The popular conservative movement we are currently witnessing via the tea parties, the Sarah Palin booksigning rallies, the election results in Massachusetts, the overwhelming popularity of conservative talk show hosts etc – is not angry. This is a misconception based on a deliberate tactic of the left to smear us – Barack Obama personified this tactic when he characterized us as “bitter people who cling to their religion and guns.”
The tea parties are a civil movement. The tea party events themselves are not characterized by bitter rhetoric or violent demonstrations. For that, go to any liberal movement: Code Pink rallies, the anti-globalization demonstrations against multi-national corporations (and the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO), the pro-choice (pro-death) people. These are the people who are angry, bitter, and more: they are violent, reactionary, intolerant.
I am an American first, a conservative second, and Republican a distant third. I practice guerrilla capitalism in plying my trade, which is soldiering. My political ideals embrace laissez-faire capitalism, and I believe that “every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats” (H. L. Mencken). Having said that, I am not a revolutionary. The only revolution I follow is the American Revolution.
63 responses so far
1 teabag // Feb 1, 2010 at 9:01 am
Is this a joke?
See here is you don’t think the Teabaggers are angry and also somewhat stupid. The video is priceless. No need to smear these people smear themselves. I could link to a hundred videos like this and most show incredible anger and ignorance.
http://chattahbox.com/us/2009/09/13/angry-ignorant-tea-party-crowd-heckler-joe-wilson-is-their-hero/
2 tygoef // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:00 am
It’s hilarious that you’d describe someone as intolerant while calling pro-choicers as “pro-death.” In doing so you’ve displayed your ignorance, giving no credence at all to your entire article. Nice job.
3 Moderate // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:00 am
Mencken was a sociopath. Most people are not tempted to slit throats. Sorry, wacko.
4 Jim_M // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:01 am
Thanks very much for illustrating his point. We get it.
The country is split. One side wishes to keep as much of its private property as possible.
And yes, you can bet your ass they’re livid with POLITICIANS piling on when the nation can
afford it the least. The other side is angry too. Angry at AMERICANS. They want that property
(whatever it is) and feel they are entitled to it because it was acquired immorally, illegally or ???
Lots of anger and hatred. Anger at a handful of politicians and hatred of America.
America is waking up thank God. We tend to self-correct. In 2008 we elected a great American Idol
candidate. Unfortunately his record sales are dismal. No one is listening.
5 ProfNickD // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:43 am
teabag:
By what standard are you claiming that Tea party protests are “angry”? Shouting out or funny signs doesn’t cut it. It seems to me that violence would be the most unambiguous manifestation of “anger.”
But there have been no recorded incidents of violence at Tea Party rallies — except those perpetrated by leftist/union counter-protesters.
Indeed, violence is a staple of nearly all leftist protests. So doesn’t that make the Left the “angry” movement out there?
6 tygoef // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:43 am
Funny again, the group that seeks to retrieve health care coverage for all Americans is the one angry at Americans. We’re so angry at Americans that we’d like them to have the worst possible thing for them, optimal health.
7 ProfNickD // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:44 am
tygoef,
“Optimal health” and government intervention in the medical sector of the economy are mutually exclusive.
8 tygoef // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:45 am
ProfNicD: Does simulated violence count for anything? http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/13/tea-party-leader-vows-to-burn-pelosi-and-perriello-in-effigy/?fbid=Jze_YyGg0Wa
9 tygoef // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46 am
If that were true, then why does American not have the best health care results in the world? We spend the most on it, and are one of the few countries with minimal government intervention.
10 tygoef // Feb 1, 2010 at 10:47 am
Here we have violence from both sides, obviously instigated by the Tea Party side, seeing as how they advanced first. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/violence-breaks-tea-party-rally/story?id=9137648
11 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 11:07 am
How come I always hear tea partiers declaring “damn right, we’re angry!”
(or mad, or pissed off, or furious, etc)
Next time there’s a tea party rally, pretend you’re a reporter, and work the crowd. Ask them if they’re angry.
Then get back to us on it.
The tea party events themselves are not characterized by bitter rhetoric or violent demonstrations.
Nope. They’re the portrait of civility.
12 jerkfacemcgee // Feb 1, 2010 at 11:11 am
you lost any remaining credibility at “(pro-death)”
13 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 11:46 am
you lost any remaining credibility at “(pro-death)”
Particularly entertaining coming from someone who constantly raises a defense of his chosen profession – being a professional killer.
14 LFC // Feb 1, 2010 at 11:56 am
The Tea Partiers are angry, but also rudderless. I have no problem with their anger, as long as it’s being directed at specific issues and solutions. These can be debated. The problem is that it’s become a group supporting an amalgam of issues and general cries of “Socialism!”, “Freedom!”, and other easy catchwords.
To be taken credibly, the Tea Party has to pick specific issues and provide specific solutions. As it is, it’s a bunch of people who are pissed off about a bunch of nebulous “stuff”. Whoop-dee-doo. I can walk in to any bar, restaurant, or PTA meeting in the country and find people like that.
15 Kanzeon // Feb 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Thanks, Sean, for clearing that up. I always enjoy your factual presentations.
I think the root of my confusion over this originates with the name “tea party.” I seem to connect that name with a group of angry gentlemen destroying private property, which was a precursor to a bloody revolution. It appears that, instead, the leaders wanted to associate their movement with afternoon “high” tea. I hope no one else made the same mistake I did.
16 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 2:38 pm
Finally, a sane voice on this site about the Tea Partiers.
These people are the ones who aren’t asleep at the wheel; who see an out of control government for what it is, and is attempting to nip it in the bud.
You cannot spend your nation into oblivion and expect to remain a unified nation. The Federal gov’t needs a serious check, and the louder, angrier, and more active the citizenry the better.
Showing anger now and then is not such a bad thing. Considering this is a civil rights movement at its core, there will and should be anger.
17 LFC // Feb 1, 2010 at 3:23 pm
WillyP said… You cannot spend your nation into oblivion and expect to remain a unified nation. The Federal gov’t needs a serious check, and the louder, angrier, and more active the citizenry the better.
Excuse my skepticism when this all suddenly exploded the instant a Democrat got in to office, and not during the spendthrift years before. Excuse my skepticism for the fact that they are blaming Obama for a huge deficit, prior to him actually ever proposing a budget. Excuse my skepticism for the fact that they are screaming “Socialism!” over healthcare reform, when so many of them are on socialized medicine (a.k.a. Medicare).
I see anger and blame for the outcomes of GOP policies being pushed onto the current President. Kind of tough to take that seriously.
18 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 3:34 pm
“Excuse my skepticism when this all suddenly exploded the instant a Democrat got in to office, and not during the spendthrift years before.”
Was this a concern of Obama? Then why did he triple the the projected national debt?
There’s anger because 1) he is a socialist, and has a history of association with socialist (more specifically, Marxist) activists 2) one way to ruin a capitalist country that has a balanced financial system (the Bush deficits were obviously curable) is to spend it into oblivion.
One cannot be so derided for connecting 2 dots. He hates the capitalist system, and wants it to implode. Debt will do that. At least that’s what the Tea Partiers are thinking.
“I see anger and blame for the outcomes of GOP policies being pushed onto the current President. Kind of tough to take that seriously.”
What you see is buyer’s remorse from a bunch of people who did not realize they elected an ideologue who is operating like an ideologue, and not an American president.
19 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Then why did he triple the the projected national debt?
You keep saying this. And it’s as stupid now as the first time you said it.
He hates the capitalist system, and wants it to implode.
Silly. If he hated the capitalist system, we’d be nationalizing banks, not propping them up via TARP. If he hated the capitalist system, we would have the Interior Department building big new windfarms and solar farms and transmission lines on Federal Property – instead of stimulus dollars being used to incentivize private firms into doing the same.
What you see is buyer’s remorse from a bunch of people who did not realize they elected an ideologue who is operating like an ideologue
Do you really believe that the people who have spearheaded the Tea Party Movement from the beginning – Dick Armey, Glenn Beck, etc – really are having some kind of buyer’s remorse?
They could have been taken seriously if we’d have seen them starting up movements right after the Bush Admininstration pushed through a massive increase in Medicare without any offsetting program cuts or tax increases to balance the ledger sheet.
They blew their credibility by not marching on Washington then. Now their attacks just smack of partisanship, and not principle.
20 sparty // Feb 1, 2010 at 3:50 pm
http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/rnr/1574293261.html
Snort.
21 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:02 pm
balcones says:
“Silly. If he hated the capitalist system, we’d be nationalizing banks, not propping them up via TARP.”
lol, same thing bud. control is all that matters. and control they now have!
As for the “stupid” remark, see here:
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/07A1E203-02B0-4221-A488-F3DA7BEF74C4/
As you’ll observe, those numbers were provided by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. From ~$5 trillion to ~$15 trillion.
3 x 5 = 15; hence, Obama tripled the debt.
22 andydp // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:24 pm
I do not consider Tea Partiers as true Americans. REAL Americans would not be thinking armed insurrection or sdecession because they do not like the current administration. I may add, as you all know, I can match my “patriotism” bona fides with Mr Linnae any time.
If they are angy at mounting debt, why weren’t they angry when we gave away a budget surplus that, if left alone, would have paid off the national debt as of last November. If President Obama had let the economy die by doing nothing what would be the Tea Party’s reaction ? “We’re out of work and in a depression but by golly we’re safe from the raving Socialists ?”
Where were they when the Medicare Drug program was established with the proviso Medicare could NOT negotiate for better drug prices ? (Like the VA and Medicaid do)
Sorry Mr Linnae, its not possible for me to see the Tea Baggers as nothing but a bunch of people that do not like having a Democratic administration (let alone having a Black president). The photo of a Tea party “Leader” with as sign reading “Nigar” (sic) and wearing a hat that says “Man of Faith” does not evoke visions of civil discourse.
You said in your posting while talking about “left wing groups” that: These are the people who are angry, bitter, and more: they are violent, reactionary, intolerant. I beg to differ: I don’t see or hear too many of the “Pinks” brandishing weapons outside of Presidential appearances (I own weapons so don’t call me a gun control shill). I don’t see photos of President Obama as Mao, Che, or Hitler at Pink rallies. I do see patriotic Americans like Scottt Palin showing their love for the USA by being members of the Alaska Indipendence Party – a secessionist group.
Regarding the national debt: Here’s a piece by David Axelrod published in the Washington Post in January:
The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus — with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit — and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.
To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration’s swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit.
Sean, if you were an “American First” You would be denoucing the words and actions of the Tea Partiers and fighting to bring them into a true political discourse. You would be culling their opinions for good sensible ideas to embrace and get into the mainstream. You would be denouncing and publicising the “fringes” so they could be ostracised from the movement.
You would in effect be working to maintain and improve the Republic the way our founding fathers wanted.
23 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:31 pm
A bunch of civil protesters out there trying to stop an out of control government and out of touch president whose policies are reminiscent of those that led up to WW2,
and the best you loser libs can do is slander them.
Shame on you all! Shame! Shame! Shame!
24 rbottoms // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:37 pm
If you thought the teabaggers were off the hook last year, wait until the warm weather comes and they can get back to talking militias and insurrection and toting their guns at public meetings. The norther crackpots should be in a particularly high froth seeing how Obama is still president and all.
25 Kanzeon // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:43 pm
WillyP
“A bunch of civil protesters out there trying to stop an out of control government and out of touch president whose policies are reminiscent of those that led up to WW2…and the best you loser libs can do is slander them.”
Forgive me. I often can’t make sense of your posts.
But I think you just tried to compare Obama to Hitler or Stalin….and then complained about someone being slandered. Let me know if I understood correctly.
26 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:46 pm
As for the “stupid” remark, see here:
http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/07A1E203-02B0-4221-A488-F3DA7BEF74C4/
As you’ll observe, those numbers were provided by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. From ~$5 trillion to ~$15 trillion.
The Heritage Foundation is lying to you.
How? Because they are using smoke and mirrors to imply that the 2009 budget (with the $7.9 trillion debt) was due to Obama.
First off, FY 2009 ran from October 1 2008 to September 31 2009. Bush was President almost 1/3 of this time.
Second, the FY 2009 budget was signed by Bush.
Third, Heritage tries to cover this last point by some fast talking: While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
In fact, that budget deficit increase has almost wholly been due to falling Federal Revenues thanks to the economic collapse Obama inherited.
Fourth, the national debt when Barack Obama took office was actually $10.6 trillion dollars. Right wing partisans have now shifted to using the term “Public Debt” so they can claim a lower debt level at the end of the Bush Administration. Unless you plan on defaulting on Social Security obligations, you should be using the $10.6 trillion number as a starting point for the Obama Administration (and by the way, comparing it with the $5.7 trillion in debt when Bush took office in 2001).
So get back to me when you have estimates we’ll be $32 trillion in debt by January 21, 2017 when Obama leaves office.
27 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm
you didn’t, but it’s ok. i’m used to it.
where do you see me comparing obama to stalin and hitler?
to be sure, i really don’t like the man. and his economic ideas are very much in line with those notorious marxists you list.
i think he’s a menace. but i don’t believe i’ve ever suggested he’s genocidal.
28 Kanzeon // Feb 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Then what did you mean by:
“whose policies are reminiscent of those that led up to WW2″
If you were talking about economic collapse, then I would think mentioning policies prolonging the Great Depression would cover it.
29 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Yes precisely; the interwar period.
The international liberal order (that is, true liberalism) collapsed after WWI. During the interim, Europe went Socialist (with a capital S, as in from real socialist parties), and American fueled a credit bubble through the newly created Federal Reserve system.
While in Germany and England, the statist governments piled on the debt and sought to erect legislative trade barriers, America adopted a form of fascism thanks to Hoover and FDR.
I remind you all that when you blockade a nation, you do so to limit trade. In doing so, you starve it of the resources it needs to prosper. Legal barriers to trade have the same effect. The more barriers to trade that were erected, the more autistic the nations became, and so war became less and less costly. We can blame it on the Treaty of Versailles only so much – in fact, the payment scheme was doable had not Germany interfered with its economy to the point of collapse.
80 years later we have a world in recession, and increasingly autistic policies by the U.S. government. I’m not saying we’re headed toward war necessarily, but you have to admit, this is very unwise policy. And being that our president is actually stupid enough to advocate capping tuition as a way to expand higher education opportunities (see his state of the union address), I don’t think he has any master plan. I think he’s just wrong, foolish, and very arrogant.
30 Kanzeon // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:12 pm
WillP:
“America adopted a form of fascism thanks to Hoover and FDR.”
So, you’re calling both Hoover and FDR fascists, but Obama just foolish and arrogant.
“but you have to admit, this is very unwise policy.”
I certainly am against government autism.
31 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:20 pm
kanzeon,
You sound like Jon Stewart. A liberal loud mouth, but quick to move to jest when roundly defeated with facts.
Hoover was a progressive; a product of the progressive era. FDR was, it seems, in love with Europe when Europe was in love of Fascism. You know, “Fascism” didn’t always have such a negative connotation. And neither did Socialism and Communism for many.
But we’ve had a century of horrors thanks to both – both that share a commonality in the centralization of economic decision making…
you know what? I’ve just grown very weary of repeating myself to you, Kanzeon. You will be a hopeless drone until it’s uncool.
32 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:28 pm
The more barriers to trade that were erected, the more autistic the nations became, and so war became less and less costly.
Huh? Does someone have a decoder ring?
33 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:32 pm
And now the deluge of anti-intellectualism from the left….
Why YES balcones! That’s right! If you aren’t trading with your neighbors, it makes a lot more sense to invade them to get their resources!
And showering each day will reduce the dreadful odor that surrounds you!
34 teabag // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:37 pm
WilleyP
The Palin of Frum Forum.
Unintelligible, idiotic and simply dumb as a lump of horses excrement.
35 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:42 pm
“The Palin of Frum Forum”
I take that as a compliment.
ALWAYS REMEMBER:
I’m not the one posting under the moniker of a sexual fetish.
36 LFC // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:48 pm
WillyP is too dumb to understand that deficits come from two places; increased spending AND decreased revenue. The increase that current $1.6 trillion deficit, a gift of George W. Bush’s policies, has over the prior year’s deficit is actually 100% decreased revenue. Actually, it’s a hair over 100% as spending was actually a hair less.
The deficit he wishes to blame on Obama is due to shrinking revenue, not huge increases in spending. WillyP is just a typical Republican who is unable to face facts and admit that their policies have failed spectacularly. Time for the GOP to either come up with some new policies other than tax cuts or get the hell out of the way.
BTW, for an idea of the fiscal conservatism of current Republicans, see Bruce Bartlett’s excellent takedown of Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty, who was once considered moderate and reasonable, is now chanting the “tax cuts cure everything” mantra.
Also look at the fact that every GOP Senator voter against pay as you go rules. Those rules are totally foreign to the party of borrow and spend.
37 teabag // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:49 pm
You would . As I said dumb as horseshit.
38 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:55 pm
As for the “stupid” remark, see here:
As you’ll observe, those numbers were provided by the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. From ~$5 trillion to ~$15 trillion.
A bunch of sneaky lies embedded in that Heritage presentation, my friend.
First lie – pegging the 2009 deficit on Obama – when Bush signed the budget, and when the FY runs from October 1 to September 30 … so almost 1/3 of FY 2009 also took place under Bush.
Heritage tries to do some smoke and mirrors here to cover that up … While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration
Heritage doesn’t mention that much of that $400 billion in deficit increase occurred because of shortfalls in tax revenues, a direct reflection of the severe recession Obama inherited, as well as the tax credits in the stimulus plan that took place immediately.
Second, Heritage throws in this zinger: Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
From Jan 1 2007 through Jan 1 2008, the Federal Debt increased from 9.2 trillion dollars to 10.7 trillion dollars. That’s a deficit of 1.5 trillion dollars. By your claim, the Obama deficit in 2013 would need to be 3 trillion dollars.
I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen.
Third, illustrated above is another nice game Heritage uses – the term “public debt”. Unless the government intends to default on the Social Security trust fund, then you should use total federal debt.
Thus, as I pointed out, the debt on Jan 1 a year ago was actually 10.7 trillion. It increased to 12.3 trillion on Jan 1 of this year – a 1.6 trillion dollar increase, slightly larger than the increase the previous year.
39 CDO // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:55 pm
”
I’m not the one posting under the moniker of a sexual fetish.”
Your teabaggers called yourselves that.
40 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:56 pm
LFC,
3.8 trillion dollar budget is all spending. Bush is not president anymore, although you should admit that you were never really for Obama, so much as you hated Bush. True, right?
It’s Obama’s job to balance the budget. Obama must stop whining like some tinpot dictator south of the equator who incessantly blames his exiled predecessor.
He should take a page out of Truman’s book and say “The Buck Stops Here.”
41 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Haha, now the true vitriol comes out. I present David Frum his New Majority – the Malcontent Left!
Don’t you people ever feel bad spending your days advocating stealing more and more money from your fellow citizens? Or is morality so last century?
42 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Obama must stop whining like some tinpot dictator south of the equator who incessantly blames his exiled predecessor.
From Ronald Reagan’s SECOND State of the Union Address, in January 1983:
“The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted.”
So was Reagan a whiner as well, WillyP? Was Reagan like “some tinpot dictator south of the equator who incessantly blames his exiled predecessor”?
43 WillyP // Feb 1, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Reagan, you might remember, was enacting the opposite policies as Obama; that is, he was trying to cure the recession, rather than perpetuate it. From the same address:
“Four years ago, I spoke to you of a new beginning and we have accomplished that. But in another sense, our new beginning is a continuation of that beginning created two centuries ago when, for the first time in history, government, the people said, was not our master, it is our servant; its only power that which we the people allow it to have. 7
That system has never failed us, but, for a time, we failed the system. We asked things of government that government was not equipped to give. We yielded authority to the National Government that properly belonged to States or to local governments or to the people themselves. We allowed taxes and inflation to rob us of our earnings and savings and watched the great industrial machine that had made us the most productive people on Earth slow down and the number of unemployed increase.”
See? When you talk like a freedom loving patriot, a traditional American, you can take a few jabs at your loser lib predecessor.
44 balconesfault // Feb 1, 2010 at 6:41 pm
See? When you talk like a freedom loving patriot, a traditional American, you can take a few jabs at your loser lib predecessor.
Or … you get to whine if you agree with WillyP.
45 TAZ // Feb 1, 2010 at 7:37 pm
Tea partiers are nothing more than neoconservatives and social conservatives that want to show they can torpedo an election if they put their minds to it……….
The same people that want you to believe they are the only future of the Republican party (Palin, T-Paw, Armey) are just as happy sinking elections by supporting third party candidates.
46 VA Shepherd // Feb 2, 2010 at 2:13 am
A slang term for a sexual act is being commonly used by liberal talking heads to slander the TEA party? Any news professional who tried that with one of the established parties would be roundly criticized. Why is this allowed at Frum Forum? Whatever happened to civility and higher-mindedness?
CDO // Feb 1, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“I’m not the one posting under the moniker of a sexual fetish.”
Your teabaggers called yourselves that.
Apparently “Teabag” is an acceptable name, and calling TEA party members is acceptable at Frum Forum. What’s next? Character attacks on Scott Brown? Posts about his posing in Cosmo nearly 30 years ago? Oh, that was already posted…
47 WillyP // Feb 2, 2010 at 9:25 am
If you have trouble distinguishing the statesman Reagan from the neophyte commie Obama, balcones, I’d suggest devoting some time to your comprehension skills. The two could not have been more different.
On one hand you have a popular, government limiting president, and on the other an unpopular statist who cannot recognize when the entire country is against his agenda. And please, spare me this talk about just wanting to ruin his presidency from day one. He started out with very, very high approval ratings, insisted on taking on healthcare after ramming through a pork barrel “stimulus,” and cannot shut up about how his predecessor, under whom unemployment averaged 5%, ruined the nation.
If Obama did not want to be called a socialist, he should not have launched his political career in Bill Ayers home, he should not have taught for the Alinksy School of Community Organizing (whatever it was called), he should not have listened to a radicalized preacher for 20 years, and he should not have written about hanging out with Marxist professors in his autobiography. And once he was elected, he should not have begun seizing the private sector through back door regulations and outright takeovers. None of this matters, huh? – they’re just silly, angry, childish, petulant “teabaggers.”
You libs are angry because your archetype is flailing, and exposing you for the silly fools you are.
48 GOProud // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:17 am
Sean, if you ever get the opportunity to do a little light reading you might want to check out how the Federalists handled the country’s first supposed “tea partiers”… in this case, the Thom Jefferson followers who openly spread sedition and encouraged the French to undermine Geo Washington’s and John Adams’ administrations. It got so bad, so seditious, that it required the govt to enact an Alien Friends Act and a Sedition Act to counter the far Left, then-seditious main stream journalists and publishers like Ben Franklin’s grandkid, Jefferson’s #1 henchman in national smear campaigns, and Madison’s best pal in fomenting insurrection.
Of course, back then, it was the precursors to the modern day Democrats… the same party that brought us the race riots on mainstreets in the 1950s, the anti-American riots on college campuses in the 1960s, and more race riots in the 1970s.
And they want to lecture Tea Partiers on civil discourse? Good God.
49 WillyP // Feb 2, 2010 at 10:55 am
GOProud, can you recommend a the title of a book?
50 Cforchange // Feb 2, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Some of you here are just part of the noise that is a flat out bore. One can only hope that the days of stupid vague noise and empty divisive rhetoric will come to an end.
Obstruction has nothing to do with competance. If anything, tea partiers were 8 years tardy and we know from the pic’s, the protesting grey’s certainly were in the work force during this time. Why does this movement think they deserve a pat on the back because you really were sleeping at the switch and there’s nothing liberal about that assessment. Afterall, how could the actions of burning through a surplus and borrowing to fund a war possibly be considered good business? Why no protesting in the proper day? Paul O’neill protested – he quit, why didn’t you back him? Why weren’t you all bright enough to realize that for the majority of the population, real incomes started to drop in 2004? Really what explains silence and inaction during all this?
I see no reason to praise or trust the judgement of the Tea Partiers – better late than never doesn’t cut it here. Simply, way too tardy = lacking comphrehension, ideas and leadership. Many American’s recognized the enourmous American challenges early in the new millenia. We’ve had our tantrums as individuals and now seek resolutions. It will be impossible for the early adopters to follow those who couldn’t react timely.
Credit may be due that the Tea folks created momentum to suggest Congressional job insecurity is here. Maybe the movement should adopt an initiative to outsource our government – it’s worked well for the people. As Bill would say ***snort*** !!!!!
51 LFC // Feb 2, 2010 at 4:20 pm
WillyP, nice speech from Reagan. Of course his record shows that he proceeded to increase spending like a drunken sailor for his entire 8 years. And he jacked up Social Security taxes and proceeded to spend the surplus to make his budget numbers look better, just as his Republican predecessors did. Clinton was the only one to ever slow down the growth of spending, and to actually (just one year) produce a surplus budget.
The truth hurts, but the truth is that there has been zero evidence of Republican fiscal conservatism from 1980 on. Even now they oppose Pay-Go. The GOP, party of borrow and spend.
As to Obama’s budget being all spending, look at the spending increase under George W’s last budget, and compare it to Obama’s current one. Two years and less than half the spending increase. Of course, you’re probably just impatient to have Obama clean up the mess left behind by your beloved Republicans, at which point you’ll scream that the Dems are doing all the wrong things.
52 WillyP // Feb 2, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Reagan did increase spending, primarily on the military. This was done to defeat the Soviet, although you probably scoff at such a claim.
Non-defense discretionary spending, in fact, dropped. Milton Friedman used to talk about that often. And please don’t forget, Reagan was dealing with a Congress of Dems.
LFC, you will say anything to defend Obama, who is everyday proving himself to be the worst president of the last 50 years. And we’re only 1 year in. Thank you, libs, for handing the Oval Office to a socialist community organizer.
53 WillyP // Feb 2, 2010 at 4:53 pm
I should also note that, unlike you Obamysoxers, I am for DRASTICALLY REDUCING spending.
I say privatize social security, and reform Medicare/Medicaid by phasing them out as much as possible over the next 30 or 40 years.
Short of this truly bold, like this BS about earmarks, our fiscal situation will remain dire.
54 LFC // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm
LFC, you will say anything to defend Obama, who is everyday proving himself to be the worst president of the last 50 years.
You were obviously asleep for the prior 8 years.
I will judge Obama’s fiscal conservatism by what he does AFTER the current Republican generated crisis is dealt with, and not before. That’s what adults do.
55 Kanzeon // Feb 2, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Pretty hopeless, discussing anything will WillP.
It doesn’t matter that Reagan increased the deficit – that doesn’t count in Will’s world. He just makes an exception: it was military spending, so somehow it isn’t a deficit…or something. It’s ok for Reagan to blame his predecessors, because he’s a traditional American, not a “commie.”
He’s constructed an alternative reality, and even has his own vocabulary.
56 balconesfault // Feb 3, 2010 at 12:12 am
I say privatize social security,
And I say Republicans should all run their campaigns with that pledge as a centerpiece next fall. Who knows – maybe they’ll convince enough American voters to give them a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress, and your hopes can come true!
Please please please please please!
57 WillyP // Feb 3, 2010 at 10:08 am
And to address the fiscal crisis of debt, the liberal intellects here decide that we must spend here.
Excuse me… I’ve constructed an alternate reality? When was the last time anybody paid off a credit card by adding to its balance?
The modern left – confused nitwits. As for this Reagan slandering, history has judged his presidency extremely well. And, truthfully, he ran an administration on the same basic principles he had been campaigning on since the 60s. Less taxes, less regulation, and the defeat of communism byway of peace through strength.
You libs are pathetic. While your idol makes a mockery of the office, his allies, and consigns the American citizenry to poverty, WHILE worrying about the rights of terrorists, the best you can do is attack Reagan, who defeated the Red Menace once and for all.
58 GOProud // Feb 3, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Kanzeon offers: “Pretty hopeless, discussing anything will WillP”
LOL! You should publish an irony or satire alert on those laugh lines in the future, Kanzeon.
WillyP, my experience and that of others here is that Kanzeon can even make TeaBagged and BlankHead look rational. And he’s one of those alter-named trolls that pop-up when the Left is losing the discussion here… what a fake. Don’t blame him… when “fake” is all he brings to the thread, you can’t expect much.
59 GOProud // Feb 3, 2010 at 2:27 pm
WillyP asks: “GOProud, can you recommend the title of a book?”
Sure. An on-target read is Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815, by Wood from Oxford U Press. My 340+ student class of sophs read it last term and even the farLeft apologists in the class admitted they learned more about their Party and the origins of their ideological impulses than they’ve learned to date. Some things never change; one thing that doesn’t are what motivates and animates modern liberals and Democrats.
Hope you enjoy it.
60 balconesfault // Feb 3, 2010 at 2:41 pm
As for this Reagan slandering
Slander?
You mean … after you have established that it is clearly poor form by a President to point to problems left by his predecessor one year into his Presidency … pointing out that two years into his Presidency Reagan declared in his State of the Union:
“The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted.”
See … I don’t consider that slander. First, because it’s factual. Second, because noting the problems left on the doorstep of a President is legitimate political discourse.
Can you tell me why you think Reagan’s words were so horrible that repeating them constitutes slander?
61 Kanzeon // Feb 3, 2010 at 6:45 pm
GOProud:
Since I’m always in favor of fact- and logic-based debate, I am dismayed that you find something that I wrote here irrational.
In the interest of self-improvement, perhaps you could quote, verbatim, something irrational that I said or a factual statement that I didn’t link. If you do so, I’ll be sure to do whatever research is necessary to reconsider my views. Thanks.
62 GOProud // Feb 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
Nice try at moving the goalposts, Kanzeon… I’ve yet to read a single posting of yours which is either fact-based or logical. Your “interest” in self-improvement is neither clever nor an effective tool to redirect the discussion. Nice try but Bzzzzt, you didn’t clear the credibility bar on that attempt.
You claimed above that’s it’s “pretty hopeless discussing anything with WillyP”. I can see why you’d say that: as a rationalization for losing a debate, withdrawing in a manner that lets you dismiss your opponent’s superior points –but it’s kind of cowardly, chicken’ish and evidence of a lack of character on your part. Stand up. Be a man. You lost the discussion. Admit it.
By the way, we ran your text segments here alongside Balconesfault in a grammar and syntax detection software program used by faculty here at Michigan to uncover plagiarism in graduate papers… the program determined a 87.9% correlation and dependence between your comments and Balconesfault. You guys gotta quit using the same brain stem.
63 balconesfault // Feb 4, 2010 at 11:46 am
By the way, we ran your text segments here alongside Balconesfault in a grammar and syntax detection software program used by faculty here at Michigan to uncover plagiarism in graduate papers… the program determined a 87.9% correlation and dependence between your comments and Balconesfault. You guys gotta quit using the same brain stem.
Satire? Or baldfaced lying?
You make the call!
You must log in to post a comment.