"Exclusive" teabagging

[vince]

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Your perception, which is incorrect, is shared by most in the liberal community. These groups/meetings were catalyzed by the stimulus bill, and extend to other areas of increased taxation and spending by government. There are no social or racial initiatives. The participants are not fringe, nor are they loons any more than loons make up any group/gathering.





I wish Obama were white so everybody couldn't play the race card anytime somebody questions the administration.

Using your rationale - where are all the anti-war protesters now that Obama is in office? They were everywhere - actors, singers, commercials -- all going nuts in unison over being in Iraq/Afghan.

Now they have disappeared. The singers and actors have clammed up. Sean Penn, Susan Surandon, Pink - all the sudden nothing to say anymore. Tim Robbins, the rest of the Hollywood dipshits. Why the sudden change in heart?

Because there was a change in policy. Get out of Iraq ASAP because it was the wrong war in the wrong place to begin with, and surge in Afghanistan. Which, in case you've forgotten, is where the perps behind the worst terrorist attack in history, have been hiding out for the past eight years. Doh. Bush promised to get the people behind 911 and got distracted half way through. The whole war thing is another inherited mess to be dealt with, just like the economy.

The ink wasn't even dry on his oath before the right wingers started in on this President, who inherited the biggest mess to sort out since Franklin Roosevelt. You can't deny some of it isn't race based. You can't be THAT naive about your own country's history.

I think it's funny how the teabaggers and birthers play the reverse race card. So pure. They would say 'shit' if they had a mouthful. LOL

 

[maxcok]

Not about Obama and his "differentness"?? Then where were the Teabaggers while GWB was running up the deficits. Their silence under his administration tells me everything I need to know.

^ What he said. Not that I needed to know that to know that.

And p.s. who nearly drove the economy off the cliff, necessitating drastic measures e.g. bailouts? And which administration started said bailouts without a cleanup plan? Not to mention conducting an unnecessary trumped-up war completely off the books, the cost of which is now somewhere between 1 and 2 trillion? Who did all these wacky wonderful things? Hmm . . . I wonder.

I also wonder where the likes of you would 'invest' in the middle of a second Great Depression, which we were undoubtedly teetering on the verge of. Thank jesus you had the good American taxpayer to 'bailout' your ass. But don't fret y'all, it's not real money, honey.
Hey, don't steal my color, brother.

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Yes! remain vigilent.

you either
Did you mean 'vigilant'? If so, trust me, I shall.



p.s. I would be so grateful if y'all could be more careful about letting my little signature color and typeface creep into 'Investor's' quotes, or anybody else's for that matter. Even though it was his laziness that started this unfortunate chain, it now looks like I said those wacky things, I mean, Really!!! If you don't mind, could you please be more 'vigilent'? Or better yet, if it's not too late to edit, go back and correct as I have done above. Thanks. A lil help, please Mr. Administrator??

 

[B_New End]

Because there was a change in policy. Get out of Iraq ASAP because it was the wrong war in the wrong place to begin with, and surge in Afghanistan. Which, in case you've forgotten, is where the perps behind the worst terrorist attack in history, have been hiding out for the past eight years. Doh. Bush promised to get the people behind 911 and got distracted half way through. The whole war thing is another inherited mess to be dealt with, just like the economy.

We are never getting out of Iraq. Don't be fooled. And only one hijacker came from Afghanistan. The others came from Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

The ink wasn't even dry on his oath before the right wingers started in on this President, who inherited the biggest mess to sort out since Franklin Roosevelt. You can't deny some of it isn't race based. You can't be THAT naive about your own country's history.

Inherited? Obama voted for the bailouts, just like McCain, and stuffed his cabinet full of wall street insiders... moreso even then Bush. Of course Starinvestor loved the bailouts, so he is kind of in a tricky position to try and decry the stimulus, which is meant to help main street, all the while cheering on giving Trillions to the fucking greedy pigs on wall street.

Not that it matters. Stimulus, bail outs... it's all for the greedy fucking pigs anyways.

 

[B_New End]

BTW, yes, half the right wingers hate Obama because he is black, and because his name sounds moose slim. This was intentional. Just remember that when things get crazy. Obama has no idea he is the butt end of an elitist joke. He just thinks he got lucky, going from Senator in 2004 to president in 2008. I kind of feel sorry for him. The ones who put him there, are going to lynch him. Just you watch. They don't build up a black man unless they want to tear him down.

Maybe some of you should observe and learn from the Tea Parties instead of hiding under a table and heckling about something in which you don't have the faintest idea.

pfft... teabaggers just now discovered protesting, liberals have been doing it for decades. As the teabaggers start to think that protesting is effective, the "liberals" will start to wake up and see what a waste it is.

 

[vince]

We are never getting out of Iraq. Don't be fooled. And only one hijacker came from Afghanistan. The others came from Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

Inherited? Obama voted for the bailouts, just like McCain, and stuffed his cabinet full of wall street insiders... moreso even then Bush. Of course Starinvestor loved the bailouts, so he is kind of in a tricky position to try and decry the stimulus, which is meant to help main street, all the while cheering on giving Trillions to the fucking greedy pigs on wall street.

Not that it matters. Stimulus, bail outs... it's all for the greedy fucking pigs anyways.

Well I don't disagree with you. But the point is where were all these citizens crying about taxes and spending and borrowing two years ago? Where was Mr Beck? What's different now?

 

[B_New End]

Well I don't disagree with you. But the point is where were all these citizens crying about taxes and spending and borrowing two years ago? Where was Mr Beck? What's different now?

In the Ron Paul movement. And the Ron Paul movement organized the first tea party protests. Then Glenn Beck co-opted and took it over. Glenn Beck is the controlled opposition. He said he didn't think the bailouts were big enough, then after Obama is elected, he turns around and says he was against them all along, and starts mapping out how bad they are.

 

[B_starinvestor]

Well I don't disagree with you. But the point is where were all these citizens crying about taxes and spending and borrowing two years ago? Where was Mr Beck? What's different now?

The bailouts under Bush were not structured properly. However, they were a necessity. Banks utilized the funds as they saw fit, but Bush & Co. didn't mandate that they extend credit, etc. It could/should have been done a lot better and much more effectively.

Obama's is a stimulus plan - wherein only a small fraction is actually 'stimulus' at all. In fact, 13% of the stimulus bill actually qualifies as 'stimulus.'

Obama's 'shovel-ready jobs' have come complete with everything except a shovel and a job.

The Bush Admin spent on defense. National security, geopolitical security, etc., falls within a different category of priority than simply aggressive domestic spending. I realize most on this board do not agree with that sentiment.

The governement - the taxpayers - will get all of their money back from the Wall Street bailouts under Bush. In fact, they will even profit. It was structured as a loan/investment. And it worked. It saved tens of thousands of jobs, and it prevented the closings of huge businesses within the finance/banking industries.

Obama is just spending. His stimulus hasn't provided much meaningful stimulus at all. Most of the jobs created were only temporary in nature.

The thrust of the tea party isn't "The war/Bush spending is good, Obama spending is bad." The thrust is that we are where we are; and we can't spend our way out of it.

 

[B_New End]

The governement - the taxpayers - will get all of their money back from the Wall Street bailouts under Bush. In fact, they will even profit. It was structured as a loan/investment.

buuuuuuuulllllllllllll

shhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiitttttt


buuuuuuuullllllllllll


shhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiittt


BULLSHIT!

 

[maxcok]

In the interest of finding common ground:

Who was the only presidential candidate to oppose the Iraq war in 1992?

Who was the only candidate to oppose NAFTA in 1992?

You enjoying your little left-right illusion? Hows that NAFTA working out for you now?

My comment referred to the Reform Party, which if you know your history tried to soldier on after losing its star player, and I compared it to the predictable and inevitable demise of the Bagger movement. Despite your misleading two word quote, I only obliquely mentioned Perot and made no comment on his validity or his positions. Your points are thus specious and irrelevant, and FYI, Uncle Ross has left the building, time to move on.

As for my 'little left-right illusion', you might want to get to know me a little before making such rash and simplistic assumptions regarding my political philosophy.

We are never getting out of Iraq.

I'm afraid you're right about that. So sorry we went.

Don't be fooled.

I'm not.

And only one hijacker came from Afghanistan. The others came from Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that the Taliban coddled and gave safe haven to bin Laden who orchestrated the plot? That there were Al Qaeda training camps there? That it was their major base of operations? Surely you know that?

Obama voted for the bailouts, just like McCain,

Yes. Sometimes you have to do unsavory things in an emergency.

. . . and stuffed his cabinet full of wall street insiders

Yes, this bothers me too. Alot.

Stimulus, bail outs... it's all for the greedy fucking pigs anyways.

There's a pretty good chance you're at least partly right on that too.

I gather from reading your posts you are a pretty avid Ron Paul supporter. It may surprise you to learn that I admire him and subscribe to some of his positions, others not so much. Besides it being dangerous to pin all your hopes and pledge allegiance to a single political figure, I have this bit of news:

That campaign is also over, time to move on.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Who was the only presidential candidate to oppose the Iraq war in 1992?
Who was the only candidate to oppose NAFTA in 1992?
You enjoying your little left-right illusion? Hows that NAFTA working out for you now?

Ron Paul is a homophobe. Why should I (or anyone) vote for someone so closed-minded? Because of something that happened in 1992? Welcome to 2010.

 

[B_New End]

Actually, I kind of gave up on Ron Paul when he said we should have bought the slaves. It is my position we should have killed all the plantation owners (idealistic as that may be). But I never pinned all my hopes on him... in fact I only agreed with aout 75% of what he said... but I agreed storngly with things that get ignored all the time by everyone except 3rd parties, like corporate control, and the federal reserve.

I apologize for the Reform party thing, however, you did put Ross Perot's name in there. I will agree there is quite a good historical analogy between Paul and the tea baggers and Perot and the Reform, and if that is what you meant, then good on you.

Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that the Taliban coddled and gave safe haven to bin Laden who orchestrated the plot?

Did you know that Sibel Edmunds, Turkish translator for the FBI, and still under gag order, said that the CIA was working with Osama Bin Laden up to the very day of Sept 11th? Did you know we are doing the dirty work of the ISI right now? We don't know we are killing Taleban in Pakistan... and if you think the CIA has a clue who they are hitting, think about what happened to 7 of them who thought they could trust a star Jordanian doctor who was pinpointing enemies. They are wall paint now. What we can be sure of, is Pakistan is giving the green light, so we can be sure, whoever is getting bombed, the ISI hates.

Do you know where half the hijackers trained? It wasn't big bad Afghanistan. What about Saudi Arabia? What about Florida? As if we need to take over and dominate an entire country completely occupied by warlord feuds, rather than geopolitics, to find one man.

That campaign is also over, time to move on.

Oh, I've moved on, believe me. What I saw in that campaign only further convinced me that the game is rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

When television networks refuse to show a picture or mention who came in second in primaries, but show third and fourth place, the game is fucking rigged. And there is no reason to participate.

 

[B_New End]

Ron Paul is a homophobe. Why should I (or anyone) vote for someone so closed-minded? Because of something that happened in 1992? Welcome to 2010.

the answer is Ross Perot, not Ron Paul. :wink:

 

[Industrialsize]

[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

Your perception, which is incorrect, is shared by most in the liberal community. These groups/meetings were catalyzed by the stimulus bill, and extend to other areas of increased taxation and spending by government. There are no social or racial initiatives. The participants are not fringe, nor are they loons any more than loons make up any group/gathering.





I wish Obama were white so everybody couldn't play the race card anytime somebody questions the administration.

Using your rationale - where are all the anti-war protesters now that Obama is in office? They were everywhere - actors, singers, commercials -- all going nuts in unison over being in Iraq/Afghan.

Now they have disappeared. The singers and actors have clammed up. Sean Penn, Susan Surandon, Pink - all the sudden nothing to say anymore. Tim Robbins, the rest of the Hollywood dipshits. Why the sudden change in heart?

You deflected and didn't answer the question......Where were the Teabaggers while GWB was running up the deficits?

 

[B_starinvestor]

You deflected and didn't answer the question......Where were the Teabaggers while GWB was running up the deficits?

yes i did. The spending under Bush was attributable to war/defense. The bailouts will be repaid.

With Obama it is just spending. Stimulus spending that isn't creating jobs. 'Shovel ready jobs' which was nothing more than a publicity stunt.

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

The 'teabaggers' are, in my humble opinion, primarily a collection of fringe right-wing loons who have gathered together to protest what they perceive as threats to their own individual self-interests, be they economic, racial, social or otherwise. They just don't want to share the pie.

That is precisely what they are !!! Nearly all I have seen are dreadfully ignorant and uneducated . What really frightens me and what most news outlets tend to downplay is the vitriol we see in them and how racially motivated it is. I am all for dissent but this is bordering on being zenophobic claiming OBAMA isn't an American.


HH

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

The thrust of the tea party isn't "The war/Bush spending is good, Obama spending is bad." The thrust is that we are where we are; and we can't spend our way out of it.

NO it isn't, it's WE DON'T WANT A BLK MAN in our WHITE HOUSE masquerading as patriotic duty !



HH

 

[B_starinvestor]

NO it isn't, it's WE DON'T WANT A BLK MAN in our WHITE HOUSE masquerading as patriotic duty !



HH

Nope, it doesn't have anything to do with race; but that sounds like a very well thought-out answer to the Tea Party's core objective/goals.

Here is the type of erratic and irresponsible spending conservatives have such disdain for with the Obama administration:

The US government collected $219 billion of tax receipts in December 2009 but paid out $311 billion in federal expenditures, resulting in a $92 billion deficit for the month. It was the 15th consecutive monthly deficit, an all-time record for our nation (source: Treasury Department).

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Nope, it doesn't have anything to do with race; but that sounds like a very well thought-out answer to the Tea Party's core objective/goals.

Here is the type of erratic and irresponsible spending conservatives have such disdain for with the Obama administration:

The US government collected $219 billion of tax receipts in December 2009 but paid out $311 billion in federal expenditures, resulting in a $92 billion deficit for the month. It was the 15th consecutive monthly deficit, an all-time record for our nation (source: Treasury Department).

And the main reason why you think all this spending was "irresponsible" is because the stimulus wasn't issued to Americans as a "loan" like the bank bailouts? Please be specific.

 

[B_starinvestor]

And the main reason why you think all this spending was "irresponsible" is because the stimulus wasn't issued to Americans as a "loan" like the bank bailouts? Please be specific.

More or less, yes.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

More or less, yes.

The bank bailouts and the stimulus package both target the issue surrounding the economy from two different angles. One focuses from the corporate end, including Wall Street and other established financial giants. The other focuses on state infrastructure that help everyday Americans live day to day. Are you saying that we, as a nation, should not try to help target the issues causing financial strife to our own American people because it's not being issued in the form of an IOU? And if so, how were we supposed to do it without spending a dime?

More specifics, please.