House Dem: Tea Party is the 'real enemy'

How would being opposed to Obama be racist? The man isn't even black. His mama is basically MaryAnne from Gilligan's Island, a Kansas Hayseed. Obama wasn't raised by blacks, he was raised as a white guy in a white family by his white grandmother. If Obama's daddy makes him black then my X-chromosome from my mother makes me a woman.

This is why the Congressional Black Caucus is always trashing on Obama. The skeleton in the closet is that he's not black enough for that pack of racist pigs.

I oppose Obama because I oppose everything Democrats have ever stood for. I don't like anything any Democrat has ever supported in my lifetime. Democrats just want to tax the crap out of me, buy votes from useless welfare queens with my money, and call me selfish and unchristian for wanting their damned paws off my money.

I oppose Obama because I oppose everything Democrats have ever stood for. I don't like anything any Democrat has ever supported in my lifetime.

You say that knowing that republicans and democrats have compromised on just about every issue in our nations history. Can anyone say "the party of no"? The republican party of today and 30 years ago is a completely different breed. You are pushing out anyone who doesent tow the line ALL THE TIME for your side. That is why Ron Paul will never be president, because he actually disagrees with some conservative views (i.e. the endless wars that will be our demise).

I'm sensible enough to know that not all on the right are racist, however, if you are racist, you are most likely on the right side of the divide.

LMAO!! MeanGene

If Obama's daddy makes him black then my X-chromosome from my mother makes me a woman.

MeanGene - You do know that taxes have actually been lowered since he became President, despite what the right wing media would have you believe.

What "democratic fiscal policy" has Obama set forth that you have a problem with??

Obamacare: yes I consider it a "fiscal policy"--only thing is, it is MY "fiscal's" paying the tab...

@whino33, Obama's promise to raise taxes by "not one dime" rings hollow when gas prices increase (along with the taxes they cost) by 38%, household goods have risen by over $1,000 per year for the typical family, and people aren't stupid, they know they have less money and pay more taxes via rising prices.

Obama said he wasn't going to make anyone making under $250,000 pay any more in taxes, yet that's exactly what happens when inflation rears its ugly head. The poorest get socked the hardest with Obama's backdoor tax increases.

Obama has also caused most State and Local governments to raise taxes because with the unemployment rate at a sky-high 9.9%, States are losing bigtime revenue on income taxes because there's no incomes going on. What are the States supposed to do but raise taxes on the few lucky ducks who still have jobs under Obamanomics? Obama wiped out 10% of tax-producing jobs and left the other 90% holding the bag for the bills.

Obama's claims of lowering taxes don't sit well on our empty wallets. The American people know they've got less money. They're not stupid so why Obama would try and fool all the people all the time is a mystery to me.

Citizen Kane hasn't spent a single dollar on "Obamacare" so that's a meaningless answer.

MeanGene - you claim that people aren't stupid, yet you seem to think that the President has control over gas prices which he doesn't. Everything that you are discussing was ALREADY happening prior to Obama becoming President.

My question was simple. Name an actual policy or piece of legislation that Obama implemented that you are blaming for our economic difficulties?

Perhaps you would like to answer the question as opposed to sidestepping it.

Citizen Kane hasn't spent a single dollar on "Obamacare" so that's a meaningless answer.

So yuo are claiming that none of it has been implemented at all? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some agencies created to do specific things under the HCRA? Are not more on the way? I guess these agencies employees are waiting until they collect some tax revenue before they are getting paid for their labor. Mighty nice of them to wait for 2+ years for that paycheck. I guess they are also operating out of their homes too instead of any offices. I bet they don't even have an operating budget funded by taxes either.

Yeah, I guess you are right; hasn't cost me a dime yet...

Balanced budgets and reasonable taxes.

What you have now are low taxes. Your complaint about taxes seems anything but reasonable. Our nation hasn't been debt free since 1835. So why the histrionics now? Could it be because we have an African-American in the White House?

I can no longer stand Liberals!!!!

And we can tell the different between the old FM and the new-but-not-necessarily improved FM, how?

FM ...

factually libs have been better for our economy ... educate yourself. and cons have always spent more.

stop believing the right wing bs. it's brain rot obviously.

Between 2000 and 2007, median income for working age households fell by $2,176. When elderly households are included, median income declined by $324 over the same period. This is the first economic expansion on record where typical households have seen their incomes decline. Under the Clinton Administration, median household income increased by $6,200.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/22/news/econo...rview/index.htm

Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

Who's the Better Manager of the Economy, Republicans or Democrats?
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/manage_economy.html

Why the economy fares much better under Democrats
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

Bush Latest GOPer to Show Democrats Better for the Economy
By Jon Perr Sunday Jan 25, 2009

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-latest-goper-show-democrats-better-e

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810

spending-statistics-republicans-vs-democrats

Most people believe that Democrats are big spenders and that Republicans are tight-fisted. The evidence leads to a very different conclusion.

…

Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

…

In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.
During the 20 years Democrats have controlled both houses of Congress, spending has grown at an average rate of 1.84% per year, more than double the average rate of 0.89% per year during the six years the GOP ran Congress. (During the other eight years, when control of Congress was split between the two parties, spending grew at an average rate of 2.52%. The split-control years all occurred during Republican presidencies.)
When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period.
The slowest spending growth occurred when a Democrat sat in the White House and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Spending rose by an average of just 0.89% during the six years of this situation, which all occurred with Bill Clinton as president and Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House.
During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%. During the eight years with a Republican president and a split Congress, spending grew at 2.54% per year.

The results are quite clear – not only do Republican presidents spend far more money, but they often spend it on such "necessities" as creating wars. Sadly, the American people are extremely unlikely to let the use of any for of facts, figures, or statistics inform their decisions. So, it looks like the Republican Party can continue with it's campaign of FUD, and people will listen.

http://atypicalguy.wordpress.com/2008/05/04/spending-statistics-republicans-vs-democrats/

"http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf"

have fun reading

Hey if it weren't for you @!$%#in "fiscal conservatives" we wouldn't need to prop up the economy, and you come with the same @!$%# Hoover did to turn a market panic into a recession into a great depression. Bush lost the same amount of GDP Hoover did...9% of GDP gone. The debt isn't the problem now jobs are. we could solve the debt problem by returning to the proven success of Clintons Tax rates in 10 years, right now we need to spend.

That matters today, Aug 23 2011 how Ripley?

It matters today because, it shows what we don't want to go back to in the future. Republicans have proven that they can ruin the economy, and have not proved that they have changed their ways.

1835????? Try to take another history class. We were debt free 110 years ago????

If you mean the history class you took, fact-Freemason, I'll pass. I shy away from ignorance.

In 1835, President Andrew Jackson produced both a balanced budget and paid the national debt in full. That has not happened since. Hence my question: why the histrionics about the debt now? Is it because you don't like all that melanin in the "white" house?

Chucky

You win the kewpie doll. There have been 3 catastrophic economic collapses that surpass all others in the U.S. ,Republicans had significant majorities leading up to these,

The long depression 1873-1879 , but hobbled they economy till 1901

The Great Depression 1929-1933, 9% loss of GDP 1929 turns into 25% loss of GDP 1932, 4.2% unemployment grows to 25%
With the dustbowl due to poor farming policies in the 20's cripples the economy untll WW2
the Great recession 2007-2009, 8.9% loss of GDP U-6 unemployment jan 2009 14.5% --?

Republicans had prolonged majorities before and during these events,

The Radical republicans fade away for the monied interests , Long Depression.

Repulican control of the 2 elected branches of federal govt 70% of the time since 1912-1932

Republicans control of the 2 elected branches of gov't 65% of the time from 1981-2008

Whats more they are responsible for all recessions over 3% of GDP since the great depression . every Democratic president has inherited unemployment over 7% From republican administrations except Kennedy, and 1 democrat has handed off unemployment above 7% though it was lower than what he inherited.

Republicans only know how to gut the economy, and like the arsonist bagging on the firemen who put out their fire because it is not "fast enough" for their liking...

funny all the seeds are old, Ripley...wonder why that is? Maybe this ? Or maybe becayuse the number are simply pathetic under Obama. Truth is what happened under Bush was bad, but Obama has made it worse, much worse....

Of course,according to Obama he's not to blame... we know the bad economy is because of Bush, recession, tsunami, ATMs, arab spring, libya, Congress, etc...here take a look at these screen shots. So much for the "new civility"... we have waters calling for the Tea Party people to "go straight to hell", Biden calling them "terrorists", and Obama calling people who don't vote like him "enemies"...

Randy we already did the Kenysian economic thing and spent nearly a trillion dollars...for shovel ready jobs that weren't "so shovel ready". How much farther do we need to go in debt - that is a huge part of the problem, btw. Jobs will not be created in the private sector when there is no confidence in the whole economy and there's no confidence in that because we aren't addressing the problem. Just think if we had no debt all these years and had been living with a balanced budget, we would have weathered this storm in a much better position.

Ripley8

Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

Typically when a republican is in the WH, Congress is controlled by Dems. and vise versa. Since the POTUS doesnt hold the purse strings, Congress does, your post proves FM's point

cannonballer @ 4.13

Unless the opposition party holds a veto proof majority, the President controls the budget and his veto holds the final say. Just ask gingrich to show you Clinton's veto boot scars (35 vetos to be exact and over 140 veto threats - pdf file) on the back of his neck from Clinton figuratively pushing newt's face to the ground until newt sent him a budget he wanted to sign.

The President owns the budget unless the opposition can over ride a veto which is a rather rare occurrence.

Free Mason-1490678

That matters today, Aug 23 2011 how Ripley?

because we are in the midst of trying to deal with those failed republican policies. yet again.

nothing happens in a vacuum and trying to deny the impact failed economic policies put in place by those cons ( and those same policies cons are still tooting ) is what got us here... ignorance chooses to ignore that.

the definition of insanity = doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Mas

Hoover tried to balance the budgets after his 9% drop in GDP, and cut the marginal rates again, and all we got was 25% unemployment and 25% loss of GDP. This is the problem with you people you dont know what the hell you're talking about, you dont know how to run an economy dont know how to create jobs, dont know how to rally bond markets and dont know how to produce consistent stock returns.. Look at ryans plan, a @!$%#in shonda if there ever was one, cuts the top marginal rate , yet runs deficits till 2063! But it does cut medicare coverage by 50% which will knock out millions of consumers who have to pay for their parents healthcare.

huh? Balanced budgets, reasonable taxes?

tell me fm, when did the tea party start wanting a balanced budget or reasonable taxes? Cause we didn't hear much from you when Bush was president. As a matter of fact fm, I remember back during the elections, balanced budgets and reasonable taxes never came out of your mouth..... But what I do remember was how Obama was a socialist and how unAmerican he is.

when they realized the Dems and Obama were spending us into oblivion...

cornfirmed here.

FM: You like to forget that S&P specifically cited the REPUBLICANS in the downgrade, citing the stalemate. Who was it again who said they wouldn't compromise, no matter what? Who was it who said we should just default on the loans for things we'd already bought? That would be the TPers. And the TPers CHEERED this decision. They actually cheered the U.S. being downgraded.

That's sure patriotic and gung-ho about this country, huh? They cheered the fact that we're not considered all we used to be ... all because of their blind hatred for our President. Not his policies, as they're not all that much different from Bush's, but HIM, personally. Why is that?

Paul Ryan's MediKill Plan will be all Obama needs to be reelected. All he has to do is cite the FACT that every member of the GOTP in the House voted for it, over and over, and Obama will beat whichever of the current crop of hopefuls the GOTP decides to run. The majority of the people overwhelmingly like their social safety net, FM, despite what you would like to believe. The FACT that the GOTP has made killing that safety net their #2 goal (#1 being making Obama a 1-term President) and hasn't even bothered to pretend to be interested in that "jobs, jobs, jobs" mantra they actually got elected on, will be their undoing.

Chucky's point is a valid one. Where were the TPers when Bush was spending us into the recession and patronizing us with the "it's only a slight downturn" BS for a full YEAR before the collapse? Where were they when Bush took us into two UNPAID FOR wars (one of them a war of CHOICE and REVENGE), passed a massively expensive and UNPAID FOR prescription bill, while slashing taxes on the wealthiest people in the country? Bush DOUBLED our national debt, and HID THAT from the country, and when one of Bush's advisors told them "These tax cuts will bankrupt the country," Cheney responded with his typical 'I don't care" attitude. He said: "We won. We deserve to reap the rewards. And Reagan proved that deficits don't matter."

Where were your TPers then?!?

You like to forget that S&P specifically cited the REPUBLICANS in the downgrade, citing the stalemate.

Reallly? Show me, please. I would like to see your source where they were "specifically "mentioned. I do not recall the Tea Party being specifically mentioned, nor the GOP. Fact of the matter, the House passed several bills to address this and Harry Reid pronounced them "DOA" and Obama promising a "VETO"...so no, the stalemate was not JUST addressing the GOP....besides the S&P cited alot of things - the stalemate being one of them and the other major thing was that we apparently are not willing to change our wild out of control spending habits.

Bush's spending and Congress's spending, while bad, was just nothing compared to Obama's....

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency ofGeorge W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four year term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

Reallly? Show me, please.

Here you go.

http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DUS_Downgraded_AA%2B.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243942957443&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8

Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now
assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012,
remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority
of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

S&P calls out the Republicans by name on page 4 of their report.

well, trm, in the source YOU cited, I looked through the entire document and did not see the paragraph you cited. So, I did a find search of the word "Republican" on the entire document. It only came up with one hit...here:

Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings ondiscretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions onmore comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues havedropped down on the menu of policy options. In addition, the plan envisionsonly minor policy changes on Medicare and little change in other entitlements,the containment of which we and most other independent observers regard as keyto long-term fiscal sustainability.

Found on pg 3. And it calls out Pubs and Dems...Do you have anything else?

I copied and pasted it directly from the bottom of page 4. Try again.

oops, my bad. You are correct. Wonder why my find thing didn't pick it up? Hey, if I make a mistake I admit it.

Still though, it wasn't a scathing rebuke as some would make it seem, just stating the fact that the Pubs are not going to go for raising taxes, which is true.

a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

Right, and it passed both houses of Congress with Dems and Pubs voting for it.

Right, and it passed both houses of Congress with Dems and Pubs voting for it.

That just shows that extortion works.

Obama, the Chicago Catastrophe, one and done. Maybe he and Jimmy Carter can get together and flip a coin to decide which one of them is the worst President ever.

VOl - Those debt numbers are very deceiving. A lot of money was spent in an effort to dig out of the hole that the previous administration had dug. I think we can all agree that things were absolutely horrible when Obama was elected (I can show you articles reflecting the general sentiment at that time if necessary).

More importantly, Bush shadily kept the wars off the books and Obama put them on the books. This is responsible for a large percentage of this so called increase in our debt. The fact that Obama put the wars on the books where they belong, doesn't mean that he should be credited with those numbers.

whino: Shh... they do like to conveniently forget that little factoid.

how did Obama put them on the books when they were supplemental and not budgeted?

You know, I will give Obama a pass...he did inherit a mess, true. But he has made the mess worse...kind of like mopping with dirty water. Even if you leave off 2009, look at 2010...then 2011 is even worse with 4 months to go... he owns this.

Don't bother with the racist paint brush---it has been so overused that it is rather out of paint; the paint bucket is dry.

You're right, we never saw illustrations of Obama with a bone through his nose. Oh, darn, I did it. I mentioned racism and you find that to be a cliche'. Tsk... tsk. What are cliche's except truths we (in this case, you and the bigots) have grown tired of?

The charge of racism has been so overused it is no longer effective in many quarters. The charge of racism is often a mere lever some people use to get what they want. Everything that does not go some peoples way is racist. Someone has a picture of Obama with a bone in his nose, so by extension some position taken by someone else is racist. Someone declares someone or something to be racist so someone must give someone what they want. And so on.

The level of civil discourse in the United States has not been very high since the 1960's. I've seen some very vicious portrayals of various people for over 50 years now. Most of the tea party people believe that the government is too large and spiraling out of the control; they have a right to so believe and speak---racism has nothing to do with that but there are those who try to discredit them by making charges of racism. Racism charges used as a political weapon.

Put away your talk of bigotry and racism from most of these people. The charges are justly becoming increasingly meaningless due to over use anyway.

The tea party people won't kneel and do what others say? tsk...tsk...what a pity. I can't say I agree with the tea party mentality on everything, but having their own opinions does not make them bigots or racists. I say they have some valid points.

The charge of racism has been so overused it is no longer effective in many quarters

This sentence says more about you and your values than anything about those sensitive to racist comments and practices. When most people make a charge of racism, they are objecting on moral grounds, not utilitarian grounds. They aren't seeking favor and advantage. I gain nothing by pointing out the racism of the Tea Party. Your claim that charges of racism are simply a means to an end is cynical. Racism is wrong and fair-minded people are simply speaking up because our morality demands it. If such charges have no concrete effect on the racists, that's because they are racist.

Most of the tea party people believe that the government is too large and spiraling out of the control

At one time people believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe, but that didn't make it so. That Tea Party belief isn't racist, just ignorant.

racism has nothing to do with that but there are those who try to discredit them by making charges of racism. Racism charges used as a political weapon.

No, we make charges of racism when we see and hear racist comments. They descredit themselves by such practices.

Put away your talk of bigotry and racism from most of these people. The charges are justly becoming increasingly meaningless due to over use anyway.

Is that an order? When I see racism, the worst crime would be to remain silent. They're only meaningless to souless, cruel people. If you were alive during slavery, would you still blame those who object to slavery? Racism has real life consequences on the victim. I'm sorry you're insensitive to that fact.

So Sam, you feel government that is already so big it feels it can tell you whom you can and cannot marry, how much salt you can eat, and how much fat you can eat (not to mention what kinds of fat), what days and times you can consume alcohol, where you can and can't allow cigarette smoking, listens in on your phone calls on suspicion alone--without a warrant at that, allows corporations to tell you who to vote for, tells you what you can watch and when on broadcast TV, taxes you more if you are fat, and so many many many other personal decisions needs to "get bigger"? Why?

Are we trying to grow it so large I no longer have to wipe my own ass?

Just asking...

Many people there are who throw charges of racism around to gain advantage. Insensitive for me to say that? Whatever. Quit wearing your sensibilities on your sleve, Sam. You can take that as a request if you like, or advice if you like or an order which I obviously can't enforce if you like. I really don't care how you take it. I for one refuse to be swayed by charges of racism which are of very little, if any merit. So far as I can see the blanket charge against the tea party people of racism has very little if any merit. The racism charges are being used as a political weapon by people who do not agree with them.

And by the way, Sam, slavery has nothing at all to do with the tea party, for whatever the tea party may or may not be worth. Very interesting that you should find it necessary to bring up slavery since slavery was abolished a century and a half ago in the United States. Doesn't have anything to do with me either. But I suppose it is insensitive of me to say such things. ...tsk, ...tsk.

Quit wearing your sensibilities on your sleve, Sam.

Okay, I'll wear them all over my body, since my creamy mocha skin says I'm a black man.

I for one refuse to be swayed by charges of racism which are of very little, if any merit.

And that's the real crux of the matter: whether they have merit or not. Don't assume what you have to prove, that they lack merit. Present some arguments as to why such charges lack merit. I'm willing to be swayed by reason... despite my personal experience with racism.

So far as I can see the blanket charge against the tea party people of racism has very little if any merit.

I'll grant you that some members of the Tea Party might not be racist. I suspect that some slave-owners thought slavery was immoral (Jefferson comes to mind). That doesn't imply that black slavery was not a racist institution. Your attack on "blanket charges" is a straw man. I have no burden to prove that every single Teabagger is racist.

The racism charges are being used as a political weapon by people who do not agree with them.

Can you read the minds of people who have disdain for the Teabaggers? I have no such ability. Since Tea Party popularity is plumbing the depths, most people polled must be in on the conspiracy you see-- but then again, a camel is a horse built by a committee. Perhaps those who find the Tea Party repugnant simply see the Tea Party for what it is: ignorant of economics, ignorant of history, the tools of their corporate financiers.

So Sam, you feel government that is already so big it feels it can tell you whom you can and cannot marry, how much salt you can eat, and how much fat you can eat (not to mention what kinds of fat)--

Does government really dictate these lifestyle choices, or do they make suggestions? Most smoking laws are determined at the state level, not federal. There's an old saying I try to live by: Your rights end where mine begin. Hence, when it comes to smoking laws, I have no problem with the government protecting our health. I trust the government much more that the deceitful tobacco industry.

listens in on your phone calls on suspicion alone--without a warrant at that, allows corporations to tell you who to vote for, tells you what you can watch and when on broadcast TV,

I agree with you on warrantless searches.

Regarding the air waves, thetaxes you more if you are fat, and so many many many other personal decisions needs to "get bigger"? Why?

I reject the premise. The Federal government needs to be bigger in some things (the economy) and smaller in others. Additionally, the Federal government has shrunk under Obama, and many nations with higher standards of living than we have, have bigger governments as a proportion of their GDP.

Are we trying to grow it so large I no longer have to wipe my own ass?

Just asking...

Great visual. Try delegating your bowel movements, as I do. It's one of the perks of my job. Less messy too.

And by the way, Sam, slavery has nothing at all to do with the tea party, for whatever the tea party may or may not be worth. Very interesting that you should find it necessary to bring up slavery since slavery was abolished a century and a half ago in the United States.

I don't believe I said the Tea Party practices slavery. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where I did. My point was an example of what logicians call "argument by analogy." I was using slavery to make a point about racism. Sorry you missed it.

I'm stating the obvious regarding slavery---neither the tea party people nor I have anything to do with slavery. Nor do you. Bringing slavery into the discussion? Pointless. Unless you want to use something that ended before,, I should say almost everyone's grandparents were born as a lever.

I think it appropriate to presume innocence of any charge made against any group, or individual, until evidence is presented which indicates guilt. Sam, you would have no trouble at all proving some of these people to have done racist things which are also in very poor taste (the bone in the nose picture you refer to being a fine example); mostly however just because you do not like the tea party people or what they want does not make them a racist organization or most of them racist.

ROFLMFAO!!! Here, let me requote what you said with a slight change:

Can you read the minds of people who have disdain for the (non)-Teabaggers? I have no such ability.

So you can read the minds of Tea Party members but you can't read the minds of those who oppose them? After all, you have stated:

I'll grant you that some members of the Tea Party might not be racist. I suspect that some slave-owners thought slavery was immoral (Jefferson comes to mind). That doesn't imply that black slavery was not a racist institution.

No wonder you can't see the forest; the trees are in the way...

Does government really dictate these lifestyle choices, or do they make suggestions?

Sorry but Yes government DOES dictate everything I stated in that post. They do it through direct legislation (illegal to practice "gay" sex in many states), and sin taxes ($10.00 per carton on smokes), and tax breaks (fat taxes) for doing what they say. And exactly where did I limit my complaint of intrusive government to the Federal Level alone? I specifically stated:

So Sam, you feel government that is already so big

...because the trouble starts at the local level and goes upwards from there! Who is supposed to check this expansion of usurpation of Rights? Oh yeah, the SCOTUS!!! as well as CONGRESS!!! So yeah, they get the blame for not doing their #1 job: Defending the American People's Rights guaranteed by the Constitution they swore to uphold!

P.S. The "Witch Doctor" protest signs were to emphasize the opinion that Obamacare would set the practice of medicine back to the era of superstition and magic as being the norm for practicing medicine. You know that of course but choose to focus on the fact that the most easily recognized figure of that sentiment was used instead of what? An apothecarist? Would the general public even know the word -- much less the image? Can't say a typical picture of a witch stirring a cauldron because we all "know" witches were "all" well, "evil" and didn't heal people, they just "cursed" them with hexes. Damn sure couldn't use a picture of an American Indian Medicine Man since they DO exist and would definitely be an attack upon a religion of the indigenous people we stole this country from.

Spin it again Sam...

well said, citizen kane....it's like banging your head against a wall.

why, because they don't bend over for the Dems? Too bad, they are here to stay.

Obams is 50% white, 50% black, and 150% incompetent. Why wont liberals just admit that he has been totally ineffective and move on. He is a failed experiment, the liberals elected a man who never had what it takes to be President. Its not the color of his skin, its the content of his character, or lack or it, and his inexperience.

His biggest mistake is that he's too willing to appease people on the right side of the aisle who are much dumber than he is.

Obama never even implemented the policies that Democrats stand for.

The fact that Republicans hate him so much is the biggest joke of all.

whino we don't hate him..just his failed policies that are killing us! Nice try though...it is so tedious these days when people say crap like that.

Which of his failed policies is it that is killing us? It is so tedious when people say things like that without giving examples....

Obamacare, cap and tax, unemployment, the demonization of corporations, the ban on oil drilling, etc... In other words creeping socialism.

Corporations, the bad actors anyway, demonize themselves through their actions.

Obamacare, cap and tax, unemployment,

Do you have insurance? If yes, Obamacare doesn't affect you. If not, I thought teabaggers were for personal responsiblity. Unemployment....... Then you must have hated Bush for policies that gave us high unemployment.

Do you have insurance? If yes, Obamacare doesn't affect you.

If not, I thought teabaggers were for personal responsiblity.

not so much chucky...

yes it does, because businesses, as we said all along, when Obamacare was being debated will be forced to drop coverage as the government prices them out of business to provide insurance for their employees. That was the whole plan to force them to government insurance and to the single payer...Obama and the Dems even admitted as much.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/1-in-3-employers-will-drop-health-benefits-after-obamacare-fully-kicks-in/

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06

they are for personal responsibility...but tell me, how is forcing someone to purchase a product (Obamacrapcare) or face a fine, personal freedom? BTW, Tea Party members are actually pretty much mainstreet America...and as such are probably more responsible than those who love off the teat of the gubberment.

Bill: How has Healthcare reform made your life worse? It hasn't even gone into effect yet, for the most part. Cap and tax was a REPUBLICAN idea years ago. Unemployment has been bad for YEARS, PEAKING during W's Presidency - in fact, the rate of loss skyrocketed right after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Why don't you hold him at all responsible for any of it?

Demonization of corporations, an ENTITY (not a person), bothers you, but the right's constant demonization of teachers, nurses, firefighters, cops, the poor, the unemployed, and public employees - all actual PEOPLE - doesn't seem to bug you, or the right, at all. Wonder why that is?

Ban on oil drilling? Really? How has that affected YOU? I think that the massive unemployment in the Gulf and the loss of an entire industry in the Gulf, not to mention the destruction of an entire ecosystem, thanks to oil drilling, would maybe rank up there on your list of things that would directly affect you and piss you off. Especially since the oil industry can't be bothered to actually clean up THEIR mess and fix what THEY broke while they blame everyone else for their lack of oversight and total disregard for the lives of their employees (also actual people) in their efforts to make a few more millions.

Care to mention any specific example of "creeping socialism" that Obama (not Congress) has "forced" on you? And if you don't like socialism at all, then I guess that explains why you don't mind the demonization of those teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police ... since they're ALL socialistic elements in our country....

michelle, you need to read other sources than TP, DU MM and such....

Unemployment has been bad for YEARS, PEAKING during W's Presidency - in fact, the rate of loss skyrocketed right after the Bush tax cuts went into effect. Why don't you hold him at all responsible for any of it?

LOL, You don't even know what you are talking about.

Vol: Actually, I do. But I did misspeak. Unemployment is worse now, but I meant job losses peaked under Bush.

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-jobs-lost-in-the-bush-and-obama-administration-2010-2

Try that one on for size. Proves what I've said, and it even has an easy-to-understand graph for the reading impaired.

Next.

Michelle so you present a chart that is from February 2010? LMBO. How many jobs have been lost since then, eh?

Try that one on for size. Proves what I've said, and it even has an easy-to-understand graph for the reading impaired.

Please, and you have the audacity to make light of someone's reading comprehension? LMBO again.

Try this one on for size...it's current, unlike yours.

http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2011/06/03/bush-vs-obama-unemployment-may-2011-jobs-data/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/09/jobs-mr-president-jobless-obama-recovery/

http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/harry-reid-gets-fact-checked-by-politifacts-another-liberal-myth-8-million-jobs-lost-under-bush-goes-down-in-flames/

Vol Fan,

If you don't want to require health insurance, then how do you suggest we handle the problem of the uninsured going to ER when they get sick, costing 6-8 times as much as a doctor's office visit (which they can't do without insurance or money)?

Do you think our paying more when we go to the hospital to compensate for these people, as we do now, is better?

How is requiring health insurance different than requiring auto insurance?

Well Bill, let me ask how this country can't afford Universal Care but Cuba can?

As far as auto insurance goes; I can choose not to drive. I can't choose not to get sick. If I choose to drive, it comes with a requirement that I buy insurance. Not driving because I can't afford the insurance won't kill me. There are alternatives to driving. Are there alternatives to a "for profit" health insurance policy that I can't afford? Can I hop on a non-insured medical treatment bus when I get a cold? How about if I get cancer? Don't even go to Medicare or Medicaide. Too old for one, too "rich"for the other because I earn more than 150% OF THE POVERTY LEVEL WAGES!

Bill, reform is needed, but Obamacrapcare ain't it. It just made a bad situation worse. You think people will stop using the ER becasue of that? Wrong. It will only get worse and we will still be stuck paying the bills just like we are now. And the level of care will go to the crapper too.

A huge difference between car and health insurance, which Citizen addressed.

Why would anyone go to ER, where you wait the entire day to be treated sometimes, if they had health insurance that covers doctor visits? I wouldn't.

How does the healthcare act make that worse? It also requires insurers to accept patients with pre-existing conditions, gives hospitals incentives to cut costs, etc.

I'm sure it isn't perfect, in large because it was so difficult to get agreement on several pieces of it, but who's saying it can't be improved upon?

The people in the Tea Party are not racist, but they are patriotic Americans.

Where were these "patriotic Americans" when Bush flushed this country down the toilet.........

Paint you rascist? You do that yourselves , now a Teabagger is overtly discussing plans to fight for white priveldge, a capital concern with the aging near unanimously white GOP ,and their extreme gop wing, the teabaggers. I'll never dishonor the real tea party heros by calling you their right

The tp is NOT Patriotic in my eyes! They are fomenting Sedition and/or Treason with all of their negative actions, and saying we don't CARE if America goes down, as long as we get President Obama out of the Whitehouse. Oh yes! I almost forgot....................turning America into a Theocracy! No, not Patriots, not even close!

Bill K: Many lib/socialist/communists attempted to paint the Tea Party as a racist organization from the start. It was formed after President Obama revieled his true purpose, with one of the Tea Party slogans, "We want our Country back," (from a revolutionary socialist President). The people in the Tea Party are not racist, but they are patriotic Americans.

WHY ARE YOU SAYING LIBERALS, SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISTS?

Are you a communist? Because I sure as hell ain't, and I'm getting sick of hearing people using liberalism interchangeably with communism. Obama IS NOT A COMMUNIST OR A SOCIALIST EITHER YOU IDIOT!

Did some teabagger say race card?

Really?

As real as a heart attack

HOLY CRAP, Randy! That's scaaaary... and sad at the same time...

no the real one are these...seriously...some scary crap here.

Vol fan, agenda 21 for dummies? You said it. Pastures unsustainable, never heard a liberal say that. "Restructuring of the family unit", why? Because there are more dead beat parents now a days? I cant believe i even watched a minute of that nuttery. No, we don't want your private property. What you should be worried about is corporations trying to privatize everything, including rain water. Like Bechtel did in Bolivia.

I guess you didn't watch the whole thing... did you? Taken right out of the UN program.

No, we don't want your private property.

And yes that is the goal as defined. "Sustainable Development"...throws the Constitution under the bus. Are you okay with that?

The UN really doesent concern me. You cons love to talk about how powerless they are in all other matters. But one mention of the UN overthrowing our constitution and taking your private property, they are the most powerful force ever seen by man.

No, im not okay with that. But, I also know that Americans would never stand for that.

Why did they not focus attention on it when Bush started squandering money left and right, and they had control of all three chambers for six years?

Why did they wait until we got into a deep recession to say stop the spending - the one time we SHOULD be spending?

Bill C: You know the answer to that one. You also know that no TPer will EVER admit the real reason....

Check out this story showing the amount of debt that President Obama has added in the less than 3 years he's been in office. And there were a lot of people screaming about the debt that Bush incurred. But nobody was listening.

The latest posting by the Treasury Department shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion on President Obama's watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the most rapid increase in the debt under any U. S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to surpass that amount during Mr. Obama's four-year term.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

It was increasing at a much faster rate than it is now during Bush's watch. Of course the total debt accumulated during the Bush administration won't be as high- he took over with us having a SURPLUS.

Obama has been presiding over a huge recession, with decreased revenues.

Added to all of THAT was the bailout of AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and Stimulus spending to facilitate coming out of the recession during Obama's watch.

Obama has been much more responsible in terms of spending that Bush was, even though many on the right try to twist things around to make it appear that that isn't the caes..

It was increasing at a much faster rate

So now that it's reached maximum velocity, Obama's gonna ride it to the sky.

oh wow...