Spotting instances of Teabonics (e.g., Make English America?s offical language) has become a popular sport on Flickr and in the blogosphere.
(from Wired (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/st_jw_sythia/))
put "teabonics" in the google, lots o' giggles to be had.
-
too bad when they are put into office by retards who vote at election times . . . no such giggles will be had.
-
Speaking of the teabaggers.....lol:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-dumbest-shirts-at-the-glenn-beck-rally
the t-shirt that cracks me up the most is the Celtic Thunder one....
-
I assume everyone has seen the anti-sex video by that Teabagger from Delaware who just won the Republican primary where she talks about the evils of masturbation? Democrats are rubbing their hands in glee that the Repubs are going to run her, but in the bigger picture, it's truly a sad day for America that wackoes like that are getting even as far as a primary win.
-
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/odonnell-questions-church-state-separation/?hp
interesting...
-
It is amazing how frighteningly stupid O'Donnell is.
-
Those who don't take the Tea Party seriously in the 2010 elections risk being shocked on November 2.
It will be 6 years of hell for the Republican party much like the first few years of Reagan in the early 80's (at least in the Senate, all of whom were swept out in their first term), but they are certain to tip the balance in two weeks.
So mock at your own peril, Delaware excepted.
-
Those who don't take the Tea Party seriously in the 2010 elections risk being shocked on November 2.
So mock at your own peril
taking something seriously and mocking them aren't mutually exclusive, but i get your point.
-
teabaggers will win some elections, the republicans will sweep in november, obama will be a one termer. a new change from a different party will be expected. nothing happens, no miracles to save us will commence. people will complain but do nothing but protest and write more blogs or comments on horribly written attempts of journalism. they'll create something else to rally around and march because for some reason they think marching equals change, and then revote at another chance because they'll show them at the polls this time. we'll just keep grinding along toward the same solutions and people like me won't care.
-
obama inspired in his campaign, but has been uninspiring in office. the bush administration was defined by failure of government. to the layman's eyes, obama set out to expand government before improving government. perhaps a better gameplan would have been setting out to improving quality of government (fairly and efficiently enforcing current laws; in contrast to Bush era negligence) rather than appearing to expand quantity of government. then again he was dealt a shitty hand and his actions have made political and economic sense (even if they repulse many people's sense of right and wrong). if you have a shitty hand and you can't fold, you tend to lose. that's why its called a shitty hand. if republicans can win with clown candidates, perhaps it will at least serve as a wake up call and obama and the dems can counterpunch and remind us of the promise they represented once upon a time.
a lot of people say obama is a one-term president. they said that about gwb too. but he ran against john kerry who was a douche. . . .so he was a two term president. who can actually win a national election in two years for the republicans?
-
if the economy is better in 2 years obama will win, if its not he wont
-
If someone like Palin runs against Obama, he will win no matter what. Thankfully, while the Stupido-American Community is able to sometimes get teabagger types elected to Congressional seats, they don't have the power to get a President elected.
Remember, Dubya got into office the first time around by claiming to be a moderate, "compassionate conservative." Teabagging will only get you so far in this country.
And yes, Obama has been a disappointment. He's way better than the opposition, but still, what a tragic wasted opportunity.
-
palin's not gonna run. . .i'm looking at either Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. . .
(http://images5.cpcache.com/product/323279905v2_350x350_Front.jpg)
-
how original: http://onetwentyonine.blogspot.com/
-
Chris Christie
dumb name+fatso=unelectable. Never heard of the other guy.
palin's not gonna run. . .i'm looking at either Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. . .
-
palin's not gonna run. . .i'm looking at either Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie. . .
(http://images5.cpcache.com/product/323279905v2_350x350_Front.jpg)
Yeah, those guys won't win either. And that's the stupidest slogan I've seen in a long time.
-
christie has said he wont run and i dont really think he's electable on a national stage, but mitch daniels has potential. other than the being a possible muslim thing