thedailybeast.com— A Tea Party leader tells Patricia Murphy that with little 2012 impact, the movement is ‘dead’ and ‘gone.’
Feb 6, 2012View in Crawl 4
I supported it in the beginning when it was just about lowering taxes and less government spending but then it evolved into a religious right wing organization with no real purpose except to denounce Obama and Democrats.
Cowicide ...... You are completely incorrect. The "Tea Party" .... a movement largely born by the organization Campaign for Liberty was a grass roots movements started by people tired of corporate lobbyists running Washington, and corrupt politicians ..... and then it was hijacked by corporate scum, crackpots, and morons. If you did a little more homework other than what MSNBC tells you .... you would know this was fact.
The tea bagger structure was set up 4 years earlier via Koch brother funding with "Americans for Prosperity". That structure then became the tea baggers and then the Koch brothers further enabled it by providing funding for transportation, etc.
That's how all those buses, etc. "magically" appeared for tea baggers. It wasn't grassroots beginnings; it was astroturf attempting to simulate a grassroots effort and it sure worked on YOU.
The big money from the likes of the Koch brothers backed the Tea Party, just-say-no group to gain leverage to stop gov from working so as to enable what's going on now.. Now the Koch brothers just got done from a strategy meeting where they bought out an entire huge Palm Springs resort to ensure secrecy where who was to be Pres was topic of discussion.
The big money can now flow directly to influence the vote and the Tea Party Koch front group has no need for funding false grassroots organization pumped up by corporate money to have its way.. Alec has been busy and the Supreme Court is corporate shill heaven enabling wealth transfer and the demise of people power in the united states.
The big money now flows directly to Romney style vulture capitalist political take over and Fox News is there to cover the story. Money in their mind has been given voice and corporations are people - look see there are people in there, don't you see says the spider to the fly. You stupid people- you idiots who are too blind to see what is happening.. Wave your stupid flags and whimper and whine when it is too late but don't come crawling go me.
While there are some good, genuine people in the Tea Party, the movement was pretty blatant corporate astroturf from the start with one goal in mind: derail the movement for change and reform by directly attacking Obama. They retook the US House in 2010, so there was no danger of any significant reforms making through Congress at that point, and they cut off their funding and support, thus bringing us to the situation we're in today.
The movement was retarded from the very beginning. The things that their representatives tried to pass were idiotic in the extreme. Now it seems like they are going on the trash heap of history - good riddance. If those good, genuine people in the Tea Party weren't so dumb and gullible, perhaps the movement would have led somewhere mildly positive.
Nothing, although it depends on what exactly you mean by that. The constitution is a living document. It has been updated and interpreted over the centuries. That's why it stood up so well - because the system is dynamic enough to adjust when a particular interpretation becomes unworkable.
For an example, see the Federalist Papers, and how they impacted the history of our country.
Furthermore, insisting that we cut the budget in the middle of a recession is extremely idiotic.
The reason we are in the recession is the deficit. If you keep borrowing money, you're pumping more money into the system and the dollar becomes worth less and less.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Wrong. We are in a recession because several bubbles burst. In large part the deficit is irrelevant here. It is a long-term problem - not a short-term one.
And if you stop spending money - if you suddenly cut the country's budget by a trillion or so - then suddenly US ends up with a 35-45% unemployment. Because all that money that would go to US government employees would be lost - the employees would be fired. The subcontractors would lose their jobs. The people supporting the subcontractors would lose their jobs. It would be a cascade effect that would have turned the recession into a depression far worse than the one in the early 20th century.
No. You are wrong. We shouldn't stop spending, we just need to cut spending. The people with private sector jobs would have a strong dollar, and the economy would quickly recover anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I'd say you are both half right. It is caused by borrowing more and spending even more yet while cutting taxes, while also having the bubbles caused by bad decisions bursting.
What? No. We entered the recession b/c the lending industry cratered from irresponsible lending and borrowing and all the derivative activities related to that.
The Federalist papers had limited distribution, were too late to change anything, were heavily biased, not representative and had no impact at the time. Just saying.
Cutting the budget is stupid, cutting from some areas is smart though if the money is redirected intelligently. Unfortunately intelligence is not high on the list of attributes we vote for.
The Federalist Papers had a heavy impact on the interpretation of the constitution. It doesn't matter that they weren't heavily distributed - it matters what they did and how they added to the constitutional law. It's just an example.
I wouldn't go so far as to say heavy impact, because they were arguing points in a debate which was settled State by State. The papers were representative of part of one side in the founding of the USA. Hamilton and Madison were important, but not the only voices even in the Federalist clique. Then, Jefferson for instance was a huge critic of Madison despite being great friends that wrote each other extensively.
Your point is taken though. The papers are used sometimes.
"No. You are wrong. We shouldn't stop spending, we just need to cut spending."
That is the last thing you want to do in a recession. I already explained this. The cascading effect from so many lost jobs would be enormous, and this is exactly the wrong time to do that.
"The people with private sector jobs would have a strong dollar, and the economy would quickly recover anyway."
Yea, no, not so much. If the unemployment in the country is 35-45%, you don't quickly recover from that.
Also, as I mentioned before, millions of private sector jobs would be lost as well.
I would like to know where you got this 35-45% number. Because cutting the annual budget <30% causing a 25% raise in unemployment does not make sense logistically. Granted few things do make sense when the government spends your money.
Right now the US has about 22% unemployment (counting people who have stopped looking for work, etc.).
US GDP is about 15 trillion. US government expenditure is 3.3 trillion, with the vast majority of that spent in the country. Cutting 30% off of that will reduce the GDP by one trillion - or about 6.6% of GDP. That's about how much the GDP fell during the current recession, with the 22% unemployment. So immediately the recession effect on the economy would double. And all of this would happen suddenly, overnight. If the effect is even half as much, then the unemployment will fall to 33%.
Of course I am confusing cause and effect here, but there are all sorts of secondary effects to firing so many people. 25% of the population does not have a job that directly depends on the government, but they do have jobs that depend on spending by people that are employed by the government. And other people depend on the people who depend on the spending by the employees of the government. It's a cascade effect that will have far reaching implications on all sorts of things.
Also, there are several cases in history where governments enacted austerity measures, destroying their economy.
For one thing, it's incredibly inconvenient when you're trying to make the world a perfect, just place.
Every tiresome individual with an opinion thinks they ought to have some say just because it's a representative form of government and they want their opinions represented.
Then there are the folks who think, just because they worked for something they ought to have some claim to it. I mean, how are you going to have a morally-flawless world if people who, just because they've spent their lives creating something, believe they have some claim on it?
People, let's get real! There are smarter, better people out there and they can't be shackled by the same rules that are meant for "ordinary" folks.
I mean, it's just common sense, right?
That's one of the real problems with the Constitution. It just doesn't have any special provisions for special people. People who, due to their superior intellect, compassion and tolerance - just ask them - oughtn't to be held to the same standards as "ordinary" people.
That's why it's so important that the Constitution should be considered a "living document". So that the ludicrous oversights of the founding fathers, in not making any provisions for those who are the natural givers of law and should thus be above the law, can be rectified.
I don't care for your inappropriate use of the word retarded.
Most of the 'good, genuine people' that participated in Tea Party rallies had their hearts in the right place and wanted to participate in the political process. Unfortunately, like most initially successful populist movements, they were co-opted by radical right-wing and corporate shills -- but don't call them dumb, or gullible -- they had voices and they deserved to be heard even if you don't agree with them.
Consider the 'good, genuine people' of the Occupy movement and their voices for change. They've been co-opted too by the opposite end of the politcal spectrum, and now they have little to no credibilty either.
In today's politics, there isn't a movement out there that doesn't have an organized counter-movement to distort, dehumanize and villify an organization's original intent. Nor is there a lack for a blogger or 'news' media to capitalize on it, fan the flames of dissension and profit from it.
"Unfortunately, like most initially successful populist movements, they were co-opted by radical right-wing and corporate shills -- but don't call them dumb, or gullible -- they had voices and they deserved to be heard even if you don't agree with them."
Like I said - they kept yelling about rather dumb things. Being co-opted is not a good excuse. Tell me how it is not gullible and dumb to yell for a program that would directly and explicitly lead to 35-45% unemployment in the middle of a recession.
Yes, I agree that the people in the movement weren't dicks and were trying to do something good, but the ideas that they brought forth and supported were dumb.
"They've been co-opted too by the opposite end of the politcal spectrum, and now they have little to no credibilty either."
Elim -- You need to return to your roots and spread your message covertly (you know, from your tailor shop, and via third party intermediaries). Put yourself up-front too often and someone might... take advantage... ;P
"I don't care for your inappropriate use of the word retarded."
"ROFL. Sarah Palin took the word back almost exactly two years ago:"
>> That makes you both shamefully wrong then.
"LOL - so you are saying that the tea party movement was taken over by liberals?"
>> No - I meant OWS was co-opted by the radical left and various union interests, and other cash-in wannabes i.e. politicians 'feeling their pain' for political gain.
The original Tea Party and early OWS actually had a lot in common, before the distortion started - they had a grass roots desire to end corporate greed, make the system fair. Their methodologies are what have been at odds.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
I've done a LOT of research on this subject, and attended 3 Tea Parties myself. The very original ones were grassroots libertarian events mainly consisting of Ron Paul supporters in 2007-2008. That is NOT to be confused with the *new* Tea Parties that started in early February 2009, right after Obama was sworn in.
The corps rolled their astroturf right over the movement and it became a neo-Bircher fest. Big corporate money was all over it.
OWS has not been coopted. In fact, great pains have been taken to keep the influences of outside groups away from it, even if they would help. Unions for instance have helped out with a lot of things, and their members are more than welcome to help out, but no #ows location has been nor ever will be just for unions (even though our goals are the same: worker's rights).
No, because it was a far-left radical movement from the start. And it's hardly about "the 99%" either...OWS rabble were shouting down a pro-life group last week, and last time I checked the pro-life agenda's got nothing to do with Wall St.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
When the teabaggers started carrying guns around and saying "It's not loaded..........this time." they lost all legitimacy and are indeed retarded to think that they were not played like a violin.
"When the teabaggers started carrying guns around and saying "It's not loaded..........this time." they lost all legitimacy and are indeed retarded to think that they were not played like a violin."
The actions of a few soured you on an entire movement? Well, you must feel equally disenfranchised with OWS - since basically the same thing happened when the anarchists showed up and started throwing bottles (and worse) during their protests.
Have the police lost all legitimacy because they carry loaded guns? What about the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Special Forces, Marines, and the US Army? How about the revolutionary army in 1775 (.....and those were illegal too!)
To some degree, yes. OWS is more representative so it's not racist. There are a lot of idiots in OWS, and many of the opinions of OWS are indeed quite dumb. OWS is a disorganized movement that demonstrates its discontent, rather than anything else. Until they have a coherent platform and set of ideas it's hard to judge how dumb the entire movement is.
And yes, again (as I mentioned above) - following certain interpretations of the constitution is "extreme" and "radical". The constitution is a living document that has progressed over the centuries. Using a strict interpretation that does not agree with 200 years of supreme court cases and laws is pretty extreme.
No matter how many times you and your liberal friends say it, the Tea Party is not racist. However, It's not hard to find racist (anti-Semitic) videos of the OWS crowd.
The OWS is NOT more representative.....not sure where you're making that up from.
The constitution is the framework, not the specific legislation. It can and should change. The problem is when politicians either ignore it or change it on their own.
"No matter how many times you and your liberal friends say it, the Tea Party is not racist. However, It's not hard to find racist (anti-Semitic) videos of the OWS crowd."
I know the tea party is not racist - but that's what it is associated with. It's even easier to find racist videos of the tea party crowd.
"The OWS is NOT more representative.....not sure where you're making that up from."
More black people. More hispanics. More people of all races. There are even OWS solidarity protests on other continents.
"The problem is when politicians either ignore it or change it on their own."
That's part of how the government works - this is why there is a Judicial branch whose responsibility is to interpret the constitution and strike down bad or unconstitutional laws. If you don't like a particular interpretation of a law or of the constitution or something, go ahead and sue. Or try to get an organization to sue. However, if both the judicial and legislative branches are against you, then it's done.
"By the way, show me where in the constitution it gives the Supreme Court the power to create laws."
??? Who said that the SC creates laws? What gave you that idea?
Hmm. Last time I checked, corporations were happy to take bail-out money, while the tea party was strictly against it. If anything, the corporations would be in support of Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
have you even met one? I did before 'tea party' became a popular headline. While i didnt agree with almost anything they said, it was never corporations paying for or initiating the movement. the banking reform that did not take place didnt take place due to unprecedented lobbying.
It's a long way to the 2012 Presidental Election. Do count us Tea Party member out, just yet. Anything can happen between now and November. We might just suprise you!! What's the answer to this $15 Trillion debt we have and growing ever day. Sooner or later something is going to happen. I think when the Chinese stop buying out debt and ask for payment for the debt they hold of ours, we going to be in big trouble. We can't pay the debt and this will cause a run on the dollar around the world. i.e. run-a-way inflation just like the Wymar Republic in Germany.
The Tea Party is dead???.....
.......It's more to do with the absence of a presidential candidate the Tea Party can support. The real Tea Party makes their noise at the voting booth.
It's a good thing I'm progressive, yes. Progress is good - it's about reason and working for a better future. As for its opposite, conservatism - that's about closing in on yourself and rejecting progress as if it wasn't inevitable and natural. It's about thinking human beings don't need progress, which is about as stupid as thinking biology doesn't need evolution.
Um, the Tea Party, at least the nation wide groups, were
nothing more than the republicans on steroids.
What financial responsibility? You propose a few million
in cuts for NPR, PBS, and the NEA, but won't lay a
finger on the tens, if not hundreds, of billions in defense
spending waste?
You preach small government, but want a federal marriage amendment,
one that will outlaw gay marriage, across this country?
You want to put a bureaucrat between a women and her doctor?
You want to end birth right citizenship, which would require
a federal immigration agent to be placed in between every
pregnant women and her doctor/midwife with every single
pregnancy? What if the mother was born in this country,
before the amendment, but didn't have an ID on her, when she
was taken to the hospital...or even have one, since her
purse was swiped?
Of course, you would never check the ID of a fluent
English speaking Caucasian couple....who could very
well have sneaked over from Canada...but a Hispanic
couple, who are 5th generation citizens, who have a
thick accent, and don't speak English very well.....
you'll deny their child citizenship.
There are small...very small, genuine Tea Party groups
around the country, who want small government, but
those who got in during the 2010 elections aren't them...
...with an exception of Rand Paul.
The primary reason why the TEA Party has fissile is because both Koch Industries and Fox News are gathering forces for the General Election in November.
Tea partiers are not dead, they will be a major force in the November elections-- especially if Romney is the GOP nominee, the tea party will do what they did in 2010 and send Washington even more solid conservatives to force Romney to the keep his conservative promises if he's elected.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
and how exactly are they going to be a big force when they've been virtually silent since 2010 when they gained those few seats on the "JOBS JOBS JOBS!" platform and then went on to try and destroy as many jobs as possible?
no one's heard anything from them since then, how are they going to be a Major anything, other than a joke, by nov?
The adults in the republican party better hope it is dead. If it is still breathing, it will do nothing more than split the party and damage the eventually nominee. The worst case scenario is that they actually get some completely unelectable wing-nut nominated. If the republican leaders can kill it off in 2012, it won't be around in 2016 when they actually have a chance of winning.
An interview with a single Ohio Tea Partier (which has not voted yet) and conceding the entire primary season with 44 (not sure of exact number) primaries/caucuses to go.
My UNcommon sense tells me pieces like this one have whole bunches of words that come *after* the headline. What you might call an "article."
But lets start first with *your* deliberate mischaracterization. " . . . a single Ohio Tea Partier." FTA: "Chris Littleton, the cofounder of the Ohio Liberty Council, a statewide coalition of Tea Party groups in Ohio." Trying to dismiss the co-founder of the state-wide coalition as just another "Tea Partier" is a bit misleading, wouldn't you agree?
Moving on, if you read past that headline and into the article itself you'll find some gems like - "Mark Meckler, founder of the Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest Tea Party coalition, also says the Tea Party isn’t playing a role in picking the nominee."
Oops. Not just a single "Ohio Tea Partier."
The rest of that quote: "But that is by choice, not by accident, he says.
The real Tea Party movement is not a political party, it’s a movement,” he says. “How can a movement endorse anybody? It really can’t.”
And also: "But Meckler and Littleton both rightly make the point that while the Tea Parties may not be dictating who the candidate is this year, they certainly have dictated the issues the candidates are talking about and what they are saying, particularly in the area of fiscal restraint, free-market capitalism, and the virtues of the Tea Party’s favorite historical document, the U.S. Constitution."
In other words, for those of us with some critical reading skills, it's a fairly balanced analysis that uses that quote as a starting point and examines it both in the ways in which it is accurate and in the ways in which it is inaccurate.
So nothing all that journalistically wrong with this piece that isn't wrong with pretty much all mass media in America today. Namely:
(1) The headline doesn't really refect the more thoughtful examination of the question found in the full piece. They went for the cheap sensationalism to pull in readers rather something more accurate.
(2) It's yet another story dealing with the *contest* ("horse race") aspects of the campaign with no real or substantive discussion of the issues. It's poltics as a sporting event.
Until we get to the general election we won't know if they are still a political force or not. In the mid-term elections they managed to move the political discourse in their direction. They may be spent but I'd bet on just dormant until the fall.
Oh, you mean the rich and corporations are done organizing and funding #Occupy Wall Street because #ows was successful in derailing reforms of corporations and Wall Street?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
If it really fizzled out (we won't know until November) it was from the relentless liberal media assault of lies and slanders.
The TEA Party stood for ideas that are anathma to liberals, and therefore the media. So every lie was fair game - violent, racist, stupid, astroturf - despite any examples whatsoever except the lies of opponents and the ocassional sign misspelling.
In the meantime, Occupy had their dicks sucked by a slobbering media every single day for 6 months despite filthy, violent criminal acts piling up like cordwood and the indisputable fact that it was controlled and coordinated by an international criminal organization that probably thought the whole thing was a joke.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
The fact that the GOP ever wins any election is astounding, given the level of open media bias which exists. Portraying OWS as anything other than a filthy gaggle of left wing malcontents is a prime example.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Except that we KNOW where the loyalties of the overwhelming number of mainstream reporters lie. In survey after survey since 2005, over 80% the media describe THEMSELVES as Liberal, and as a group they donate far, far more to Democrat candidates.
In terms of the OWS vermin, the "we are the 99%" line they've peddled has been shattered and debunked. For instance, OWS confronted pro-life protesters recently and shouted them down. What does that have to do with greedy banks, and how does the fact that half the country is pro-life square with their actions there? Oh, right, it doesn't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Occupy had their dicks sucked by a slobbering media every single day for 6 months"
I seem to remember the opposite, there was quite some time when OWS barely made the news.
Want to see how well Tea Party mentality works? Look to Rick Scott in Florida. He gave up billions for a mass transit project, he is cutting funding to schools forcing closures, humiliated the poor (class warfare) with the welfare drug testing policy, proposed budget cuts to state agencies like the Water Management Districts, Department of Environmental Protection decreasing water quality throughout the state, etc. etc
In all, decreasing the quality of life for Floridians.
Sure, because accepting billions of dollars the nation doesn't have for a boondoggle high speed railway makes perfect sense, right. It's that kind of "gimmie mine" earmarking mentality which has helped lead the nation into the dismal fiscal position we're in right now.
In terms of Governor Scott, you may want to take note that his positive poll numbers, though still not good, have been increasing lately.
But in any event, if Scott's lack of popularity is somehow an indictment of the Tea Party then what does that say about the fact that Public Policy Polling found Democrat Governor Neil Abercrombie to be THE most unpopular governor in the nation?
Does that mean that his unpopularity is indicative of "how the Democratic Party mentality works", or do you just reserve those kinds of logical leaps to those you disagree with?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
"Sure, because accepting billions of dollars the nation doesn't have for a boondoggle high speed railway makes perfect sense, right."
The money was already spent and went to another state. The project was nothing but wins for the state. Job creation, an large influx of money into the state, no additional costs to taxpayers as decreases in ridership and cost overruns were guaranteed to be covered by private backers.
Rick Scott will sell out the state, his drug testing policy for welfare recipients has been put on hold while legality is confirmed and has cost Florida taxpayers instead of saving money as promised.
Florida is know for it's beaches and natural environments and he is willing to sell that off as well.
"then what does that say about the fact that Public Policy Polling found Democrat Governor Neil Abercrombie to be THE most unpopular governor in the nation?"
bit of a deflection there (never mentioned popularity) - was talking about Rick Scott's policies as directed by his Tea Party mentality.
"The money was already spent and went to another state."
The money doesn't exist. We're badly in debt as a nation and can't sustain our spending without massive borrowing. And it's attitudes like you're displaying here which are largely responsible for getting us into this position.
"bit of a deflection there - was talking about Rick Scott's policies as directed by his Tea Party mentality."
Really? You claimed that Governor Scott's unpopularity (and as I pointed out, it's changing) is a reflection on his Tea Party mentality but won't apply the same logic to the even more unpopular Governor Abacrombie and the Democrats? Are you aware that Abercrombie was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Is his unpopularity not a reflection of the "CPP mentality" as well?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
read my comment, never mentioned popularity. I just stated the policies that are driven by ridiculous tea party mentality. So yes, you deflected away from tea party policy and ideology to a Democrats popularity.
Yes, the money was budgeted and allocated. Once he refused, it went somewhere else. I may have respected his decision a bit more knowing that the money went back to the bottom line, but that was not the case. He used his hard-line mentality to make a point against the Obama administration at the expense of Floridians.
"I just stated the policies that are driven by ridiculous tea party mentality."
What's ridiculous is the irresponsible mindset which holds that it's perfectly fine to exponentially indent the nation to the point where no one has any idea how it can ever be made solvent.
It's like a passed-out drunk chick at a frat house. You figure you'll slip in and dip your wick because other kids are going to f**k her anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
actually, the teaparty candidates have done plenty of useful things since taking over the house. the problem is that after the bills pass they, they get stuck sitting on harry reid's desk in the senateComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
or is that just some more of the Right Wing Propaganda that is trying to re-write reality by accusing the democrats of being the obstructionists since everyone has seen that the republicans have been nothing but obstructionists since obama took office?
because that's what it seems like, the typical "accuse the other side of your own sins" tactics that the RWNJ's have been trying.
particularly if you look at those bills that you mentioned. none of them create jobs and most are either attacks on financial assistance (attacks on the poor) or the removal of needed regulations, that benefit the corporations and harm the rest of the country.
Occupy had dicks and balls to get them sucked. Tea Party had old bible belt gun owners, and most of them are dying anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Occupy is more important because they're young and they have more power over future generations in a future world. Old people live in the past so they shouldn't even be allowed to vote. Their decisions shouldn't affect future generations this much.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mistermysterFeb 6, 2012
Studies show that the vast majority of tea parties in the U.S. are still hosted by little girls.
flatlineskillzFeb 6, 2012
More studies have shown that a shocking amount of tea parties take place on the bottom of pools.
roywrFeb 7, 2012
What about Big Boys and Girls?
tomt127Feb 6, 2012
I supported it in the beginning when it was just about lowering taxes and less government spending but then it evolved into a religious right wing organization with no real purpose except to denounce Obama and Democrats.
ddissentFeb 7, 2012
Ditto
limitgovFeb 6, 2012
Started by libertarians, taken over by republicans.
cowicideFeb 7, 2012
Started by corporatist scum; taken over by crackpots.
ddissentFeb 7, 2012
Cowicide ...... You are completely incorrect. The "Tea Party" .... a movement largely born by the organization Campaign for Liberty was a grass roots movements started by people tired of corporate lobbyists running Washington, and corrupt politicians ..... and then it was hijacked by corporate scum, crackpots, and morons. If you did a little more homework other than what MSNBC tells you .... you would know this was fact.
cowicideFeb 8, 2012
@ddissent. You should do YOUR homework, buddy.
The Tea Party was enabled by the Koch brothers via the "Americans for Prosperity" foundation in 2004.
Ron Paul's "Campaign for Liberty" didn't get rolling until 2008.
Four years later.
Maybe you should stop projecting, get off your monolithic info diet and expand your own horizons?
The Koch brothers attempted to do all this covertly; it looks like their shenanigans sure worked on you.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
limitgovFeb 8, 2012
the tea party started in 2008. do YOUR homework.
cowicideFeb 8, 2012
The tea bagger structure was set up 4 years earlier via Koch brother funding with "Americans for Prosperity". That structure then became the tea baggers and then the Koch brothers further enabled it by providing funding for transportation, etc.
That's how all those buses, etc. "magically" appeared for tea baggers. It wasn't grassroots beginnings; it was astroturf attempting to simulate a grassroots effort and it sure worked on YOU.
Hit the books, son.
limitgovFeb 9, 2012
actually, you should go back and study history. The tea party wasn't formed until 2008. I don't see how that is difficult to understand.
Mark_LincolnFeb 7, 2012
The Tea Party is Dead? Golly, it must have been done in by one of Obama's 'Death Panels' it warned about.
skyislandFeb 6, 2012
The big money from the likes of the Koch brothers backed the Tea Party, just-say-no group to gain leverage to stop gov from working so as to enable what's going on now.. Now the Koch brothers just got done from a strategy meeting where they bought out an entire huge Palm Springs resort to ensure secrecy where who was to be Pres was topic of discussion.
The big money can now flow directly to influence the vote and the Tea Party Koch front group has no need for funding false grassroots organization pumped up by corporate money to have its way.. Alec has been busy and the Supreme Court is corporate shill heaven enabling wealth transfer and the demise of people power in the united states.
The big money now flows directly to Romney style vulture capitalist political take over and Fox News is there to cover the story. Money in their mind has been given voice and corporations are people - look see there are people in there, don't you see says the spider to the fly. You stupid people- you idiots who are too blind to see what is happening.. Wave your stupid flags and whimper and whine when it is too late but don't come crawling go me.
markglFeb 6, 2012
Koch brothers. I bet you never head of them before.
novenatorFeb 6, 2012
While there are some good, genuine people in the Tea Party, the movement was pretty blatant corporate astroturf from the start with one goal in mind: derail the movement for change and reform by directly attacking Obama. They retook the US House in 2010, so there was no danger of any significant reforms making through Congress at that point, and they cut off their funding and support, thus bringing us to the situation we're in today.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
The movement was retarded from the very beginning. The things that their representatives tried to pass were idiotic in the extreme. Now it seems like they are going on the trash heap of history - good riddance. If those good, genuine people in the Tea Party weren't so dumb and gullible, perhaps the movement would have led somewhere mildly positive.
toasty8Feb 6, 2012
What's so idiotic about following the constitution?
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Nothing, although it depends on what exactly you mean by that. The constitution is a living document. It has been updated and interpreted over the centuries. That's why it stood up so well - because the system is dynamic enough to adjust when a particular interpretation becomes unworkable.
For an example, see the Federalist Papers, and how they impacted the history of our country.
Furthermore, insisting that we cut the budget in the middle of a recession is extremely idiotic.
toasty8Feb 6, 2012
The reason we are in the recession is the deficit. If you keep borrowing money, you're pumping more money into the system and the dollar becomes worth less and less.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
Wrong. We are in a recession because several bubbles burst. In large part the deficit is irrelevant here. It is a long-term problem - not a short-term one.
And if you stop spending money - if you suddenly cut the country's budget by a trillion or so - then suddenly US ends up with a 35-45% unemployment. Because all that money that would go to US government employees would be lost - the employees would be fired. The subcontractors would lose their jobs. The people supporting the subcontractors would lose their jobs. It would be a cascade effect that would have turned the recession into a depression far worse than the one in the early 20th century.
toasty8Feb 6, 2012
No. You are wrong. We shouldn't stop spending, we just need to cut spending. The people with private sector jobs would have a strong dollar, and the economy would quickly recover anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
miklkitFeb 6, 2012
I'd say you are both half right. It is caused by borrowing more and spending even more yet while cutting taxes, while also having the bubbles caused by bad decisions bursting.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6
unclefireFeb 6, 2012
What? No. We entered the recession b/c the lending industry cratered from irresponsible lending and borrowing and all the derivative activities related to that.
toasty8Feb 6, 2012
And the government encouraged this the irresponsible lending and borrowing by guaranteeing them money.
Donuts4UFeb 6, 2012
The Federalist papers had limited distribution, were too late to change anything, were heavily biased, not representative and had no impact at the time. Just saying.
Cutting the budget is stupid, cutting from some areas is smart though if the money is redirected intelligently. Unfortunately intelligence is not high on the list of attributes we vote for.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
The Federalist Papers had a heavy impact on the interpretation of the constitution. It doesn't matter that they weren't heavily distributed - it matters what they did and how they added to the constitutional law. It's just an example.
Donuts4UFeb 6, 2012
I wouldn't go so far as to say heavy impact, because they were arguing points in a debate which was settled State by State. The papers were representative of part of one side in the founding of the USA. Hamilton and Madison were important, but not the only voices even in the Federalist clique. Then, Jefferson for instance was a huge critic of Madison despite being great friends that wrote each other extensively.
Your point is taken though. The papers are used sometimes.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
"No. You are wrong. We shouldn't stop spending, we just need to cut spending."
That is the last thing you want to do in a recession. I already explained this. The cascading effect from so many lost jobs would be enormous, and this is exactly the wrong time to do that.
"The people with private sector jobs would have a strong dollar, and the economy would quickly recover anyway."
Yea, no, not so much. If the unemployment in the country is 35-45%, you don't quickly recover from that.
Also, as I mentioned before, millions of private sector jobs would be lost as well.
rushdoFeb 6, 2012
I would like to know where you got this 35-45% number. Because cutting the annual budget <30% causing a 25% raise in unemployment does not make sense logistically. Granted few things do make sense when the government spends your money.
And I also highly doubt that 25% of the population have a job that is dependent on the government.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
It's a wild and out-there guesstimate.
Right now the US has about 22% unemployment (counting people who have stopped looking for work, etc.).
US GDP is about 15 trillion. US government expenditure is 3.3 trillion, with the vast majority of that spent in the country. Cutting 30% off of that will reduce the GDP by one trillion - or about 6.6% of GDP. That's about how much the GDP fell during the current recession, with the 22% unemployment. So immediately the recession effect on the economy would double. And all of this would happen suddenly, overnight. If the effect is even half as much, then the unemployment will fall to 33%.
Of course I am confusing cause and effect here, but there are all sorts of secondary effects to firing so many people. 25% of the population does not have a job that directly depends on the government, but they do have jobs that depend on spending by people that are employed by the government. And other people depend on the people who depend on the spending by the employees of the government. It's a cascade effect that will have far reaching implications on all sorts of things.
Also, there are several cases in history where governments enacted austerity measures, destroying their economy.
arpadFeb 6, 2012
For one thing, it's incredibly inconvenient when you're trying to make the world a perfect, just place.
Every tiresome individual with an opinion thinks they ought to have some say just because it's a representative form of government and they want their opinions represented.
Then there are the folks who think, just because they worked for something they ought to have some claim to it. I mean, how are you going to have a morally-flawless world if people who, just because they've spent their lives creating something, believe they have some claim on it?
People, let's get real! There are smarter, better people out there and they can't be shackled by the same rules that are meant for "ordinary" folks.
I mean, it's just common sense, right?
That's one of the real problems with the Constitution. It just doesn't have any special provisions for special people. People who, due to their superior intellect, compassion and tolerance - just ask them - oughtn't to be held to the same standards as "ordinary" people.
That's why it's so important that the Constitution should be considered a "living document". So that the ludicrous oversights of the founding fathers, in not making any provisions for those who are the natural givers of law and should thus be above the law, can be rectified.
Clear?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
delphium226Feb 7, 2012
Don't drink and type.
a2fanFeb 6, 2012
I don't care for your inappropriate use of the word retarded.
Most of the 'good, genuine people' that participated in Tea Party rallies had their hearts in the right place and wanted to participate in the political process. Unfortunately, like most initially successful populist movements, they were co-opted by radical right-wing and corporate shills -- but don't call them dumb, or gullible -- they had voices and they deserved to be heard even if you don't agree with them.
Consider the 'good, genuine people' of the Occupy movement and their voices for change. They've been co-opted too by the opposite end of the politcal spectrum, and now they have little to no credibilty either.
In today's politics, there isn't a movement out there that doesn't have an organized counter-movement to distort, dehumanize and villify an organization's original intent. Nor is there a lack for a blogger or 'news' media to capitalize on it, fan the flames of dissension and profit from it.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
"I don't care for your inappropriate use of the word retarded."
ROFL. Sarah Palin took the word back almost exactly two years ago:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264042/february-08-2010/sarah-palin-uses-a-hand-o-prompter
"Unfortunately, like most initially successful populist movements, they were co-opted by radical right-wing and corporate shills -- but don't call them dumb, or gullible -- they had voices and they deserved to be heard even if you don't agree with them."
Like I said - they kept yelling about rather dumb things. Being co-opted is not a good excuse. Tell me how it is not gullible and dumb to yell for a program that would directly and explicitly lead to 35-45% unemployment in the middle of a recession.
Yes, I agree that the people in the movement weren't dicks and were trying to do something good, but the ideas that they brought forth and supported were dumb.
"They've been co-opted too by the opposite end of the politcal spectrum, and now they have little to no credibilty either."
LOL - so you are saying that the tea party movement was taken over by liberals?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
michrechFeb 6, 2012
Elim -- You need to return to your roots and spread your message covertly (you know, from your tailor shop, and via third party intermediaries). Put yourself up-front too often and someone might... take advantage... ;P
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
LOL - but now that my father, Enabran Tain, is dead, somebody has to keep track of the government! :-D
a2fanFeb 6, 2012
"I don't care for your inappropriate use of the word retarded."
"ROFL. Sarah Palin took the word back almost exactly two years ago:"
>> That makes you both shamefully wrong then.
"LOL - so you are saying that the tea party movement was taken over by liberals?"
>> No - I meant OWS was co-opted by the radical left and various union interests, and other cash-in wannabes i.e. politicians 'feeling their pain' for political gain.
The original Tea Party and early OWS actually had a lot in common, before the distortion started - they had a grass roots desire to end corporate greed, make the system fair. Their methodologies are what have been at odds.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 6, 2012
I've done a LOT of research on this subject, and attended 3 Tea Parties myself. The very original ones were grassroots libertarian events mainly consisting of Ron Paul supporters in 2007-2008. That is NOT to be confused with the *new* Tea Parties that started in early February 2009, right after Obama was sworn in.
The corps rolled their astroturf right over the movement and it became a neo-Bircher fest. Big corporate money was all over it.
OWS has not been coopted. In fact, great pains have been taken to keep the influences of outside groups away from it, even if they would help. Unions for instance have helped out with a lot of things, and their members are more than welcome to help out, but no #ows location has been nor ever will be just for unions (even though our goals are the same: worker's rights).
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
"OWS has not been coopted."
No, because it was a far-left radical movement from the start. And it's hardly about "the 99%" either...OWS rabble were shouting down a pro-life group last week, and last time I checked the pro-life agenda's got nothing to do with Wall St.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
novenatorFeb 7, 2012
ahm thinks anyone that doesn't support the big corporations is a "far-left radical". your pro-corporate views are well known.
atomheartmotherFeb 7, 2012
You're dishonestly dodging again, novenator. Have you no shame?
obamanotsixtyoneFeb 6, 2012
You said it perfectly.
miklkitFeb 6, 2012
When the teabaggers started carrying guns around and saying "It's not loaded..........this time." they lost all legitimacy and are indeed retarded to think that they were not played like a violin.
a2fanFeb 6, 2012
"When the teabaggers started carrying guns around and saying "It's not loaded..........this time." they lost all legitimacy and are indeed retarded to think that they were not played like a violin."
The actions of a few soured you on an entire movement? Well, you must feel equally disenfranchised with OWS - since basically the same thing happened when the anarchists showed up and started throwing bottles (and worse) during their protests.
You just might be another one of those hopeless partisans that can't help but add to the problem.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
Is it illegal to carry around a loaded gun?
Have the police lost all legitimacy because they carry loaded guns? What about the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, Special Forces, Marines, and the US Army? How about the revolutionary army in 1775 (.....and those were illegal too!)
Clearly legitimate people and organizations never carry weapons.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nazuelFeb 7, 2012
Military and the police are not mobs with a political agenda. There's the difference.
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
You clearly have a very loose term of the word "mob". I assume 3 or more girl scouts is also a "mob" in your world.
delphium226Feb 7, 2012
"Have the police lost all legitimacy because they carry loaded guns?"
Did teabaggers feel that carrying loaded guns lent them legitimacy?
hibby76Feb 7, 2012
The right to keep and bare arms is just like any other right. Does exercising your freedom of speech grant you legitimacy?
So some citizens had guns at rallies. Did they do anything illegal? Did they do anything violent? Did they threaten or brandish them?
Contrast that with the police that have to take on the OWS crowd with riot gear on. 2 days ago a cop got hit in the face with a brick.
I find it ironic that you have a problem with peaceful people carrying guns but don't seem to have a problem with violent people attacking police.
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
Are your attitudes about OWS the same?
.....and I can see how following the constitution is both "extreme" and "radical"
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
To some degree, yes. OWS is more representative so it's not racist. There are a lot of idiots in OWS, and many of the opinions of OWS are indeed quite dumb. OWS is a disorganized movement that demonstrates its discontent, rather than anything else. Until they have a coherent platform and set of ideas it's hard to judge how dumb the entire movement is.
And yes, again (as I mentioned above) - following certain interpretations of the constitution is "extreme" and "radical". The constitution is a living document that has progressed over the centuries. Using a strict interpretation that does not agree with 200 years of supreme court cases and laws is pretty extreme.
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
No matter how many times you and your liberal friends say it, the Tea Party is not racist. However, It's not hard to find racist (anti-Semitic) videos of the OWS crowd.
The OWS is NOT more representative.....not sure where you're making that up from.
The constitution is the framework, not the specific legislation. It can and should change. The problem is when politicians either ignore it or change it on their own.
By the way, show me where in the constitution it gives the Supreme Court the power to create laws.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elimgarakFeb 6, 2012
"No matter how many times you and your liberal friends say it, the Tea Party is not racist. However, It's not hard to find racist (anti-Semitic) videos of the OWS crowd."
I know the tea party is not racist - but that's what it is associated with. It's even easier to find racist videos of the tea party crowd.
"The OWS is NOT more representative.....not sure where you're making that up from."
More black people. More hispanics. More people of all races. There are even OWS solidarity protests on other continents.
"The problem is when politicians either ignore it or change it on their own."
That's part of how the government works - this is why there is a Judicial branch whose responsibility is to interpret the constitution and strike down bad or unconstitutional laws. If you don't like a particular interpretation of a law or of the constitution or something, go ahead and sue. Or try to get an organization to sue. However, if both the judicial and legislative branches are against you, then it's done.
"By the way, show me where in the constitution it gives the Supreme Court the power to create laws."
??? Who said that the SC creates laws? What gave you that idea?
toasty8Feb 6, 2012
Hmm. Last time I checked, corporations were happy to take bail-out money, while the tea party was strictly against it. If anything, the corporations would be in support of Obama.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dauntless1Feb 6, 2012
"Hmm. Last time I checked, corporations were happy to take bail-out money, while the tea party was strictly against it."
Every now and then, even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
autokadFeb 6, 2012
have you even met one? I did before 'tea party' became a popular headline. While i didnt agree with almost anything they said, it was never corporations paying for or initiating the movement. the banking reform that did not take place didnt take place due to unprecedented lobbying.
drunkclamFeb 6, 2012
And good riddence.
roywrFeb 7, 2012
It's a long way to the 2012 Presidental Election. Do count us Tea Party member out, just yet. Anything can happen between now and November. We might just suprise you!! What's the answer to this $15 Trillion debt we have and growing ever day. Sooner or later something is going to happen. I think when the Chinese stop buying out debt and ask for payment for the debt they hold of ours, we going to be in big trouble. We can't pay the debt and this will cause a run on the dollar around the world. i.e. run-a-way inflation just like the Wymar Republic in Germany.
po43292Feb 7, 2012
OK we "do count" the Tea Party out. You said it.
Closed AccountFeb 6, 2012
What? No sugar?
kelleyrainerFeb 7, 2012
Good riddance to the tea-baggers! Lol
seltaeb4Feb 6, 2012
The Tea Party never existed in the first place. It was Koch Bros. Astroturf at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end.
I'd almost feel sorry for the rubes that fell for it if they weren't so malignantly unlikable.
markglFeb 6, 2012
Koch brothers. I bet you never head of them before.
hibby76Feb 6, 2012
More than "dead" it's just been adopted by many conservatives. It's still alive and well, just not showing up in parks.
Dr_RightFeb 7, 2012
The Tea Party is dead???.....
.......It's more to do with the absence of a presidential candidate the Tea Party can support. The real Tea Party makes their noise at the voting booth.
Let's check in after the 2012 elections......
markglFeb 7, 2012
Says who? It's not over.
stevanoskiFeb 8, 2012
You can tell the Left still fears the TP by how much it hates it. Did the same thing to Palin. They shat their breeches thinking she might run.
TheNoizeFeb 7, 2012
The Tea Party was never really alive. It responded to stimulus, but we all knew it was dead inside.
bluto36Feb 8, 2012
oh that "progressive" projection is so easy to see
TheNoizeFeb 9, 2012
It's a good thing I'm progressive, yes. Progress is good - it's about reason and working for a better future. As for its opposite, conservatism - that's about closing in on yourself and rejecting progress as if it wasn't inevitable and natural. It's about thinking human beings don't need progress, which is about as stupid as thinking biology doesn't need evolution.
glassagateFeb 7, 2012
Um, the Tea Party, at least the nation wide groups, were
nothing more than the republicans on steroids.
What financial responsibility? You propose a few million
in cuts for NPR, PBS, and the NEA, but won't lay a
finger on the tens, if not hundreds, of billions in defense
spending waste?
You preach small government, but want a federal marriage amendment,
one that will outlaw gay marriage, across this country?
You want to put a bureaucrat between a women and her doctor?
You want to end birth right citizenship, which would require
a federal immigration agent to be placed in between every
pregnant women and her doctor/midwife with every single
pregnancy? What if the mother was born in this country,
before the amendment, but didn't have an ID on her, when she
was taken to the hospital...or even have one, since her
purse was swiped?
Of course, you would never check the ID of a fluent
English speaking Caucasian couple....who could very
well have sneaked over from Canada...but a Hispanic
couple, who are 5th generation citizens, who have a
thick accent, and don't speak English very well.....
you'll deny their child citizenship.
There are small...very small, genuine Tea Party groups
around the country, who want small government, but
those who got in during the 2010 elections aren't them...
...with an exception of Rand Paul.
berkanaFeb 7, 2012
Good riddance!
marcglezFeb 7, 2012
The primary reason why the TEA Party has fissile is because both Koch Industries and Fox News are gathering forces for the General Election in November.
grannysrightFeb 7, 2012
You wish.
chassupFeb 6, 2012
Tea partiers are not dead, they will be a major force in the November elections-- especially if Romney is the GOP nominee, the tea party will do what they did in 2010 and send Washington even more solid conservatives to force Romney to the keep his conservative promises if he's elected.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
those are quite a few big "ifs"
and how exactly are they going to be a big force when they've been virtually silent since 2010 when they gained those few seats on the "JOBS JOBS JOBS!" platform and then went on to try and destroy as many jobs as possible?
no one's heard anything from them since then, how are they going to be a Major anything, other than a joke, by nov?
craig1958Feb 7, 2012
The adults in the republican party better hope it is dead. If it is still breathing, it will do nothing more than split the party and damage the eventually nominee. The worst case scenario is that they actually get some completely unelectable wing-nut nominated. If the republican leaders can kill it off in 2012, it won't be around in 2016 when they actually have a chance of winning.
phillymozartFeb 6, 2012
We are judging the movement fizzled with 45 primaries to go? I'm glad to see such fine journalism.on display.
bookantFeb 7, 2012
I know, right. I hate it when journalists interview the leaders of a movement and accurately report their own words. f**king liberal media! /s
phillymozartFeb 7, 2012
An interview with a single Ohio Tea Partier (which has not voted yet) and conceding the entire primary season with 44 (not sure of exact number) primaries/caucuses to go.
You should have left off the sarcasm tag; it would have shown you at least had some common sense.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bookantFeb 7, 2012
"Common sense" is exactly that. Common.
My UNcommon sense tells me pieces like this one have whole bunches of words that come *after* the headline. What you might call an "article."
But lets start first with *your* deliberate mischaracterization. " . . . a single Ohio Tea Partier." FTA: "Chris Littleton, the cofounder of the Ohio Liberty Council, a statewide coalition of Tea Party groups in Ohio." Trying to dismiss the co-founder of the state-wide coalition as just another "Tea Partier" is a bit misleading, wouldn't you agree?
Moving on, if you read past that headline and into the article itself you'll find some gems like - "Mark Meckler, founder of the Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest Tea Party coalition, also says the Tea Party isn’t playing a role in picking the nominee."
Oops. Not just a single "Ohio Tea Partier."
The rest of that quote: "But that is by choice, not by accident, he says.
The real Tea Party movement is not a political party, it’s a movement,” he says. “How can a movement endorse anybody? It really can’t.”
And also: "But Meckler and Littleton both rightly make the point that while the Tea Parties may not be dictating who the candidate is this year, they certainly have dictated the issues the candidates are talking about and what they are saying, particularly in the area of fiscal restraint, free-market capitalism, and the virtues of the Tea Party’s favorite historical document, the U.S. Constitution."
In other words, for those of us with some critical reading skills, it's a fairly balanced analysis that uses that quote as a starting point and examines it both in the ways in which it is accurate and in the ways in which it is inaccurate.
So nothing all that journalistically wrong with this piece that isn't wrong with pretty much all mass media in America today. Namely:
(1) The headline doesn't really refect the more thoughtful examination of the question found in the full piece. They went for the cheap sensationalism to pull in readers rather something more accurate.
(2) It's yet another story dealing with the *contest* ("horse race") aspects of the campaign with no real or substantive discussion of the issues. It's poltics as a sporting event.
lordakunaFeb 6, 2012
swag
mercedrocksFeb 7, 2012
How is it dead?
Their main focus is trimming deficit spending and nothing more, a position echoed by each of the GOP candidates.
Which candidate even opposes anything the Tea Party is for?
The only thing "dead" is our inept political system that foists two s**tty candidates on use every 4 years.
Instead of Obama how about Bill Clinton? Id vote for a return of the guy that gave our govt a budget surplus for nearly 6 years.
And on the GOP side Newt and Romney are mediocre at best. How about Bloomberg (pro-choice, sensible)?
Let's face it: our system blows.
cujoquarrelFeb 6, 2012
Until we get to the general election we won't know if they are still a political force or not. In the mid-term elections they managed to move the political discourse in their direction. They may be spent but I'd bet on just dormant until the fall.
ancientshoesFeb 6, 2012
the leftist version of this, the occupy movement, will soon become irrelevant, too, for the same reasons
drmangrumFeb 6, 2012
The OWS movement was irrelevant 2 weeks after it started.
PyriteGenieFeb 7, 2012
Generous!
novenatorFeb 6, 2012
Oh, you mean the rich and corporations are done organizing and funding #Occupy Wall Street because #ows was successful in derailing reforms of corporations and Wall Street?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PyriteGenieFeb 7, 2012
mlw4428 has a message for you:
http://digg.com/news/politics/democratic_operative_s_cat_slaughtered_liberal_painted_on_corpse/20120123215516:63f2df07315247158365d00c438aa93f#20120124081015:88dc4dc75f214b6e93030b990f8eaa9d
odkinFeb 6, 2012
If it really fizzled out (we won't know until November) it was from the relentless liberal media assault of lies and slanders.
The TEA Party stood for ideas that are anathma to liberals, and therefore the media. So every lie was fair game - violent, racist, stupid, astroturf - despite any examples whatsoever except the lies of opponents and the ocassional sign misspelling.
In the meantime, Occupy had their dicks sucked by a slobbering media every single day for 6 months despite filthy, violent criminal acts piling up like cordwood and the indisputable fact that it was controlled and coordinated by an international criminal organization that probably thought the whole thing was a joke.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
The fact that the GOP ever wins any election is astounding, given the level of open media bias which exists. Portraying OWS as anything other than a filthy gaggle of left wing malcontents is a prime example.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
concusionFeb 6, 2012
funny how you lambast bias media with a huge broad stereotypical statement following it up. can't get any hypocritical can you mother?
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
Except that we KNOW where the loyalties of the overwhelming number of mainstream reporters lie. In survey after survey since 2005, over 80% the media describe THEMSELVES as Liberal, and as a group they donate far, far more to Democrat candidates.
In terms of the OWS vermin, the "we are the 99%" line they've peddled has been shattered and debunked. For instance, OWS confronted pro-life protesters recently and shouted them down. What does that have to do with greedy banks, and how does the fact that half the country is pro-life square with their actions there? Oh, right, it doesn't.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheNoizeFeb 7, 2012
That's funny, because I always saw the Tea Party as a filthy gaggle of right wing malcontents.
atomheartmotherFeb 7, 2012
Then you must be even more ignorant than I thought.
savetheseaFeb 6, 2012
"Occupy had their dicks sucked by a slobbering media every single day for 6 months"
I seem to remember the opposite, there was quite some time when OWS barely made the news.
Want to see how well Tea Party mentality works? Look to Rick Scott in Florida. He gave up billions for a mass transit project, he is cutting funding to schools forcing closures, humiliated the poor (class warfare) with the welfare drug testing policy, proposed budget cuts to state agencies like the Water Management Districts, Department of Environmental Protection decreasing water quality throughout the state, etc. etc
In all, decreasing the quality of life for Floridians.
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
Sure, because accepting billions of dollars the nation doesn't have for a boondoggle high speed railway makes perfect sense, right. It's that kind of "gimmie mine" earmarking mentality which has helped lead the nation into the dismal fiscal position we're in right now.
In terms of Governor Scott, you may want to take note that his positive poll numbers, though still not good, have been increasing lately.
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/content/gov-rick-scott-still-unpopular-approval-inches-new-timesheraldbay-news-9-poll
But in any event, if Scott's lack of popularity is somehow an indictment of the Tea Party then what does that say about the fact that Public Policy Polling found Democrat Governor Neil Abercrombie to be THE most unpopular governor in the nation?
Does that mean that his unpopularity is indicative of "how the Democratic Party mentality works", or do you just reserve those kinds of logical leaps to those you disagree with?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 6, 2012
"Sure, because accepting billions of dollars the nation doesn't have for a boondoggle high speed railway makes perfect sense, right."
The money was already spent and went to another state. The project was nothing but wins for the state. Job creation, an large influx of money into the state, no additional costs to taxpayers as decreases in ridership and cost overruns were guaranteed to be covered by private backers.
Rick Scott will sell out the state, his drug testing policy for welfare recipients has been put on hold while legality is confirmed and has cost Florida taxpayers instead of saving money as promised.
Florida is know for it's beaches and natural environments and he is willing to sell that off as well.
"then what does that say about the fact that Public Policy Polling found Democrat Governor Neil Abercrombie to be THE most unpopular governor in the nation?"
bit of a deflection there (never mentioned popularity) - was talking about Rick Scott's policies as directed by his Tea Party mentality.
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
"The money was already spent and went to another state."
The money doesn't exist. We're badly in debt as a nation and can't sustain our spending without massive borrowing. And it's attitudes like you're displaying here which are largely responsible for getting us into this position.
"bit of a deflection there - was talking about Rick Scott's policies as directed by his Tea Party mentality."
Really? You claimed that Governor Scott's unpopularity (and as I pointed out, it's changing) is a reflection on his Tea Party mentality but won't apply the same logic to the even more unpopular Governor Abacrombie and the Democrats? Are you aware that Abercrombie was a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Is his unpopularity not a reflection of the "CPP mentality" as well?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savetheseaFeb 6, 2012
read my comment, never mentioned popularity. I just stated the policies that are driven by ridiculous tea party mentality. So yes, you deflected away from tea party policy and ideology to a Democrats popularity.
Yes, the money was budgeted and allocated. Once he refused, it went somewhere else. I may have respected his decision a bit more knowing that the money went back to the bottom line, but that was not the case. He used his hard-line mentality to make a point against the Obama administration at the expense of Floridians.
atomheartmotherFeb 6, 2012
"I just stated the policies that are driven by ridiculous tea party mentality."
What's ridiculous is the irresponsible mindset which holds that it's perfectly fine to exponentially indent the nation to the point where no one has any idea how it can ever be made solvent.
It's like a passed-out drunk chick at a frat house. You figure you'll slip in and dip your wick because other kids are going to f**k her anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
you poor poor victim. it's all the "liberal" media's fault or anyone else and not the failures of their message, their hypocrisy, or their leadership.
it's all liberals fault that the teabaggers are useless do nothings!
reaper527Feb 6, 2012
actually, the teaparty candidates have done plenty of useful things since taking over the house. the problem is that after the bills pass they, they get stuck sitting on harry reid's desk in the senateComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
so then they havent really done anything or worth, just lip service.
particleman420Feb 6, 2012
or is that just some more of the Right Wing Propaganda that is trying to re-write reality by accusing the democrats of being the obstructionists since everyone has seen that the republicans have been nothing but obstructionists since obama took office?
because that's what it seems like, the typical "accuse the other side of your own sins" tactics that the RWNJ's have been trying.
particularly if you look at those bills that you mentioned. none of them create jobs and most are either attacks on financial assistance (attacks on the poor) or the removal of needed regulations, that benefit the corporations and harm the rest of the country.
odkinFeb 6, 2012
Your opinion about what these bills accomplish is likely skewed by the fact that you are a liberal idiot.
The fact that the bills are STOPPED by Harry Reid makes him, BY DEFINITION, the obstructionist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
TheNoizeFeb 7, 2012
Occupy had dicks and balls to get them sucked. Tea Party had old bible belt gun owners, and most of them are dying anyway, so it doesn't really matter. Occupy is more important because they're young and they have more power over future generations in a future world. Old people live in the past so they shouldn't even be allowed to vote. Their decisions shouldn't affect future generations this much.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountFeb 7, 2012
what we have here by the dumbocrats is a persistance to underestimate the coach of the other team.
CalTjaderFeb 6, 2012
What are we gonna do now without the TeaBaggers to hate on?
The_SovereignFeb 6, 2012
Turn your gaze upon yourself.