My local Tea Party activist recently demanded that our local aldermen sign a pledge or his Tea Partiers would work against them in the next election. One alderman signed the pledge. So far the rest of them have shown good judgement and haven't signed it. There were some points of local interest in the pledge. I left them out because I'm interested in how this relates to everyone. Here are twelve of the points the Tea Party Grand Puhbah is demanding obedience to:
1. I will unconditionally honor and support the United States Constitution.
2. I will always support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing legislation that is contrary to the Constitution.
3. I will always support market-based healthcare reform and oppose government-run healthcare.
4. I will always support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation.
5. I will always support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check.
6. I will always support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
7. I will always support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.
8. I will always support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.
9. I will always support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
10. I will always support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing healthcare rationing and denial of healthcare and government funding of abortion.
11. I will always support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
12. I will work toward legislation that provides term limits at all levels of government
I can understand wanting to follow the Constitution. Limiting government to only what will improve our lives. Wanting lower taxes. Who wouldn't?
But this thing is nothing but a repeat of Newt's "Contract with America." Nothing really original about it. It gives proof to my contention that these tea baggers are mostly dupes for the republican party. Look closely and everything in here is republican jive. All of it easily refuted and for the most part, just blather designed to appeal to the simple minded. A major constituency of the republican party.
What I thought was kind of funny was the threat of working against officials that didn't sign this silly blackmail note. What kind of sane thinking person would limit the options available by signing this thing? The two invasions and occupations have cost us nearly a trillion dollars. The Tea Partiers claim to be fiscally responsible and troop surges and occupations but then hypocritically give no way to pay for them because they demand no new taxes. JUST LIKE THE REPUBLICANS!
What all this has to do with a local city council I don't know. But one more thing to show this is just a republican higher up con job. The republicans demand loyalty above all else. Look at Michael Steele. This poor sap had to prostrate himself at the crotch of Rush Limbaugh soon after he was elected Chairman of the republican party. Think of all the others that have been forced to suck up to Rush. Now this document shows up demanding adherence to the right wing twelve commandments or the Tea Partiers, under there shadow leadership of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck and these poor deluded fools don't even know it. Or the Tea Party will work against those that refuse to obey.
Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck pull the strings. The Tea Baggers dance. Let freedom ring.
53 comments:
I think it's pretty scarey. Too close to McCarthyism and another HUAC for comfort.
So many seem to be newcomers to politics, so they don't have any knowledge to fall back on and little inclination to learn.
There is a big difference between conservatives and teabaggers. I'm pretty well informed, when I'm at an antiwar demonstration there may be some idiot yelling "Bush planned 9/11" but I'm not gonna school the guy I'm gonna join in with "US out of Iraq" or whatever.
Conservatives for the most part don't school the teabaggers, maybe they want to keep them enthused ?
But conservatives can be reasoned with. If you make a valid point they will likely agree with you and may counter with something equally valid. Their ideology doesn't prevent them from rational thought.
But the teabaggers - they think people who read books are elitist. They think anyone who disagrees with Beck is a koolaid drinker.
Imagine that-so stupid they twist the Jim Jones koolaid thing to mean if you THINK and READ you drank the koolaid.
It's unbelievable. And one more thing that stresses me and I apologize in advance Joe for bringing this up on your blog cause it may offend some people-but a lot of these teabaggers are racist MF's whose main beef with Obama is he's Black, who want Mexicans out of the country and if things blow up and I apologize again for saying this man-but a caucasian person who isn't wearing a red Che T shirt or carrying a book could blend in with a teabagger crowd till it was safe but Brown skin doesn't wash off.
I wish I could refute what you said about the racists Oso. I can't Brother. These assholes latched on to the right and the right has latched on to them as a constituency.
Truth,
It is only the intolerant among us who demand that people believe exactly what they believe. Tea baggers are just the latest example of that. From segregationists to the John Birch society to tea baggers, these movements come in various forms but their mantra is amazingly similar, "We want our country back from (blacks, communists, liberals, etc.). The good thing is that in the long run these people are always exposed as the intolerant a-holes that they are. Wrapping yourself in the American flag does not make your argument any better. They want their country back? From whom exactly? Last time I checked the President won an overwhelming victory in the last election. I'm not sure what country they are talking about, but this one decides on it's leaders at the ballot box. Perhaps they are campaigning for some time of mob rule. I have the same thoughts about the makeup of this group as Oso. They want their country back, because in their country, a black man couldn't possibly be President. Oh well, hopefully time will expose these bigoted, intolerant folks for what they are.
Goes to show how easily duped these simple minded fools are. I won't go as far to say someone is a bigot because he's a tea bagger. But the tea bagger commandments look like they've been written by the party that panders to bigots and simple minded fools.
#11 really appeals to criminals and simple minded nuts: 11. I will always support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
I wonder if their gun loving extends to guys named Omar and Abdul@
Truth: I don't like that this "doctrine" uses the word "ALWAYS" in every one of its "points". It's all or nothing. I don't like absolutes. They don't leave any wiggle room. It's like using "never". And my motto is "never use never" because it will come back to bite you in the butt.
Not only are teabaggers racists they are a very ignorant bunch. Several months ago my family was about to head down to Hilton head, South Carolina for a relaxing four day weekend at the beach.
As I was discussing the upcoming weekend with my boss one of my teabagger co-workers overheard the conversation and made some remark about Hilton Head being the place Clinton held his Renaissance weekends with other important dignitaries. This sap was implying that Hilton Head was some den of liberalism.
In truth Hilton Head is part of Joe "You Lie" Wilson's district and he draws a great deal of his campaign money from that area.
I started to say something to the teabagger but didn't. Despite the general political leanings of Hilton Head it can me a relaxing place and I don't want that fool going there as well.
But anyway, I found it funny that not only did this guy not know the true nature of the congressional district he lived in or where many of his fellow teabaggers lived.
Pamela: the absolutes are why I think the one official that signed this ridiculous thing in my town is foolish. Just a matter of time before a few more of them sign it though.
Beach Bum: there's one of these jokers in every crowd.
It's ironic how the Tea Baggers and Guy Fawkers are always railing against the Obama and the government. Weren't conservatives the ones always equating any opposition to the POTUS policies with treason?
The teabaggers are scaring considerate conservatives to death, the sort of politician who is going to succumb to their 18th century demands is mot going to appeal to them.
I am sure they are planning on shouting down all political discourse during the upcoming campaign season. The ads we going to see on TV will be the most vile and fearful ever.
This teabagger demanding his aldermen sign pledges is a typical intolerant far-right bully and should just pack his bags and go straight to hell! What a pompous and arrogant little busybody. BTW, I've always referred to Newt's nifty little marketing ploy as the "Contract ON America" because all it's done is to shoot the poor and middle class economically.
And all that Newt promised was abandoned. They only signed that thing out of fear and stupidity. I can't even think of one republican that stuck with his promise to adhere to term limits. What Joe Wilson said to the President clearly applies to all republicans that signed the contract on America as well as any that sign this tea bagging nonsense. They lie.
I see no real problem with the points you elected to publish from the full list.
My problem is the use of "always" which can become a limiter.
It would be much better if stated "always, when logic and reason dictate." While there are principals that are, or should be absolute, not all on this list qualify for that distinction.
Well said RN. Your moniker is accurate.
Truth, since most teabaggers are delivered to that movement from Faux Noise, most know how to express only one honest opinion: Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a
Heh,heh,heh,heh,heh, .... Love your posting Mr.Truth .... and also wanted to mention I love the endorsement on your heading from my main man ... Jesse J! (The "Castrator") :)
That is the first I read of the 12 piece oath or whatever it's called, I heard of them 12 step programme's to make you cry over what a loser you are and rehabilitate you before only. I actually dont know much about these Teabag's or their movement, I did like their costume's though and the pic's of O'Bama looking like Adolf ... lot's of fun and laugh's! I thought ... I can imagine that Obama probably thought of many name's he would be called ... but may never have guessed Hitler would be one of them! Frankly I dont find any of this stuff scary as much as I find it entertaining and silly.
But any way good luck to the Teabag's and their endeavor's, what ever they are looking for. I am VERY pro business ... and voted republican most of my life (although also for Obama) but I sure as Hell dont get much into this new form of monopolized type business or corporate dictation of the market's and total control over who get's ahead and make's it. I am old fashioned I reckon in that sense ... I still like competition and a fair level playing field. I'll shut the Hell up now. :)
Take care Guy .........
Oso: "a lot of these teabaggers are racist MF's whose main beef with Obama is he's Black"
I have felt from Day One that these Tea Baggers are racist as hell. In fact, I know so. My southern family is almost entirely made up of Bible-thumpers who declare they're not racist, but . .
I think their anger and resentment has been growing since the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Now they can express it because there's power in numbers.
I hear news talk shows where guests dismiss this movement as racially inspired. They need to study their history.
YOU CAN ALWAYS TELL A HYPOCRITE WHEN YOU SEE ONE Especially when
Leslie Parsley comes here and preaches her liberal crying act and then writes this on Truth's blog!
said...
"a lot of these teabaggers are racist MF's whose main beef with Obama is he's Black"
I have felt from Day One that these Tea Baggers are racist as hell. In fact, I know so. My southern family is almost entirely made up of Bible-thumpers who declare they're not racist, but . .
I think their anger and resentment has been growing since the 1964 Civil Rights legislation. Now they can express it because there's power in numbers.
I hear news talk shows where guests dismiss this movement as racially inspired. They need to study their history."
Nice job Leslie Parsley, you REALLY proved my point.
I already said I wouldn't go as far as saying all tea baggers are racists. I'm sure many just want lower taxes and less government. At least they think they want less government until the day comes when they want government to do something about something.
But after seeing the tea party leader brandishing the sign with the "N" word on it, and the idiot spelled the "N" word wrong. (Nothing worse than a bigot who can't spell) one has to admit this movement is attractive to bigots.
Of the twelve tea bagger commandements, only the first two state what their movement was supposed to be about. The rest are merely right wing talking points.
I'm glad you stopped by Suzy and I hope everyone else is happy to have opposing views.
Suzy-Q: You must not have much of a life if all you have to do is follow me around. I have some honest work to do where I get paid honest money, so I really don't have time to deal with ladies of the right's night.
Leslie Parsley said...
Suzy-Q: You must not have much of a life if all you have to do is follow me around. I have some honest work to do where I get paid honest money, so I really don't have time to deal with ladies of the right's night.
Oh my Lord, what an what an egotistical moron you are!
Like the song says, "You think everything is about YOU"!
I happen to be following Truth101's post's... NOT YOU!
At first I just took it as stupid disgusting comment and a joke, then real anger began to sink in and now I am mad as hell and not going to take your crap any more..
I posted ONE comment on your blog and you and your bunch of AS-HOLE cronies jumped all over me and insulted me and my grammar and spelling and God only knows what else. Then you went over to Pamela’s blog and post your Holier than Thou liberal BULL-SHIT, about how sincere you are about being such a nice and reasonable poster .. But you sure didn’t waste any time taking a pop shot at the Professor did you?
When you said “I won't come to your blog and spew hateful words, that’s just disrespectful.”
So you know what Ms. or MISTER Leslie Parsley.
I have some honest work to do where I get paid honest money ALSO! And I really don't have time to deal CREEPS like YOU....
So you can pass Go and go directly to HELL.
I don’t need to read your HORSE SHIT.
Well, Suzy-Q, If truth be known, you really should work on your spelling, grammar and sentence structure a bit - that is, if you're trying to speak English. And you might wash your mouth out with soap while you're at it.
Holte said: I am sure they are planning on shouting down all political discourse during the upcoming campaign season. The ads we going to see on TV will be the most vile and fearful ever.
Absolutely and let's hope and pray that it's limited to just shouting. Mob rule can get awfully nasty. These people are angry whackos who do not understand that they cannot take the law into their own hands. But they'll die trying - and take a lot of innocent people with them.
little suzy has lost her little mind!! That was me at Pams, not Leslie. AND for the record I said NOT ONE bad word to or about the professor and he came back at me like a fuckin wimpy 5 yr old cryin to his momma!!
Sorry Truth but this person IS WACKO!!!
Well Sue - the smart Sue. At least you know how to spell wacko. I do, but as so often happens, my fingers get tripped over each other. But this girl is indeed wacko, along with all the rest of them.
Some interesting points, TRUTH on the pledge you posted:
2. I will always support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing legislation that is contrary to the Constitution.
Where were these tea bagger folks when GWB instituted the largest governmental agency (Homeland Security) in the history of the US? And where was the outrage from these folks' when GWB engaged in TWO wars and CUT taxes--also something that was NEVER done in the history of the US. Why weren't these folks running in the streets carrying torches and pitch forks when GWB NEVER VETOED ONE SPENDING BILL? AND TURNED A SURPLUS INTO A DEFICIT??
Where were the tea bagger organizers? Where? Their outrage now is a bit opportunistic, to say the least, and not to be believed.
Teabaagger are enraged ONLY when a Democrat is in office, but apparently when GWB was cutting taxes and BORROWING our children's future, that anti-conservative behavior didn't move these people to rise up against the government and it profligacy.
It's monumental hypocrisy and we need to remind the American people of how silly and hypocritical the whole movement is. We also need to point out that this is NOT a grass roots movement, rather huge corporate combines, like the Murdoch Empire, insurance companies, and energy companies are involved. The tea baggers are indeed being played like "a Manchurian fiddle."
3. I will always support market-based healthcare reform and oppose government-run healthcare.
So those who sign on for this bit of nonsense want to take grandma and grandpa's Medicare away from them? AND FORCE THEM TO APPEAR BEFORE INSURANCE COMPANIES' DEATH PANELS? What a joke.
Who came up with this idea? Was his last name Milosevic?
4. I will always support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation.
Right. Let's trust the good-hearted souls who ran companies like Enron; let's trust the folks who, during the California energy crisis of the early 2000s bragged about sticking it to granny.
7. I will always support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges.
This is more nonsense, since "victory" isn't defined. What exactly will victory look like in Iraq and Afghanistan? What a simplistic statement devoid of any military reality. Meaningless words to make those who support this nonsense feel superior to those who actually think about the consequenses of keeping American troops in countries where the ruling reactionary fundamentalist religionists hate them.
continued below:
8. I will always support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat.
It is interesting to note that NK and Iran actually moved toward acquiring nuclear weapons and ability during GWB’s administration and they became a real threat. Why? Because the US was fighting wars in the Middle East, and because Bush’s diplomatic policy with NK and Iran was to pretend they didn’t exist. How did that policy work out?
9. I will always support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
This piece of bigotry will not stand. Those who support this pledge are on the wrong side of history, as Americans have ALWAYS moved toward civil rights for minorities. Those who sign onto this bigoted pledge probably would have been proud to support Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws. They will be mocked.
10. I will always support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing healthcare rationing and denial of healthcare and government funding of abortion.
There is overwhelming proof of insurance companies rationing health care for people with pre-existing conditions and by cutting off people who hit the insurance companies’ arbitrary cost limits, so that the executives can line their fat pockets, while children and adults actually die for lack of coverage. The health care reform bill outlaws this inhuman practice. Someone needs to clue those who wrote this nonsense that it makes them look like uninformed dupes.
Abortion is a legal procedure. I don’t like wars. I want the right to withhold my taxes that support wars. I don’t have children in school. I want to withhold my taxes that support public schools. I don’t drive a car. I want to withhold my taxes that support interstate highways, bridges, and tunnels. Since when do we pick and choose where our tax money goes? Religious doctrine should never decide how we Americans pay our taxes.
11. I will always support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.
This is pure paranoia. There is NOT one piece of legislation proposed by the Obama administration to interfere with gun owners’ right to bear weapons of massive destruction. It is interesting to note that a majority of GUN OWNERS SUPPORT SOME RESTRICTIONS on purchasing guns at gun shows, but the NRA, a corporate- sponsored/lobbying organization will not support the gun owners’ proposals. Who’s in charge here? Why the corporations, of course. Not the citizens who wrote this pledge.
12. I will work toward legislation that provides term limits at all levels of government.
Finally, something we can all support. But please note that this proposal CHANGES the Constitution. Tony Scalia's not gonna like that. Nor will people who believe we should "unconditionally honor and support the United States Constitution."
Sounds like something a Liberal would propose. LOL!
Truth,
Finally after all these years you have solved a mystery for me. The answer to the eternal question, "Who runs things." I was completely blind-sided by it being Rush Limbaugh.
I thought he was an entertainer who used humor and satire to make a point. Now I know HE'S the man behind the curtain!
Sheesh, I thought it was the Masons. Who knew?
Good day sir.
LMAO: Why are you bringing something I said on another blog to this one? Anyway, I do't even have a face. It got burned when someone lit the cross in my yard.
Shaw: I meant to comment on your excellent points but I got distracted by some hot air blowing into these frigid parts. Anyway, as always, your knowledge and the ability to cut to the chase is admirable.
Leslie Parsley said...
Shaw: I meant to comment on your excellent points but I got distracted by some hot air blowing into these frigid parts. Anyway, as always, your knowledge and the ability to cut to the chase is admirable
Hey Flakebrain. I konw that you have a significantly impaired cognitive functioning brain....but,
this isn't Shaw's blog!
Leslie can comment on anything she wants at my blog Ablur.
And you're a shithead.
Thank you for stopping by.
If you are good at translating conservative-speak, you will realize that items 1,2,3,4,5,10 and 11 on this list are thinly disguised giveaways to the rich and corporations.
I suspect that the rest is just window-dressing for the suckers.
And that's what teabaggers are- suckers whose greed and hatred has made them easy targets to be manipulated into harming themselves in order to make someone else rich as hell.
Sowhat have we accomplished these past 12 months, we have been attacked or attempted ot be attacked many time to many.
We have been so distracted by other events brought on by this president that nothing of real value has been accomplished . We have we brought out in this health care issue? Well, first, we have brought out the fact that instead of addressing the issue of health care everyone seems to be focused on health care insurance and that has nothing to do with the cost of health care itself. The fact that we ignore the real problem, if there is any real problem, tells me that we have become a nation brainwashed into thinking that insurance is the only answer to the health care costs problem when it may be one of the causes of it.
There will always be those who will consensually and willingly give up those rights in order to benefit in some area of their lives but it doesn’t mean that they have the right to force other to give up those rights also. Some will do so in ignorance of what they are giving up in exchange. Some will support it not caring about what they would be depriving themselves and others of.
And I am not one of these. I have nothing but pity for those who choose out of ignorance but I have nothing but contempt for those who do not care what they deprive others of in order to get what they want. In short, we have made a very big mistake in electing Barack Obama. Allow not emotions get in the way of your reasoning. Allow reasoning to guide your emotions. This be the last of my words on the issue. I'm sorry bit I do not wish my blog becoming another copy of Pamela's blog, so I will remain anonymous.
I think with all the brilliant minds out there in the blogosphere, we should be able to come up with some ideas of our own... I don't think that secrecy is needed, it's not as if the "left wing whackjobs" don't know we're coming after them guns a blazing... (before you liberals soil yourselves, that was metaphorically speaking, at least for now)
Here's where my expertise ends (sorry, I'm not computer savvy) as far as the ability to produce some form of website or interactive blog that people could use as a sounding board for ideas... The enemy has been organizing for years, it's time we did as well... I'm going to toss out a few ideas and would dearly love to see others responses as well as additional ideas...
Grass roots voter education on the real issues...
Voter registration drives targeted towards conservative values... (no quotas, we're not ACORN)
Fund raising efforts to support True Conservative candidates...
Candidate forums in which we can weed out the liberals in conservative clothing...
Instead of "Rock the Vote" how about "Rocking Chair the Vote"... (literally going to nursing homes and registering voters with their mental capacities still in tack, who just may need help filling out mail in ballots or transportation to polling places)
I know there must be a few conservative lawyers out there that would be willing to use our court system to tie up legislation that threatens our "Rights and Freedoms"
Continue / Intensify the "Tea Party" protests... Astro Turf My Ass...
Now a few from their play book...
Complete character assassination of liberal candidates... (similar to their attacks on Sarah Palin)
Voter intimidation... (instead of Black Panthers, how about Sweet Little Old Ladies with rolling pins)
Civil disobedience, let them know we're tired of their crap... (maybe slap a liberal day) or (unplug an electric car day) or (help a liberal across the street day) no really, "wink, wink"...
My caffeine buzz is wearing off, but let's not drop the ball on this, there's far too much at stake here...
Don't worry Professor. Your secret is safe with me.
Now I suggest you reread Green Eagle's comment and Shaw's point by point rebuttal to the tea bagger commandments with an open mind.
That is if you actually read them at all.
I have nothing but contempt for those who do not care what they deprive others of in order to get what they want.
Call Me What You Will: Then you need to have contempt for Congress, because they are the ones who will deprive in order to get what they want. The Liberals aren’t too happy with this Health Care bill, either. They are very much aware that it’s a bill for big business, pharma and Government.
Both sides realize there’s a problem with our Health Care system. We just need to come to an amicable solution. However, Congress is hell bent on keeping lobbyists and big business happy which doesn’t give them too much time for the people right now.
If we the people could find some common ground maybe we could get the message to Congress and then we’d get something done! This back and forth BS isn’t solving anything. And while we are in-fighting and finger-pointing, Congress is doing whatever they want, leaving us high and dry.
Truth - So what exactly are the problems, as you see them, in the pledge? You never say.
The pledge looks perfectly good to me.
Shaw Kenawe said: "...Where were these tea bagger folks when GWB..."
We were opposing him, Shaw. Conservatives gave up on Bush by 06. No, we weren't out carrying signs because his offenses were a firecracker compared to Obama's atomic bombs.
"Teabaagger are enraged ONLY when a Democrat is in office, but apparently when GWB was cutting taxes and BORROWING our children's future"
Cutting taxes is of course good, because at our current levels it generates more revenue (google for Laffer curve). We conservatives opposed GWB after about 05 because of his big spending ways, and said so loudly at the time. We were also quite put out with the Republicans in Congress for the same reason. Conservatives were done with Bush by 05. We basically only supported him in 04 because Kerry was so much worse.
All of this is extensively documented by any reputable website, see
http://www.nationalreview.com
http://www.weeklystandard.com
Or see various statements made by conservative talk show hosts like Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Jerry Doyle, or even Rush, all of whom were quite upset with Bush well before the end of his term.
Again, Obama-Pelosi-Reid are far worse at spending and driving up the deficit. So of course we're going to protest them more.
re cap n tax "Let's trust the good-hearted souls who ran companies like Enron; let's trust the folks who, during the California energy crisis of the early 2000s bragged about sticking it to granny."
You make a non sequitur here. An elementary logical fallacy.
"What exactly will victory look like in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
If you ever bothered to pay attention to what Bush, Petraeus, Odierno, or Obama said, it's this in a nutshell: A relatively stable Iraq/Afghanistan, at peace with it's neighbors, and headed in the direction of increased pluralism for it's people. See
http://www.dodvclips.mil
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/
or read Petraeus' Counterinsurgency Field Manual 3-24.
Just please educate yourself.
continued...
"It is interesting to note that NK and Iran actually moved toward acquiring nuclear weapons and ability during GWB’s administration and they became a real threat. Why? Because the US was fighting wars in the Middle East..."
Wrong again. Iran wants nukes because the Khomeinists who run it want to achieve the centuries old Shite dream of establishing a regional Imamate. The DPRK wants nukes because Kim Dong Dumb sees his regime crumbling before his eyes and sees them as the ultimate key to survival. He wants to use them to blackmail us into giving him enough aid to keep his government afloat.
So sorry, not everything is the fault of the USA.
"This piece of bigotry will not stand."
Yawn. Typical left-wing McCarthyism.
"There is overwhelming proof of insurance companies rationing health care for people with pre-existing conditions and by cutting off people who hit the insurance companies’ arbitrary cost limits"
Geez, did you sleep through Economics 101?
Guess what, your supermarket rations food too. That's what prices are all about, a reaction to supply and demand. If you remove prices at the supermarket, everyone would take huge quantities of the best food, and shortages would result. Price functions to limit what you can take home with you. This has the effect of ensuring supply for everyone.
As a typical leftist, I'm sure you think that healthcare is a "right" and presto! we can magically eliminate the laws of supply and demand with regard to it.
Wrong.
If you make healthcare a right, and tell everyone they can have anything they want whenever they want it, the result will be shortages. See supermarket example above.
"Abortion is a legal procedure."
Sadly, yes. But we're working to change that ;-)
As for your analogies, sorry, not buying them. Fortunately, a bunch of Democrats in the House aren't either.
"There is NOT one piece of legislation proposed by the Obama administration to interfere with gun owners’ right to bear weapons of massive destruction."
Not yet. But can you really doubt that Chuckie Schumer and the rest of them are not salivating at the possibility? And can you really doubt that Obama would eliminate gun rights if he could? The only reason they haven't done this so far is that they have other priorities that that they want to get to first.
Now have a nice day.
Tom the Redhunter,
It's late, I'm tired, it's been a long day. But I had to address your comments to me:
TOMtheREDHUNTER said: Shaw Kenawe said: "...Where were these tea bagger folks when GWB..."
We were opposing him, Shaw. Conservatives gave up on Bush by 06. No, we weren't out carrying signs because his offenses were a firecracker compared to Obama's atomic bombs.
SHAW ANSWERED: Sorry. That doesn’t cut it. What Bush was doing THEN as a big spender had nothing to do with what a Democratic president would do in the future. It was bad conservatism THEN, and no conservatives were marching and predicting the end of democracy as a result of Bush’s profligacy. Your excuse for the lack of protestations on the scale we see now is weak and hypocritical, and predictable. If spending is anathema to conservatives, then it is something they would protest EVERYTIME and on EVERY LEVEL.
TOMtheREDHUNTER WROTE: "Cutting taxes is of course good, because at our current levels it generates more revenue (google for Laffer curve). We conservatives opposed GWB after about 05 because of his big spending ways, and said so loudly at the time. We were also quite put out with the Republicans in Congress for the same reason. Conservatives were done with Bush by 05. We basically only supported him in 04 because Kerry was so much worse."
SHAW KENAWE: Kerry wasn’t elected to the presidency. How do you know he “was so much worse?” Where’s the logic in that? That’s merely an oppositional prediction based on bias. You have no idea how Kerry would have governed because it never happened.
TOMtheREDHUNTER: Again, Obama-Pelosi-Reid are far worse at spending and driving up the deficit. So of course we're going to protest them more.
SHAW KENAWE: Give us details on how a conservative would have pulled this country back from the brink of a disastrous depression, and how cutting taxes restores an economy in a meltdown. I’d really like to see concrete examples in past recessions and depressions where tax cuts infused the economy with needed dollars. Tell us where that has worked."
TOMtheREDHUNTER: "Let's trust the good-hearted souls who ran companies like Enron; let's trust the folks who, during the California energy crisis of the early 2000s bragged about sticking it to granny."
You make a non sequitur here. An elementary logical fallacy.
That’s nice. But you don’t address the crooks at Enron and the people who manipulated the California energy rip-off. All of them private sector companies.
"What exactly will victory look like in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
If you ever bothered to pay attention to what Bush, Petraeus, Odierno, or Obama said, it's this in a nutshell: A relatively stable Iraq/Afghanistan, at peace with it's neighbors, and headed in the direction of increased pluralism for it's people.
Just please educate yourself.
.
Can we have a discussion without your being condescending? I am the first to understand I do not know all the details of every subject. Can you have the courtesy to not assume that everyone who has a difference of opinion with you is uneducated?
And I’ll assume the same for you. Deal?
(cont.)
Tom the Redhunter said...
continued...
"It is interesting to note that NK and Iran actually moved toward acquiring nuclear weapons and ability during GWB’s administration and they became a real threat. Why? Because the US was fighting wars in the Middle East..."
Wrong again. Iran wants nukes because the Khomeinists who run it want to achieve the centuries old Shite dream of establishing a regional Imamate. The DPRK wants nukes because Kim Dong Dumb sees his regime crumbling before his eyes and sees them as the ultimate key to survival. He wants to use them to blackmail us into giving him enough aid to keep his government afloat.
SHAW KENAWE: Tom the Redhunter, that was not what I addressed--I addressed the fact that NK and Iran moved to more nuclear advancement under the Bush administration, and the fact that it happened because the Bush administration chose to pretend that Iran and NK did not exist.
TOMtheREDHUNTER: "This piece of bigotry will not stand."
Yawn. Typical left-wing McCarthyism.
SHAW KENAWE: Tom, it is a fact that this country, bless it, always moves in the direction of extending civil rights to minorities. The resistance to gay marriage is predicated solely on religious sensibilites. This country does not recognize religion as a basis of it civil laws. This piece of bigotry will not stand. You’ll see this in your life time. Believe me.
TOMtheREDHUNTER: "There is overwhelming proof of insurance companies rationing health care for people with pre-existing conditions and by cutting off people who hit the insurance companies’ arbitrary cost limits"
Geez, did you sleep through Economics 101?"
Guess what, your supermarket rations food too. That's what prices are all about, a reaction to supply and demand. If you remove prices at the supermarket, everyone would take huge quantities of the best food, and shortages would result. Price functions to limit what you can take home with you. This has the effect of ensuring supply for everyone. As a typical leftist, I'm sure you think that healthcare is a "right" and presto! we can magically eliminate the laws of supply and demand with regard to it.'
SHAW KENAWE: It’s telling that you would compare a person’s health care to a commodity, something that can be bought or sold or influenced by market pressures. In the Declaration of Independence, Jeffereson wrote about our basic right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, none of which is possible without access to reasonable health care. Who can pursue any of those ideals when one is fighting for one’s life? If it is a basic right to pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness, then we must make the ability to afford health care the foundation to those three imperatives Jefferson wrote into the DoI, for without affordable health care, we have nothing but destitution, misery, and death."
(cont.)
Abortion is a legal procedure."--shawkenawe's quote
TOMtheREDHUNTER: Sadly, yes. But we're working to change that ;-)"
SHAW KENAWE: You wish to revert to a time when poor women risked their lives and died, while rich women could afford to end a pregnancy for health reasons? You wish to revert to a time when the Government decided what is best for a woman, and not what she and her doctor did?
In other words, you’re for more Government involvement in very personal, very private decisions? This is mystifying, since rightwingers want government OUT of any health care decisions. You’re not consistent here."
"There is NOT one piece of legislation proposed by the Obama administration to interfere with gun owners’ right to bear weapons of massive destruction."--shawkenawe quote
TOMtheREDHUNTER: Not yet. But can you really doubt that Chuckie Schumer and the rest of them are not salivating at the possibility? And can you really doubt that Obama would eliminate gun rights if he could? The only reason they haven't done this so far is that they have other priorities that that they want to get to first."
SHAW KENAWE: This is tom foolery. You’re making a prediction based on your paranoia, and nothing factual. I can just as well say that a Republican president would make abortion illegal and then require all women to become stay-at-home mothers, and then require Christian prayers to be recited in all public schools while eliminating any other religion that doesn’t accept Jesus Christ as its personal savior. The only reason conservatives didn’t do this when they had complete control of the government for 6 out of Bush’s 8 years is that they had other priorities--like out-of-control spending.
the teabaggers - well i cant even get started
thanks for posting that
Pamela nswered your query about the commandments earlier Tom:
"Truth: I don't like that this "doctrine" uses the word "ALWAYS" in every one of its "points". It's all or nothing. I don't like absolutes. They don't leave any wiggle room. It's like using "never". And my motto is "never use never" because it will come back to bite you in the butt."
Of course I have more but Shaw did a capable and thourough job refuting your comments. I'm satisfied with that.
Other than why did this guy who's demanding our city council sign his commandments think Iraq, Cap and Trade, gay marraige and abortion have anything to do with what aldermen vote on?
This thing is bought and paid for by the reactionary right. The tea bag guy is a dupe. He's doing their work for nothing.
Shaw,
I have some quibbles with the response to Tom-TRH, in that the refutations were unconnected in their result. In other words, it is fine to say that something wouldn't or couldn't happen, but merely reciting talking points doesn't make it so.
I love that you acknowledge the tea party demonstrations, however, it is specious to say that they weren't as strident when Bush was president.
The revolution that started this country was muted at the beginning, but swelled as the violations continued. They culminated with the use of hired mercenaries by King George III. The colonists felt this was taking the disagreement outside the family and were insulted.
I don't condone Bush's spending, nor did I at any time. For you to question somone's conservative credentials because they didn't hold up a sign is disingenuous at best.
Since when is it necessary to take to the streets to be protesting. Taking to the streets is simply a manifestation of the accumulation of grievances. Dissent is very American, although those of you who went after Bush have seemed to forget that.
As for abortion, I have always found it interesting that those who favor abortion abhor the death penalty. If you conflate the death penalty with state-sanctioned murder, it's hard to make the case that murdering the unborn is just a lifestyle choice.
As for being antiwar, I respect this expression of dissent with government policy. My fondest hope, as someone who has seen war, is that there be no more wars.
Practically speaking, I know there is evil in the world and sometimes it requires war to put it down. Evil exists and no amount of wishing will make it go away.
Thank you.
LAW AND ORDER TEACHER SAID:
I have some quibbles with the response to Tom-TRH, in that the refutations were unconnected in their result. In other words, it is fine to say that something wouldn't or couldn't happen, but merely reciting talking points doesn't make it so.
SHAW ANSWERED: It isn’t clear what you mean by the above. It would have been easier for me to get your point if you had given me an example to answer. I don’t believe I recited talking points.
LaOT: I love that you acknowledge the tea party demonstrations, however, it is specious to say that they weren't as strident when Bush was president.
SHAW: I actually did not say that. What I pointed out is that there were NO tea party demonstrations of any sort from conservatives while Bush was tax-cutting during two wars, borrowing our children’s future, not vetoing any spending bills that the Republican Congress put before him. These were huge big-spending, anti-conservative policies but there were NO enraged conservatives taking to the streets to protest Mr. Bush’s profligacy. There is a gaping inconsistency in ignoring Bush’s big spending and making us beholden to China, and taking to the streets over Obama’s policies.
LaOT: The revolution that started this country was muted at the beginning, but swelled as the violations continued. They culminated with the use of hired mercenaries by King George III. The colonists felt this was taking the disagreement outside the family and were insulted.
SHAW: I don't think you're comparing our colonial history to what is happening now--the colonists did not elect King George, but a majority of Americans did elect President Obama, knowing that he had a very liberal record. This country said no to the Republicans and placed a Democrat in the White House. I’m not understanding the reference to England, King George, and the colonists here.
LaOT: I don't condone Bush's spending, nor did I at any time. For you to question somone's conservative credentials because they didn't hold up a sign is disingenuous at best.
SHAW: If you read my statements carefully, nowhere do I question anyone’s conservative credentials for not holding up signs. Here is the answer I gave to TOMtREDHUNTER, and nowhere will you find me questioning anyone’s credentials--I do however question consistency of actions:
What Bush was doing THEN as a big spender had nothing to do with what a Democratic president would do in the future. It was bad conservatism THEN, and no conservatives were marching and predicting the end of democracy as a result of Bush’s profligacy.
Your excuse for the lack of protestations on the scale we see now is weak and hypocritical, and predictable. If spending is anathema to conservatives, then it is something they would protest EVERYTIME and on EVERY LEVEL.
(cont.)
LaOT: Since when is it necessary to take to the streets to be protesting. Taking to the streets is simply a manifestation of the accumulation of grievances. Dissent is very American, although those of you who went after Bush have seemed to forget that.
SHAW: Again you’ve missed my point: One’s right to protest is not in question. I have said nothing against the protesting. My point is that certain people in the conservative movement--tea baggers--have protested spending policies by the Obama administration, when they did not do so when Bush acted most irresponsibly with America’s financial future. No consistency. If it’s wrong to spend our children’s future, it’s wrong when a GOPer does it as well. Again, where were the huge tea-party protestors.
LaOT: As for abortion, I have always found it interesting that those who favor abortion abhor the death penalty. If you conflate the death penalty with state-sanctioned murder, it's hard to make the case that murdering the unborn is just a lifestyle choice.
SHAW: Not all abortions are “lifestyle choices,” although framing it that way does trivialize a very serious and heart-wrenching choice, and that’s dishonest. There are times when an abortion has to be performed to save a woman’s life, to prevent a child rape victim from being forced to endure a dangerous pregnancy, to end a forced incestuous pregnancy, or to end a pregnancy where the fetus has expired in the womb or when there is no medical hope for it to survive outside the womb. I don’t understand how the same conservatives who demand that the government stay out of their health care decisions would give the government power over what a woman can do with her body, it is the ultimate tyranny: government deciding health care issues that directly affect a woman’s life. No one is for abortion. It is always a tragedy--but those of you who accept other tragedies as part of living this difficult life need to understand how much more misery will be visited on people by outlawing this medical procedure.
Thank you for allowing me to answer your statements.
Shaw,
Thanks for the answer. It appears we are talking past each other. I understood your statement concerning the lack of protestors in the street during the Bush Administration to mean that conservatives were hypocritical for not protesting. Many did.
My reference to the Revolution was that historically speaking, the misinformation often taught surrounding the Revolution is that Americans immediately were at war with GB. That's very far from the truth.
The shooting began in April 1775. From that time on the colonists consistently tried to reconcile with GB. The date for the Declaration of Independence is July 4, 1776. The colonists were very hesitant to break with the mother country. My reference was that the same reticence to break with the government is present here.
Spending by the government has been out of control since the New Deal. It takes time to cause Americans such as me to find it necessary to call out the government. Now is the time. It has nothing to do with Obama. It has everything to do with bankrupting the government. I feel McCain and his buddies in congress would do the same. That was my reference to the Revolution.
As for abortion, the government disallowing a woman to make the choice of what she does with her body is not the ultimate tyranny. Allowing someone to decide to take take an innocent life for whatever reason is the ultimate tyranny.
That may be a difference between us. I choose to stand up for a person who can't stand up for himself, while you choose to champion someone who has a choice to make and makes it at the expense of someone else's life.
I appreciate that the choice for an abortion is tough, taking a life should be hard. I've been there. When taking a life becomes easy we are really no longer human.
Good day.
LaOT,
Thanks for the clarifications.
I understand the reference to our Revolution--in fact I am aware of this important history every day of my life since I live directly behind Boston's Old North Church (previous to that, I lived two doors down from Paul Revere's home in Boston's North End)!
This is the statement that gave me pause:
"My reference was that the same reticence to break with the government is present here."
I'm not sure that there is a reticence, since I've heard tea party people call for revolution against Mr. Obama's government.
Why would a minority of Americans (the tea party movement)even think about breaking with the government when they have the power of the ballot box, which our colonial forebears did not? We do not live under tyranny, as much as certain bellicose entertainers on teevee and the radio would have people believe.
The right to petition the government, free speech, redress of grievances, the right to assembly, worship, bear arms, etc. are all in tact. Mr. Obama hasn't abrogated any of those rights.
The argument we have today is in how to rein in government spending, how to make it more efficient, and how to root out as much fraud as possible.
Our basic rights have not been taken away. I think all reasonable people can agree with that.
One last word on abortion.
I understand your strong feelings around this issue and how you believe that you are standing up for the helpless innocents.
But there is also this dilemma in the human condition:
What to do when two rights are in conflict? For example: The woman whose pregnancy may cause her death, leaving her living children motherless, and the fetus that will cause this calamity.
Those are two rights in conflict. Whom do you believe will make the best decision necessary in this difficult circumstance? The Government? Or the woman, her husband, and her doctor?
To outlaw a valid medical procedure because of the harm it will do the 3-month fetus and not consider the viable living woman and her living children makes no sense.
We live in a very imperfect world, if people can accept the fact that innocent men and women are executed because of sloppy police work and lawyering; if people can accept the fact that even in just wars, pregnant women and living innocent babies are horribly slaughtered as collateral damage in order to defeat evil, why can't people understand that abortion, which should be RARE,is part of our human failings as well? Why do people accept the first two examples and not the last?
If people are truly interested in protecting the lives of the innocent, those same people, to be morally consistent, should be against all wars--just and unjust--because innocent babies are slaughted in the womb and out of it in all wars.
And I'll add this: Innocent newborns who, through no fault of their own, are born to uninsured parents certainly will have a much reduced chance for a healthy first year of life-- they may even die of a preventable childhood disease. Again, to be morally consistent, every American who is against abortion to save the life of a fetus must stand up for universal health care for newborn babies.
Thanks for engaging in a non-confrontational conversation. It's rare to find this--especially of late on my blog.
I wrote about the racist tea-baggers on my blog here: The Racists Who Disagree With Us.
As for these pledges -- If Republicans want to be the "small tent" party... I think they should go for it. Or the teabaggers should break off and form a third party.
Shaw said... It's monumental hypocrisy and we need to remind the American people of how silly and hypocritical the whole movement is.
I agree 100%. Except in regards to term-limits. I'm a Liberal and I'm against them. Why throw someone out of office if they're doing a good job? Of course it's also hard to get rid of an incumbent who's doing a bad job - and something does need to be done about that. I think a better solution is public financing of elections and instant runn-off voting. Term limits are are a bad idea IMO.
Tom the Redhunter said... Cutting taxes is of course good, because at our current levels it generates more revenue (google for Laffer curve).
The Laffer curve is complete and utter nonsense which has been throughly debunked. Reagan's Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman admitted that "supply side" economics was "Trojan horse to bring down the top rate" (In other words, Supply Side Economics and the Laffer curve are a scam). Which is why the deficit exploded under Reagan.
When you said “I won't come to your blog and spew hateful words, that’s just disrespectful.”
"So you know what Ms. or MISTER Leslie Parsley.
I have some honest work to do where I get paid honest money ALSO! And I really don't have time to deal CREEPS like YOU....
So you can pass Go and go directly to HELL.
I don’t need to read your HORSE SHIT."
Look, conservative female, take your bitterness elsewhere, or rather, direct it back to the conservative males playing you like a cheap fiddle. They kick you, and you have to kick somebody in return.
I don't know about most people, but I'm tired of grating,spoiled, self-righteous right-wing women taking out their problems on society.
Get a hobby or learn to raise your brats correctly, do something!
You and other conservative females are the reason conservative males don't think much of women. In fact, no wonder they are well known for hating women so much.
Post a Comment