Republican teabaggers

Venerable wrote:
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

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.

I think we can all get behind protesting this:

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.)

Doctor wrote:
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?

walkonby wrote:

I want this on a t-shirt

http://www.tshirthub.com/cr-m-whitepeople.html

And only $10.

smakawhat wrote:

walkonby wrote:

I want this on a t-shirt

Doctor wrote:
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

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

Venerable wrote:
what makes you think they are all republicans? 

"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."

sweetcell wrote:

Venerable wrote:
what makes you think they are all republicans? 

"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

"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.