Useful Idiots

[sarge87]

[huKSer]

My first adventure to the political area,

 

If pro and con are opposites, then the opposite of progress would be . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

congress

[Husker_x]

I sometimes wonder if Olbermann cries himself to sleep every night. Does he ever wake up in a cold sweat and wonder, "Am I an idiot? Does everyone know it but me?"

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why so many on the left especially hate the Tea Party movement. I can understand some of the opposition to Sarah Palin on matters of substance (as opposed to the ad hominem rhetoric typically employed), but a grassroots protest movement over taxes and the size of government? Please.

[huskertim]

My first adventure to the political area,

 

If pro and con are opposites, then the opposite of progress would be . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

congress

 

 

MMMMMMM, fresh meat.

[Chef K]

I sometimes wonder if Olbermann cries himself to sleep every night. Does he ever wake up in a cold sweat and wonder, "Am I an idiot? Does everyone know it but me?"

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why so many on the left especially hate the Tea Party movement. I can understand some of the opposition to Sarah Palin on matters of substance (as opposed to the ad hominem rhetoric typically employed), but a grassroots protest movement over taxes and the size of government? Please.

Maybe it's because this "tea party" movement is so hypocritical. Funny how they are upset about taxes and spending right after Obama got elected. But absolutely no outrage over the billions spent and the millions unaccounted for during the Iraq occupation under Cheney and W. As far as the health care debate, I sure didn't see a lot of anger about the prescription bill passed by the same republicans who are now fretting about heath care reform now.

 

The bottom line is that these teabaggees are only worried about spending when it's the other side in power.

 

As far as the "ad hominem retoric" about Palin, Hillary Clinton faced the same thing from the right. {and still does}

[huskertim]

Wrong call douce bag, I've been baggin on W as spending like a druken sailor since he was elected and as a drunken sailor, I ought to know. Sorry if yo boys campaign of I will make it worse, and you can take it to the bank isn't resonateing with mr. everyman. As to Palin, she was vilified by your beloved press not be cause she's an airhead, but because she's a conservative airhead, while Hill was portrayed as a sympathetic figure. So, if you really wanna bang brain pans, bring your A game chump.

[Chef K]

Wrong call douce bag, I've been baggin on W as spending like a druken sailor since he was elected and as a drunken sailor, I ought to know. Sorry if yo boys campaign of I will make it worse, and you can take it to the bank isn't resonateing with mr. everyman. As to Palin, she was vilified by your beloved press not be cause she's an airhead, but because she's a conservative airhead, while Hill was portrayed as a sympathetic figure. So, if you really wanna bang brain pans, bring your A game chump.

Strike a nerve did I? Was I referring to you exactly? Typical response from a Beck worshiper, don't make an intelligent rebuttal about the facts I've stated. Just start with the name calling and making yourself look like a dumbass. Congrats! You did it!

 

For the record Timmy, I didn't vote for Obama. But I guess that somebody such as yourself who thinks anybody who doesn't agree with you, that would make them a liberal. So let the grown ups debate, you just go back to pleasuring yourself with your Micheal Savage poster.

[Husker_x]

I sometimes wonder if Olbermann cries himself to sleep every night. Does he ever wake up in a cold sweat and wonder, "Am I an idiot? Does everyone know it but me?"

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why so many on the left especially hate the Tea Party movement. I can understand some of the opposition to Sarah Palin on matters of substance (as opposed to the ad hominem rhetoric typically employed), but a grassroots protest movement over taxes and the size of government? Please.

Maybe it's because this "tea party" movement is so hypocritical. Funny how they are upset about taxes and spending right after Obama got elected. But absolutely no outrage over the billions spent and the millions unaccounted for during the Iraq occupation under Cheney and W. As far as the health care debate, I sure didn't see a lot of anger about the prescription bill passed by the same republicans who are now fretting about heath care reform now.

 

The bottom line is that these teabaggees are only worried about spending when it's the other side in power.

 

As far as the "ad hominem retoric" about Palin, Hillary Clinton faced the same thing from the right. {and still does}

 

I don't think it's hypocrisy at all for this reason. Many conservatives and libertarians were furious about Bush's spending but it simply wasn't covered. The war in Iraq is not a dollar and cent issue, either. If you believe the war is or was just, cost is no object when it comes to protecting the lives of soldiers. But when you suddenly have a trillion dollar stimulus package followed by another trillion dollar health care initiative during a time of deep recession (remember the Iraq war happened when the economy was sailing smoothly), you're going to get to a point where enough is enough––and that includes BOTH parties. There's nothing particularly Republican about the tea party platform. You rightly point to the Bush spending policies as an example, and if you listen to their message, they haven't forgotten it. But guess who's president now?

 

As for your Palin comment, it's irrelevant. I don't particularly like Palin or Clinton, but citing abuse of one does not justify abuse of the other.

[carlfense]

I sometimes wonder if Olbermann cries himself to sleep every night. Does he ever wake up in a cold sweat and wonder, "Am I an idiot? Does everyone know it but me?"

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why so many on the left especially hate the Tea Party movement. I can understand some of the opposition to Sarah Palin on matters of substance (as opposed to the ad hominem rhetoric typically employed), but a grassroots protest movement over taxes and the size of government? Please.

Maybe it's because this "tea party" movement is so hypocritical. Funny how they are upset about taxes and spending right after Obama got elected. But absolutely no outrage over the billions spent and the millions unaccounted for during the Iraq occupation under Cheney and W. As far as the health care debate, I sure didn't see a lot of anger about the prescription bill passed by the same republicans who are now fretting about heath care reform now.

 

The bottom line is that these teabaggees are only worried about spending when it's the other side in power.

 

As far as the "ad hominem retoric" about Palin, Hillary Clinton faced the same thing from the right. {and still does}

 

I don't think it's hypocrisy at all for this reason. Many conservatives and libertarians were furious about Bush's spending but it simply wasn't covered. The war in Iraq is not a dollar and cent issue, either. If you believe the war is or was just, cost is no object when it comes to protecting the lives of soldiers. But when you suddenly have a trillion dollar stimulus package followed by another trillion dollar health care initiative during a time of deep recession (remember the Iraq war happened when the economy was sailing smoothly), you're going to get to a point where enough is enough––and that includes BOTH parties. There's nothing particularly Republican about the tea party platform. You rightly point to the Bush spending policies as an example, and if you listen to their message, they haven't forgotten it. But guess who's president now?

 

As for your Palin comment, it's irrelevant. I don't particularly like Palin or Clinton, but citing abuse of one does not justify abuse of the other.

Regarding the bolded: I can't agree. The tea party movement is absolutely hypocritical. There were not these tea party protests when Bush II was in office. There were not conservative protests marching on Washington. There was not this blind anger about a government that honestly has not changed as much as the tea party people think it has.

 

I dealt with these people at the state capital . . . and talked with the Oklahoma senator (Key) who is one of the movers and shakers behind the states rights movement. Believe me (at this gathering at least) there were about 10 crazies for every rational thinker.

[huskertim]

Wrong call douce bag, I've been baggin on W as spending like a druken sailor since he was elected and as a drunken sailor, I ought to know. Sorry if yo boys campaign of I will make it worse, and you can take it to the bank isn't resonateing with mr. everyman. As to Palin, she was vilified by your beloved press not be cause she's an airhead, but because she's a conservative airhead, while Hill was portrayed as a sympathetic figure. So, if you really wanna bang brain pans, bring your A game chump.

Strike a nerve did I? Was I referring to you exactly? Typical response from a Beck worshiper, don't make an intelligent rebuttal about the facts I've stated. Just start with the name calling and making yourself look like a dumbass. Congrats! You did it!

 

For the record Timmy, I didn't vote for Obama. But I guess that somebody such as yourself who thinks anybody who doesn't agree with you, that would make them a liberal. So let the grown ups debate, you just go back to pleasuring yourself with your Micheal Savage poster.

 

 

Not so much a nerve, I kind of felt like sparing a bit at 2Am and thought that I might demonstrate the silliness of the whole name calling thing (tea baggers) and sweeping generalizations (no consevatives ever criticized Bush) in your post. I've certainly found many of your other posts far more enlightening. I was hopeing to bait you, but alas, you are far too mature to fall for that one (as demonstraated by your reply), and I didn't actually hang around till 6 AM to get the reply.

 

I do apoligize for the junvenile tone of my post, tongue-in-creek doesn't always translate well in my posts, and a few brews probably doesn't help. As to looking like a dumbass, well, I've been accused of far worse than that.

 

Bottom line though, I only engage in these debtes as entertainment, I don't actually think postings here are going to change anything, but the Tea Party people, agree with them or not, are actually out on the street engageing in the process and I think that's good for this country even if a large percentage of them are a little nuts.

[jnkyrdoff6]

I sometimes wonder if Olbermann cries himself to sleep every night. Does he ever wake up in a cold sweat and wonder, "Am I an idiot? Does everyone know it but me?"

 

I can't for the life of me figure out why so many on the left especially hate the Tea Party movement. I can understand some of the opposition to Sarah Palin on matters of substance (as opposed to the ad hominem rhetoric typically employed), but a grassroots protest movement over taxes and the size of government? Please.

Maybe it's because this "tea party" movement is so hypocritical. Funny how they are upset about taxes and spending right after Obama got elected. But absolutely no outrage over the billions spent and the millions unaccounted for during the Iraq occupation under Cheney and W. As far as the health care debate, I sure didn't see a lot of anger about the prescription bill passed by the same republicans who are now fretting about heath care reform now.

 

The bottom line is that these teabaggees are only worried about spending when it's the other side in power.

 

As far as the "ad hominem retoric" about Palin, Hillary Clinton faced the same thing from the right. {and still does}

 

I don't think it's hypocrisy at all for this reason. Many conservatives and libertarians were furious about Bush's spending but it simply wasn't covered. The war in Iraq is not a dollar and cent issue, either. If you believe the war is or was just, cost is no object when it comes to protecting the lives of soldiers. But when you suddenly have a trillion dollar stimulus package followed by another trillion dollar health care initiative during a time of deep recession (remember the Iraq war happened when the economy was sailing smoothly), you're going to get to a point where enough is enough––and that includes BOTH parties. There's nothing particularly Republican about the tea party platform. You rightly point to the Bush spending policies as an example, and if you listen to their message, they haven't forgotten it. But guess who's president now?

 

As for your Palin comment, it's irrelevant. I don't particularly like Palin or Clinton, but citing abuse of one does not justify abuse of the other.

Regarding the bolded: I can't agree. The tea party movement is absolutely hypocritical. There were not these tea party protests when Bush II was in office. There were not conservative protests marching on Washington. There was not this blind anger about a government that honestly has not changed as much as the tea party people think it has.

 

I dealt with these people at the state capital . . . and talked with the Oklahoma senator (Key) who is one of the movers and shakers behind the states rights movement. Believe me (at this gathering at least) there were about 10 crazies for every rational thinker.

I do agree with Husker_x there, at least to some extent. I still don't know that I buy into everyone calling the media totally biased, but I do know that at least 80% of the people I talked to in 2005, a time-frame when I was really trying to figure out who I was politically, that considered themselves conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with W. Bush. To clarify though, the conservatives that I'm referring to are essentially libertarians with a religious bent. I know for a fact that those attitudes weren't covered by the media. I'm not willing to say, at this point in my life, that it's because of media bias. I think it could be explained by a number of things. I'm more willing to say that those attitudes were like rising lava in an active volcano, and that they've only recently erupted. They've taken the shape in the form of the tea parties, and that's what the media has covered because it's newsworthy. I know I face a lot disagreement on this stance, but I simply don't consider mainstream Republicans to be conservatives. I'm talking about the Republicans carlfense referred to in his Teddy Roosevelt post like a month ago. They're Republicans, sure, but they're far from conservative in many ways. I will agree that those Republicans never criticized W. Bush; my mom is one of them. My dad and I though, my dad being a conservative, and I a libertarian, constantly criticized the Patriot Act every time it was brought up in family conservations.

 

On a side note, I'm really not sure why one of the posters is at a -2 rep for posting his political beliefs. To me, that's just wrong. It just seems low to try to punish someone for stating his or her beliefs, regardless as to whether or not you agree with them.

[jnkyrdoff6]

~

[carlfense]

I'm guessing huskertim was given negative rep because his first sentence called the previous poster a douche bag. That's simply inappropriate in the Politics and Religion section. Name calling does not belong here . . . it probably had nothing to do with his political beliefs.

[carlfense]

I do agree with Husker_x there, at least to some extent. I still don't know that I buy into everyone calling the media totally biased, but I do know that at least 80% of the people I talked to in 2005, a time-frame when I was really trying to figure out who I was politically, that considered themselves conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with W. Bush. To clarify though, the conservatives that I'm referring to are essentially libertarians with a religious bent. I know for a fact that those attitudes weren't covered by the media. I'm not willing to say, at this point in my life, that it's because of media bias. I think it could be explained by a number of things. I'm more willing to say that those attitudes were like rising lava in an active volcano, and that they've only recently erupted. They've taken the shape in the form of the tea parties, and that's what the media has covered because it's newsworthy. I know I face a lot disagreement on this stance, but I simply don't consider mainstream Republicans to be conservatives. I'm talking about the Republicans carlfense referred to in his Teddy Roosevelt post like a month ago. They're Republicans, sure, but they're far from conservative in many ways. I will agree that those Republicans never criticized W. Bush; my mom is one of them. My dad and I though, my dad being a conservative, and I a libertarian, constantly criticized the Patriot Act every time it was brought up in family conservations.

***snip***

I fully agree that many conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with Bush. However, these people were not particularly outspoken about their beliefs. They didn't rally, they didn't march on Washington, etc.

 

The left leaning opponents of Bush DID do these things . . . so naturally the media covered them.

 

All I'm saying is the blind rage that the tea baggers exude didn't come out when Bush was drastically increasing the deficit . . . when Bush was wasting trillions of dollars on a witch hunt for WMDs . . . when Bush was drastically curtailing personal liberties in the name of patriotism . . . etc. That rage was reserved for when a black Democratic president pursued equally ridiculous follies. To me . . . that is hypocrisy. To you . . . it might not be. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

Now before I get accused of being horribly biased, I agree that I don't think Obama is any better. We'll see how his presidency looks over time but I am unimpressed at the moment.

[sarge87]

I do agree with Husker_x there, at least to some extent. I still don't know that I buy into everyone calling the media totally biased, but I do know that at least 80% of the people I talked to in 2005, a time-frame when I was really trying to figure out who I was politically, that considered themselves conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with W. Bush. To clarify though, the conservatives that I'm referring to are essentially libertarians with a religious bent. I know for a fact that those attitudes weren't covered by the media. I'm not willing to say, at this point in my life, that it's because of media bias. I think it could be explained by a number of things. I'm more willing to say that those attitudes were like rising lava in an active volcano, and that they've only recently erupted. They've taken the shape in the form of the tea parties, and that's what the media has covered because it's newsworthy. I know I face a lot disagreement on this stance, but I simply don't consider mainstream Republicans to be conservatives. I'm talking about the Republicans carlfense referred to in his Teddy Roosevelt post like a month ago. They're Republicans, sure, but they're far from conservative in many ways. I will agree that those Republicans never criticized W. Bush; my mom is one of them. My dad and I though, my dad being a conservative, and I a libertarian, constantly criticized the Patriot Act every time it was brought up in family conservations.

***snip***

I fully agree that many conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with Bush. However, these people were not particularly outspoken about their beliefs. They didn't rally, they didn't march on Washington, etc.

 

The left leaning opponents of Bush DID do these things . . . so naturally the media covered them.

 

All I'm saying is the blind rage that the tea baggers exude didn't come out when Bush was drastically increasing the deficit . . . when Bush was wasting trillions of dollars on a witch hunt for WMDs . . . when Bush was drastically curtailing personal liberties in the name of patriotism . . . etc. That rage was reserved for when a black Democratic president pursued equally ridiculous follies. To me . . . that is hypocrisy. To you . . . it might not be. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

 

Now before I get accused of being horribly biased, I agree that I don't think Obama is any better. We'll see how his presidency looks over time but I am unimpressed at the moment.

First, the term "tea bagger" is an offensive pejorative term esoteric pseudo-intellectuals like to use because they think it's cute.

 

Second, the projection of racism just because some disagree with another's policy just because the person is black is old, tired, and beyond the pale which either implies ignorance, or trying to get a cheap pop. Democrats should be the last people to lecture anyone about race with their track record in history.

 

I can point to hundreds of op-eds and articles in conservative publications which criticized the Bush administration for the Patriot Act, his stance on amnesty for illegals, and Congess' penchant for their spending practices when it came to debt. Why do you think Republicans suffered huge losses in 2006? The establishment wasn't listening to the voter's concerns and as a result, they stayed home at election time.

 

The tea party movement sprang up from the disgust stemming from the Wall Street bailouts and the government takeover of businesses. The movement wasn't even focused on Obama until Congress rammed through a "stimulus" bill totaling nearly $1 trillion without even reading it. It's the constant ramming massive spending bills through Congress without debate is what has their ire up. Bush added over $4 trillion to the national debt within 8 years in office. Obama will reach that mark in just 4 years. Link

 

2009 $1.845 trillion

 

2010 $1.379 trillion

 

2011 $970 billion

 

2012 $658 billion

 

Obama promises to cut the deficit in half in four years, and the $658 billion projected deficit in 2012 certainly accomplishes that, but it is still $200 billion more than Bush's record-large budget deficit of $458 billion in fiscal 2008. If you add up only the first five years, 2009-2013, you find that the national debt explodes by almost 50%. This unprecedented spike in the national debt will greatly exacerbate concerns on the part of our largest foreign buyers of Treasury debt, not to mention the downward pressure it will create on the US dollar and further upward pressure on interest rates.

 

It's pretty bad when Warren Buffet has a better credit rating than the federal government.

 

March 22 (Bloomberg) -- The bond market is saying that it's safer to lend to Warren Buffett than Barack Obama. Two-year notes sold by the billionaire's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. in February yield 3.5 basis points less than Treasuries of similar maturity, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Procter & Gamble Co., Johnson & Johnson and Lowe's Cos. debt also traded at lower yields in recent weeks, a situation former Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. chief fixed-income strategist Jack Malvey calls an "exceedingly rare" event in the history of the bond market.

 

The $2.59 trillion of Treasury Department sales since the start of 2009 have created a glut as the budget deficit swelled to a post-World War II-record 10 percent of the economy and raised concerns whether the U.S. deserves its AAA credit rating. The increased borrowing may also undermine the first-quarter rally in Treasuries as the economy improves...

 

While Treasuries backed by the full faith and credit of the government typically yield less than corporate debt, the relationship has flipped as Moody's Investors Service predicts the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K. America will use about 7 percent of taxes for debt payments in 2010 and almost 11 percent in 2013, moving "substantially" closer to losing its AAA rating, Moody's said last week.

Many of those people protesting lived through the Carter years with interest rates in the 20 percentile range and stagnating inflation in the upper teens. It's the uncertainty of whether or not they'll be employed due to misguided government intrusion and what kind of debt they will leave their children is what has their dander up.