Tea Party? anyone

[prospector]

anybody going to attend one on the 15th?
i just looked on foxnation.com and they got a list state by state of where all the rallies are... there's a ton of 'em..should be interesting to see how many people show up..
i'm going to one on a bridge in lafayette, in. i'm taking my term limits sign..
seems like fox is the only network covering the events...:ThmbUp:

[ArlJim78]

i'll be at the one in Chicago. i'm looking forward to it, the first protest of my life,
but i suspect that is true for many.

[NJ Stinks]

anybody going to attend one on the 15th?
i just looked on foxnation.com and they got a list state by state of where all the rallies are... there's a ton of 'em..should be interesting to see how many people show up..
i'm going to one on a bridge in lafayette, in. i'm taking my term limits sign..
seems like fox is the only network covering the events...:ThmbUp:

More likely FOX is sponsoring the events. :rolleyes:

[ArlJim78]

the tea parties are not sponsored by Fox, and they are adamantly seeking to remain non-partisan. for example Michael Steele asked the Chicago organizers if he could speak at the rally and they turned him down. they said that he's welcome to come and observe, but that the speakers will be from the grass roots.

the next step is to go to each district and support whatever candidate shows the most fiscal restraint, democrat or republican.

its closer to an anti incumbent movement than a partisan one.

[Dannyboy]

Mostly mocked.

Republicans are confusing Tyranny with losing an election.

I'm quite surprised at the level of sore loserism. America is the same as its always been. Elections means something. Republicans have very little power at the Federal or State level. This tea bag thing just makes people grateful for that.

[ArlJim78]

its not about losing an election. they are in response to this;

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/obamadebt.jpg

[dav4463]

I am going to the one in Dallas.

[PaceAdvantage]

Mostly mocked. I'm rather shocked that a person from the great state of Massachusetts, the birthplace of our republic, would mock and deride a fellow American's patrioic right...dare I say DUTY...to voice their dissent when they feel their government is headed in the wrong direction.

Tis' a sad day indeed. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of you Dannyboy.

And your graphic is highly offensive. I just wanted to let you know that before I take it down. I'm sure you know why...as it was your intent from the start.

[prospector]

Mostly mocked.

Republicans are confusing Tyranny with losing an election.

I'm quite surprised at the level of sore loserism. America is the same as its always been. Elections means something. Republicans have very little power at the Federal or State level. This tea bag thing just makes people grateful for that.
clueless..
what do Republicans have to do with the protest against runaway spending? people from all parties will be there..

[exactaplayer]

Where have you guys been for the past 8 years ? While the Republicans were running up the largest debt in U.S. history ?

[Marshall Bennett]

I'm rather shocked that a person from the great state of Massachusetts, the birthplace of our republic, would mock and deride a fellow American's patrioic right...dare I say DUTY...to voice their dissent when they feel their government is headed in the wrong direction.

Tis' a sad day indeed. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of you Dannyboy.

And your graphic is highly offensive. I just wanted to let you know that before I take it down. I'm sure you know why...as it was your intent from the start.
Perhaps he's still pissed about the original tea party ? :)

[rastajenk]

Where have you guys been for the past 8 years ? While the Republicans were running up the largest debt in U.S. history ?A bus full of school kids is rolling towards a cliff while the driver is asleep, passed out, talking on a cell phone, or is engaged in some other distraction. A passionate do-gooder is able to board the bus in an apparent effort to save the kids, but instead stomps on the gas; the bus and all its contents goes over the cliff in a terrible tragedy. Who is more to blame, the original driver or the one who insures that the disaster will occur?

[Marshall Bennett]

A bus full of school kids is rolling towards a cliff while the driver is asleep, passed out, talking on a cell phone, or is engaged in some other distraction. A passionate do-gooder is able to board the bus in an apparent effort to save the kids, but instead stomps on the gas; the bus and all its contents goes over the cliff in a terrible tragedy. Who is more to blame, the original driver or the one who insures that the disaster will occur?
Blame the noisey brats !!:lol:

[exactaplayer]

A bus full of school kids is rolling towards a cliff while the driver is asleep, passed out, talking on a cell phone, or is engaged in some other distraction. A passionate do-gooder is able to board the bus in an apparent effort to save the kids, but instead stomps on the gas; the bus and all its contents goes over the cliff in a terrible tragedy. Who is more to blame, the original driver or the one who insures that the disaster will occur?
Eight years is a hell of a long time to wait prior to jumping on the bus. Again, where the hell were you guys for the last eight years ???

[sally]

Eight years is a hell of a long time to wait prior to jumping on the bus. Again, where the hell were you guys for the last eight years ???

I have to agree with exacta-- you conservatives really do wear blinkers-- and the way you rail against Obama--I imagine the spit coming out of your mouths as you type...

that said-- I'm running away now-- these off topic posts are some of the most eye opening and scary things on here--

[Dannyboy]

clueless..
what do Republicans have to do with the protest against runaway spending? people from all parties will be there..

Republicans are a national laughing stock. School bus stories and feigned outrage at Government spending? Who has a clue? You? Look at these trend lines on Republican and Democrat Favorable's since January 1 2009. You folks are not fooling anyone, and no one but wing-nuts are buying into this Teabag nonsense.

[boxcar]

Republicans are a national laughing stock. School bus stories and feigned outrage at Government spending? Who has a clue? You? Look at these trend lines on Republican and Democrat Favorable's since January 1 2009. You folks are not fooling anyone, and no one but wing-nuts are buying into this Teabag nonsense.

This "laughing stock" registered independent conservative has gotta ask: Were you in favor of all the spending the Repugs did during the Bush administration, and now with the unprecedented, history-making spending of the present administation?

Thanks in advance,
Boxcar

[Tom]

Eight years is a hell of a long time to wait prior to jumping on the bus. Again, where the hell were you guys for the last eight years ???

1. We were riding the new highs in the economy set under Bush.
2. Many of us expressed concern over the spending, but we also knew much of it was needed for Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. None of us saw anything remotely as wasteful and unneeded as what Bummy is doing. A choo choo train for Dingy Harry? Millions for Pelosi's mice? We have to draw the line.
4. The economy is much different today than it was the last 8 years. We did not know the extent of the damage that the DEMS had done to it - Barny, Dodd, et al.

Apples to oranges.

[jballscalls]

1.
2. Many of us expressed concern over the spending, but we also knew much of it was needed for Iraq and Afghanistan.
.

i'm sure this has been disgusted ad nauseum and maybe i missed out, but why did we go to iraq? I thought the Taliban and terrorists behind 9/11 were in afghanistan, not iraq?? or were they in iraq as well?

[Tom]

i'm sure this has been disgusted ad nauseum and maybe i missed out, but why did we go to iraq? I thought the Taliban and terrorists behind 9/11 were in afghanistan, not iraq?? or were they in iraq as well?

Yes it was. Search for it.
No one said that. You make a wrong assumption.

[jballscalls]

Yes it was. Search for it.
No one said that. You make a wrong assumption.
ok, thanks for clarifying

[PaceAdvantage]

So because Bush did a little spending during his eight years (and believe me, no true conservative was jumping up and down for joy...please find a post on here where the "PA High-FIVERS" were all gleefully pointing to the spending Bush was doing and going "Yeah, that's how you run a gubmint!" Again, you won't find it, cause it ain't there.

Now, onto more important issues. From what I gather from our left-leaning friends in this thread, because Bush spent a little money during his 8 years, this let's Obama off the hook for proposing the following:

OBAMA TO SPEND MORE THAN ALL PRESIDENT'S BEFORE HIM COMBINED! This means Obama wants to increase our debt by spending more than George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED!

Is the above NOT insanity? You are going to sit here and criticize Bush for spending while Obama intends to spend more than GW + GWB and everyone in between COMBINED?

Oh yes, I know. You're going to come back at me and claim somehow that Bush got us into so much trouble...that we just MUST spend this insane amount of money in order to "fix" things...yeah...right...

And Dannyboy is going to sit there and tell folks they shouldn't be demonstrating...that they're merely going to be laughed at...

After these supposed "lessons" of George W. Bush, Democrats deserved to be BITCH SLAPPED for proposing this kind of astronomical spending.

Ya'll deserve to be voted out of office at the first chance. Not only are you no better than Bush, you're ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WORSE!

Where is the concern for our children now? You criticize Bush for getting us into more debt, criticize Bush for saddling our children with an "impossible burden," yet then go out and propose to spend more than EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT pre-Obama combined? And the righties are the wingnuts?

[boxcar]

You raise valid points, PA. Recently, I broached the subject of "the children", great grandkids, and even great, great grandkids and asked the statists how all this reckless, irresponsible spending is demonstrating compassion and concern for all these generations of kids? Of course, I know the answer to this question: BO and his merry band of thieves know this debt will never be repaid and moreover, if BO's stupid, fantasyland vision for America fails, this will give him more opportunities to grab more power from the The People by placing more restrictions on our freedoms, while empowering government with more of it. One thing is for certain: This is one administration that will always be looking forward to the next crisis.

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

Obama talked a good game during the campaign and debates.

"Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut."

"What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches."

"We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut."

Since he won that means the people supported these ideas. Yet so far there has been a gargantuan net increase in spending, no pay as you go system, no line by line budget review, and no cuts other than defense.

[PaceAdvantage]

Since he won that means the people supported these ideas. Yet so far there has been a gargantuan net increase in spending, no pay as you go system, no line by line budget review, and no cuts other than defense.There is no answer to this kind of sound, reasoned debate, other than "Bush ruined the country."

It's maddening. Because Bush supposedly "ruined the country," this is a green-light for Democrats to ruin it MORE, and in the VERY SAME WAY as Bush! :lol:

And they call those of us that think this way WINGNUTS! :lol: :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

Oh yes, I know. You're going to come back at me and claim somehow that Bush got us into so much trouble...that we just MUST spend this insane amount of money in order to "fix" things...yeah...right...



I was going to respond but you already told me you know what I'm going to say. So rather than waste time, I pass.

[boxcar]

I was going to respond but you already told me you know what I'm going to say. So rather than waste time, I pass.

Well...since I'm far kinder and gentler than PA is (and never want to pass up on opportunity to expand my BO horizons or for that matter to get anyone to waste their valuable time), would you please tell me if you fully support this serial liar's broken campaign promise about which AJ78 partially quoted in #24 of this thread?

Boxcar

[chickenhead]

The governance of this country over the past 20 years does not come out well as an advertisement for either party.

If tax revenue falls of a cliff, I don't expect gov't spending to cut back at the same rate -- I actually think that is a terrible idea. So when that happens I do expect a deficit. But I also think it's a terrible idea to budget massive deficits into the future, as far as the eye can see, as both Bush did, and how Obama has begun. It's dishonest.

We already have massive structural deficits waiting for us in our future that are going to kill us.

There is no question we are going to pay for our sins down the line. No question. It is entirely dishonest the way our budget process and tax system work.

That said, as much noise as people make about it when the other party does it -- I don't think they ultimately care. They want all the accouterments of a well funded government, without actually paying for it.

[HUSKER55]

BO wanted to share the wealth while campaigning. Now that he is in office he gives the money to the top 3% in this country. things have not changed a bit and they are going to get worse.


The only way to turn things around is to give that money to the bottom 80% of this country and make the corporations earn their money.

Think about it. If the problem is no money and the bottom doesn't get any then what the hell? How is anything going to change? It won't. So the logical quetion is,..what exactly is broke?

For those of you that blame OJT for obama perhaps you should consider the possibility of organized crime. That is exactly what this is.

We sent Marth Stewart to prison for less.

[Tom]

No matter who is control, a nation cannot sustain itself when about 50% of its people do not pay taxes and the tip of the pyramid has to support the huge base.

[cj's dad]

Republicans are a national laughing stock. School bus stories and feigned outrage at Government spending? Who has a clue? You? Look at these trend lines on Republican and Democrat Favorable's since January 1 2009. You folks are not fooling anyone, and no one but wing-nuts are buying into this Teabag nonsense.

wouldn't that be Mass. democrats who re-elect time after time Barney (elmer fudd) Frank and Ted (sir swim a mile) Kennedy ??

[JustRalph]

No matter who is control, a nation cannot sustain itself when about 50% of its people do not pay taxes and the tip of the pyramid has to support the huge base.


That's all that really matters when you talk about taxes. You can come up with formula and algorithm all day long to work out a "fair" system. But the bottom line is............... too many are carrying the weight of those who don't carry any weight.

[cj's dad]

That's all that really matters when you talk about taxes. You can come up with formula and algorithm all day long to work out a "fair" system. But the bottom line is............... too many are carrying the weight of those who don't carry any weight.

I don't know 'bout that Ralph, the welfare queens I've seen are packing a lot of "junk in the trunk"

[Tom]

Saturday....I'm behind two women in the supermarket.
They buy the usual, bread, mild, eggs, yadda yadda yadda, and pay with food stamps. then they ring out their Budweiser 30 pak and a 6 of Busch, and, of course, the obligatory can of Red Bull for the trip home and pay with cash.

These two certainly do not deserve a hand out. If you have beer money, you are on your own in my book.

Meanwhile, me, the guy carrying these two anchors, gets penalized for having a job and paying taxes by having to buy my own food. I cold have had Porterhouse instead of strip if not for having to feed someone elses family.

[Bubba X]

Strip?

Why no lamb or no ham, more traditional Easter fare?

Karma going on there, maybe. Maybe not.

[JustRalph]

Tax Article................. April 13 , Wall Street Journal


Everyone Should Pay Income Taxes
It's bad for our democracy to exempt half the country.

By ARI FLEISCHER

If you thought Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme was bad, wait until you hear about the inverted pyramid scheme the federal government is working on. While Mr. Madoff preyed on people who trusted him with their money, the federal government has everyone's money, and the implications of its actions are worse.

Picture an upside-down pyramid with its narrow tip at the bottom and its base on top. The only way the pyramid can stand is by spinning fast enough or by having a wide enough tip so it won't fall down. The federal version of this spinning top is the tax code; the government collects its money almost entirely from the people at the narrow tip and then gives it to the people at the wider side. So long as the pyramid spins, the system can work. If it slows down enough, it falls.

It's also what's called redistribution of income, and it is getting out of hand.

A very small number of taxpayers -- the 10% of the country that makes more than $92,400 a year -- pay 72.4% of the nation's income taxes. They're the tip of the triangle that's supporting virtually everyone and everything. Their burden keeps getting heavier.

As a result of the 2001 tax cuts enacted by a bipartisan Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, the share of taxes paid by the top 10% increased to 72.8% in 2005 from 67.8% in 2001, according to the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Contrary to the myth that Mr. Bush cut taxes only for the wealthy, the 2001 tax cut reduced taxes for every income-tax payer in the country. He reduced the bottom tax rate to 10% from 15% and increased the refundable child tax credit to $1,000 from $500 per child, both cuts that President Barack Obama says we should keep. In so doing, millions of lower income taxpayers were removed from the tax rolls, shifting the remaining burden to those at the top, even after their taxes were cut.

According to the CBO, those who made less than $44,300 in 2001 -- 60% of the country -- paid a paltry 3.3% of all income taxes. By 2005, almost all of them were excused from paying any income tax. They paid less than 1% of the income tax burden. Their share shrank even when taking into account the payroll tax. In 2001, the bottom 60% paid 16.3% of all taxes; by 2005 their share was down to 14.3%. All the while, this large group of voters made 25.8% of the nation's income.

When you make almost 26% of the income and you pay only 0.6% of the income tax, that's a good deal, courtesy of those who do pay income taxes. For the bottom 40%, the redistribution deal is even better. In 2001, these 43 million Americans, who earn less than $30,500, made 13.5% of the nation's income but paid no income tax. Instead, they received checks from their taxpaying neighbors worth $16.3 billion. By 2005, those checks totaled $33.3 billion.

More at the link

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958260423012269.html#mod=rss_opinion_main

[boxcar]

And then some unjustifiably incredulous dunderheads wonder why Tea Parties are springing up all over the country. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar

[ddog]

no , actually with the lack of understanding of tax issues in this country i wonder why anyone would bother to show up at the party.

the article is as stupid as if written by some skid row drunk.

It's astounding the lack of anything that could approach sanity when it comes to taxes.

Actually , the dunderheads are why nothing ever get's done about it.

They will be out in force I expect at the party on the 15th.

party on Garth.


uruguay is looking better everyday to me.

[ArlJim78]

no , actually with the lack of understanding of tax issues in this country i wonder why anyone would bother to show up at the party.

the article is as stupid as if written by some skid row drunk.

It's astounding the lack of anything that could approach sanity when it comes to taxes.

Actually , the dunderheads are why nothing ever get's done about it.

They will be out in force I expect at the party on the 15th.

party on Garth.


uruguay is looking better everyday to me.
the article and its author have nothing to do with the tea parties.
its amazing how mis-directed your flailing responses are sometimes.

[cj's dad]

no , actually with the lack of understanding of tax issues in this country i wonder why anyone would bother to show up at the party.

the article is as stupid as if written by some skid row drunk.

It's astounding the lack of anything that could approach sanity when it comes to taxes.

Actually , the dunderheads are why nothing ever get's done about it.

They will be out in force I expect at the party on the 15th.

party on Garth.


uruguay is looking better everyday to me.

:jump: hope you speak espanol - then again, anyone as brilliant as you are, is more than likely to be bi-tri-or - quad lingual - hasta la vista -!
I'm guessing you are bi --- lingual that is.

[boxcar]

no , actually with the lack of understanding of tax issues in this country i wonder why anyone would bother to show up at the party.

And you're the expert!? :lol:

the article is as stupid as if written by some skid row drunk.

Ahh...glad you brought this up. (See below.)

It's astounding the lack of anything that could approach sanity when it comes to taxes.

I suppose a "skid row drunk" could be excused for concocting this poor excuse for a sentence. :bang: :bang:

Actually , the dunderheads are why nothing ever get's done about it.

Finally, you have something right. Glad to see that you've come to your senses by recognizing that you're a very big part of the problem.

They will be out in force I expect at the party on the 15th.

party on Garth.

I'd invite you to the bash I'm throwing if you could guarantee me that you'd be more animated than a wallflower -- but I know better.

uruguay is looking better everyday to me.

Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. And if we're lucky, you'll only have enough money for one-way fare.

Boxcar

[riskman]

Tea Party? First you have to read this:
Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse: A Novel of the Turbulent Near Future (Expanded and Updated 33 Chapter Edition) (Paperback)
by James Wesley Rawles (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1425734073/ref=dp_image_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books


Then you can enroll here---and you are all set.
http://www.onpointtactical.com/scout.aspx

Screw the Tea Party. :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

So just so I'm clear, since nobody has refuted that Obama intends to spend more than George Washington -> George W. Bush and everyone in between combined, this must be fact.

Now, all the loyal Obama supporters who are still posting here in off-topic...how do you feel about this? Serious question. No personal attacks please.

[chickenhead]

maybe to make a broader point -- something for everyone to think about. is that Reagan added more to the debt than everyone from George W to Carter, and Bush II came very very close to adding more than everyone from George W through Clinton -- he didn't quite hit 100%, he hit 87%. He needed to spend another 800 billion over his 8 years to hit the 100% mark, and fall into the "added more debt than everyone before him".

So that leaves us Bush the 1st and Clinton -- as the only 2 presidents (with presumably Obama included as a huge debtor) of the last 5 who did not completely balloon the debt -- just completely blow it out. I'd say Bush 1st did it on purpose, was prudent intentionally -- and got castigated and thrown from office for it -- Clinton was more a matter of circumstance.

I understand the point you're making Mike, and it's worth making -- but we have a much bigger problem -- we don't have a party, any party, that cares primarily about actually paying for what they spend.

Republicans care -- but as a secondary matter -- Taxes matter more. And Democrats care -- as a secondary matter -- Spending matters more. Until one party or the other makes the debt and deficit an actual priority -- above either tax rates or spending -- nothing about this will change. NOTHING. I don't see any evidence of that happening. Mainly because the parties are reflecting their constituents.

Republican rank and file care about the deficit -- so long as closing it doesn't involve raising taxes. Democrats care so long as spending doesn't get cut.

It's going to continue until it can't continue anymore -- until people treat treasuries like junk bonds. We don't have the will to do it ourselves -- this seems just blatantly obvious.

[boxcar]

And until our paper currency becomes worthless due to hyper-inflation. We finally get to agree on something, Chick.

In fact, I believe America is already on a deep, irreversible slide to economic mediocrity. I think this country's hey-day is behind us forever because too many Americans have already become addicted or irresistibly lured to entitlements, especially during this economic downturn. Too many people believe socialism is the way to go, and the statists on both sides of the aisle will gladly oblige their free lunch-loving, you-owe-me constituents. And this will have a serious domino effect because the water-carriers (i.e. taxpayers) will lose all incentive and initiative to pay their own way and someone else's too. Soon our economy will be on the same second rate level as Europe's. I hate to say this but America doesn't have the will any longer resist the "ease" of collectivism. And this current recession will only push the fence straddlers over the edge, as they slowly begin to believe that Capitalism really doesn't work. And, of course, BO will continue to drive this message home with his ongoing assaults on the private sector. He will continue to blame Evil Capitalism for all this nation's problems, and in the process make smooth the path to Socialism.

Boxcar

[sandpit]

So just so I'm clear, since nobody has refuted that Obama intends to spend more than George Washington -> George W. Bush and everyone in between combined, this must be fact.

Now, all the loyal Obama supporters who are still posting here in off-topic...how do you feel about this? Serious question. No personal attacks please.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I wanted to give him a chance to do good for us, but this unchecked spending is ridiculous. If anyone in the world can figure the outcome, they should be elected God.

Btw, I heard on Dave Ramsey a few weeks ago that Bush II outspent all the presidents before him combined...maybe he started a trend? :mad:

[ddog]

the article and its author have nothing to do with the tea parties.
its amazing how mis-directed your flailing responses are sometimes.


then why post it in the tea party thread?

and of course the tea party started and I assume still are over tax and spend.

hard to see how that fails to be part of the story.

perhaps , you as one of the minds here can illuminate what exactly you believe the party is about and what you expect to accomplish other than a thrill running down the leg by the action.

[ddog]

:jump: hope you speak espanol - then again, anyone as brilliant as you are, is more than likely to be bi-tri-or - quad lingual - hasta la vista -!
I'm guessing you are bi --- lingual that is.


ah the dime store wit again.

you are always guessing , i expected nothing more from you.

[ddog]

And you're the expert!? :lol:



Ahh...glad you brought this up. (See below.)



I suppose a "skid row drunk" could be excused for concocting this poor excuse for a sentence. :bang: :bang:



Finally, you have something right. Glad to see that you've come to your senses by recognizing that you're a very big part of the problem.



I'd invite you to the bash I'm throwing if you could guarantee me that you'd be more animated than a wallflower -- but I know better.



Don't let the door hit ya on the way out. And if we're lucky, you'll only have enough money for one-way fare.

Boxcar


typical of the dunderhead response profile.
you do make a strong case fer yerself there booxy.

as they say , in the land of the blind the one eyed man is seen to be the expert.
;) :D

You make Ari a tax expert now!!!!!!! :lol:

[ddog]

So just so I'm clear, since nobody has refuted that Obama intends to spend more than George Washington -> George W. Bush and everyone in between combined, this must be fact.

Now, all the loyal Obama supporters who are still posting here in off-topic...how do you feel about this? Serious question. No personal attacks please.


it sucks.

although i don't expect a serious reply but i will try....


is there truth to the marginal utility of debt????

if so, then given that we had already(imo) hit the wall on UNPRODUCTIVE debt piled up by the dunderheads in this country aided and applauded by stupid gvt policies from all sides then what are the choices AT THIS POINT if one believes in the marginal util? I do by the way. Once you make the choice what would be the short term results given the underlying economic numbers (as best we can discern them)???



you're turn.

[ddog]

and as a special incentive to booxy so he can have something to actually say at HIS little party, we will go back to the Ari puff piece.

In the Ari puff piece what about the "numbers" he uses makes the whole rant bogus.

A hint for you booxy, progressive and unearned.

Now, if you are the "expert" you seem to think you are, since you have judged i am clearly not, then you will have NO trouble decoding this and a one sentence reply would show up here.

Are you up to it, or just your usual bible thumping bluster and dodgin act will now ensue.

What , let me GUESS, thx daaddy'o, it's kind of habit forming.

[ddog]

Eco-boxcar spake thusly ---

"And until our paper currency becomes worthless due to hyper-inflation"


In light of Fed actions of the day since they are very different from the "other" times , maybe you would explain exactly why this hyper-inflation will come?

For us non-experts, we need to know your mind o giver of knowledge.

[cj's dad]

why is it dog that you and only you understand all the complexities of life, taxes, finance, military strategy, war, peace, negotiation, pacification, etc....


Why, oh why, is that - the unwashed masses yearn to know !!

[Bubba X]

I am looking forward to the tea parties. It will be interesting to see if it draws a decent cross-section of people or if it turns just plain stoopid.

It would be fun to see some counter-protests at a few of the tea parties, no?

Ideally, we'd see a heavily made-up Nancy Pelosi-Oprah tag team take on, say, the team of Rush Limbaugh-Dick Morris with their size 54's firmly cinched.

[Tom]

You will be able to tell the wack-o's from the honest people attending.
The libs will the ones carrying signs, causing trouble.
It is being organized by ACORN.

The people that are really doing this are committed to NOT make it about Obama or the other despicable dems. They want to keep it on a higher level and deal wtih the issues, not the people. Dems will never understand that.

"Fun" to see counter-protests, too?

What on earth would your sign at that one say?

"More Taxes"
"Tax Me More"
"HIGHER HIGHER"
"Taxe my Ass off"

And of course you would chant....

"What do we want?"
"TAXES!"
When do we want them?"
"NOW!"

:rolleyes:

[Bubba X]

Nonsense.

The COMMITTED ones are the events' sponsors which are all Republican PACs.

I assume you will be cinching 'em up with Rush and Dick.

[boxcar]

then why post it in the tea party thread?

and of course the tea party started and I assume still are over tax and spend.

hard to see how that fails to be part of the story.

perhaps , you as one of the minds here can illuminate what exactly you believe the party is about and what you expect to accomplish other than a thrill running down the leg by the action.

Your head's buried in the sand. Demonstrations and protests can result in the desired action, which was the object of such initially. A do-nothing criticizer, such as yourself, only provides you with too much free time to shoot off your big yap and bore us to death by pretending you're the know-it-all and be-all expert on the economy. You're a pathetic joke.

Boxcar

[Bubba X]

Your head's buried in the sand. Demonstrations and protests can result in the desired action, which was the object of such initially. A do-nothing criticizer, such as yourself, only provides you with too much free time to shoot off your big yap and bore us to death by pretending you're the know-it-all and be-all expert on the economy. You're a pathetic joke.

Boxcar
LOL.

Cinch 'em up and get to work!

[boxcar]

Nonsense.

The COMMITTED ones are the events' sponsors which are all Republican PACs.

I assume you will be cinching 'em up with Rush and Dick.

Here's real nonsense: The "COMMITTED ones" are the one who actually attempt to make a difference by doing something, as opposed to the ignorant and deadbeat morons whose only meaningless purpose in life is to stand on the sidelines of important political-economic issues hurling their gratuitous insults at the people making a political statement through their actions.

Boxcar

[Bubba X]

Here's real nonsense: The "COMMITTED ones" are the one who actually attempt to make a difference by doing something, as opposed to the ignorant and deadbeat morons whose only meaningless purpose in life is to stand on the sidelines of important political-economic issues hurling their gratuitous insults at the people making a political statement through their actions.

Boxcar

Double SECRET nonsense!

What the hell does "meaningless purpose" mean?

Goes to show, that education funding can't come through fast enough!

[Tom]

Goes to show, that education funding can't come through fast enough!

Ooops.

[Bubba X]

LOL. I clicked in the OK box. Nothing happened.

[Floyd]

Here's real nonsense: The "COMMITTED ones" are the one who actually attempt to make a difference by doing something, as opposed to the ignorant and deadbeat morons whose only meaningless purpose in life is to stand on the sidelines of important political-economic issues hurling their gratuitous insults at the people making a political statement through their actions.

Boxcar

Heh.
I'll let William Ayers know of your change of heart.

[JustRalph]

The Tea Party groups have already been infiltrated by the left..........

It's amazing how that works. This will cause these groups to close ranks and become more secretive. should get interesting..........

[PaceAdvantage]

if so, then given that we had already(imo) hit the wall on UNPRODUCTIVE debt piled up by the dunderheads in this country aided and applauded by stupid gvt policies from all sides then what are the choices AT THIS POINT if one believes in the marginal util? I do by the way. Once you make the choice what would be the short term results given the underlying economic numbers (as best we can discern them)???Given the track record, how can we consider any future debt to be productive, especially at this point?

I don't see how anyone can get behind this new era of spending and keep a straight face, especially after healthy and wholesale criticism of the most recent era. There are so many things being proposed at the moment that are just completely not needed especially at this time, and I'm afraid there is no "check" left to provide much needed balance.

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=Tom]1. We were riding the new highs in the economy set under Bush.

Highs that were primarily inherited from Clinton. Highs that disappeared by the end of Bush's term.
Clinton high............11700 (2000)
Clinton low..............3100 (1993)

Clinton end..............10800 (2001)

Bush high ...............12350 (2006)

Bush low..................7600 (????)

Bush present.............12350

Dow at the end of Bush's term 7000
Other economic indicators; unemployment, home ownership, etc. also way down,

[mostpost]

So just so I'm clear, since nobody has refuted that Obama intends to spend more than George Washington -> George W. Bush and everyone in between combined, this must be fact.

Now, all the loyal Obama supporters who are still posting here in off-topic...how do you feel about this? Serious question. No personal attacks please.

Alrighty Mr. Pace Advantage, here is my take on the fact that Obama intends to spend more than all previous Presidents combined. First, much of this spending was necesitated by the current financial crisis. And that crisis was created by an unwillingness to regulate the financial sector. To permit that sector to fail would be to permit the entire nation to fail. Another factor is that Obama is refusing to use the Bush trick of putting controversial expenditures off Budget; items such as spending for Iraq and Afghanistan. This spending is now part of the budget process. Another factor is spending for necesary infrastructure repair and replaement. Something which has been neglected for years, and which is creating safety issues. (see Minnesota freeway bridge collapse) Another thing to remember is that these projects create jobs. People who build roads, repair bridges, and otherwise repair our infrastructure earn money and pay taxes. This is not money being thrown down a hole. It is money that is entering the economy and will be recycled over and over.
I don't know if you can compare expenditures in the Modern era to those in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. For much of that time we were an agrarian society with a much smaller population and an almost nonexistent voice in foreign affairs. To get a more reasoned comparison of spending you would have to factor in the differences in technology and manufacturing and the enormous difference in population.

I have NOT researched this but I would think that the Industrial Revolution would be the point where expenditures began to rise, exacerbated by our emergence as a world power, and aided by the inauguration of social programs.

[ArlJim78]

First, much of this spending was necesitated by the current financial crisis. And that crisis was created by an unwillingness to regulate the financial sector.
more spending and more regulations, that's always the answer. and its always the wrong answer. no matter how bad things get someone will always say that we still need even more spending and regulation.

[mostpost]

2. Many of us expressed concern over the spending, but we also knew much of it was needed for Iraq and Afghanistan

Why? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, had NO WMDs and Osama Bin Laden could have been captured or killed at Tora Bora in December of 2001. Instead we failed to send troops to the region between Tora Bora and the Pakistani border; we relied on Afgahn tribal leaders who actually escorted Al Queda members to safety, and we ordered our troops to stand down when they were in a position to capture or kill Bin Laden.

[ezrabrooks]

[QUOTE=Tom]1. We were riding the new highs in the economy set under Bush.

Highs that were primarily inherited from Clinton. Highs that disappeared by the end of Bush's term.
Clinton high............11700 (2000)
Clinton low..............3100 (1993)

Clinton end..............10800 (2001)

Bush high ...............12350 (2006)

Bush low..................7600 (????)

Bush present.............12350

Dow at the end of Bush's term 7000
Other economic indicators; unemployment, home ownership, etc. also way down,

Are you sure about those numbers?

Ez

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=mostpost]

Are you sure about those numbers?

Ez

I do not remember exactly where I originally obtained them. It was from a website on historical dow jones avrages. I typed them out to save them. They are accurate as given on that website. The only possible exception is the average for the end of GW's term, which I am quoting from memory. It could be off a couple of hundred points.

[boxcar]

The Tea Party groups have already been infiltrated by the left..........

It's amazing how that works. This will cause these groups to close ranks and become more secretive. should get interesting..........

Glen Beck was talking about this very thing yesterday. But I'd say that they should be fairly easy to pick out. But there's still one downside, though: The left wing Creepyzoids could still make the good guys look bad with their stupid signs, slogans, antics, etc., which we know the MM will zoom in on immediately.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

more spending and more regulations, that's always the answer. and its always the wrong answer. no matter how bad things get someone will always say that we still need even more spending and regulation.

No, the answer is NECESARY SPENDING AND NECESARY REGULATION. We would not have to do more spending and more regulation now, if you folks had done the necesary spending and regulation when you were in power. Our infrastructure would not have been in such terrible shape had you allocated resources to maintain it. Our financial system would not be in such terrible shape had you even enforced the regulations already on the books. But that was not done. I'm not saying we would not have still had a crisis, but I find it quite disingenuous for Conservatices to blame Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for opposing regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when their whole Raison d etre (i know I didn't spell that right) is to oppose regulation of any kind.

[boxcar]

Heh.
I'll let William Ayers know of your change of heart.

Why would you ASS[ume] I had such a change? What makes you think I haven't been taking a proactive role in politics for years? You don't! Another great example of you digging deep into those bodily orifices of yours. :rolleyes:

Don't you ever tire of being wrong?


Boxcar

[mostpost]

3. None of us saw anything remotely as wasteful and unneeded as what Bummy is doing. A choo choo train for Dingy Harry? Millions for Pelosi's mice? We have to draw the line

You do know that the $30 million is not to buy Nancy a mouse to keep in her pocket and scare John Boehner, right? It is for restoration and preservation of wetlands, which will have a positive economic effect on fishing, recreation and farming in the area. The protection of the little mousie is a minor, but happy side effect of the program. You should ask the mouse under your fridge how he feels about it.

There is no train in the budget!!!

[ezrabrooks]

[QUOTE=ezrabrooks]

I do not remember exactly where I originally obtained them. It was from a website on historical dow jones avrages. I typed them out to save them. They are accurate as given on that website. The only possible exception is the average for the end of GW's term, which I am quoting from memory. It could be off a couple of hundred points.

The Dow broke 14K in 2006-07, and was around 8K when the current administration took over... I was having trouble following your numbers. No bigee, as the last bull market was a house of cards any way.

Ez

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Floyd
Heh.
I'll let William Ayers know of your change of heart.


Why would you ASS[ume] I had such a change? What makes you think I haven't been taking a proactive role in politics for years? You don't! Another great example of you digging deep into those bodily orifices of yours. :rolleyes:

Don't you ever tire of being wrong?

Floyd, Floyd, Floyd
You've aggravated Boxcar again. Don't you ever tire of being right:lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

Double SECRET nonsense!

What the hell does "meaningless purpose" mean?

Goes to show, that education funding can't come through fast enough!

And in your case, it never came through!

What does it mean? How 'bout, for example, "lacking any significant determination, resolution or intention"? Look up the terms in your Funk 'n' Wagnall and quit insulting your pet rock by pretending that you're smarter than it is!

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

GK5hrKHrFzI

its a catchy tune...

[Tom]

I wonder where the posts condemning the profiling are?
Certain posters were very vocal about it during the Bush years.
Surely they cannot condone it now?

Guys.........?

[ddog]

Given the track record, how can we consider any future debt to be productive, especially at this point?

I don't see how anyone can get behind this new era of spending and keep a straight face, especially after healthy and wholesale criticism of the most recent era. There are so many things being proposed at the moment that are just completely not needed especially at this time, and I'm afraid there is no "check" left to provide much needed balance.



I am not behind it , but more an unwilling agnostic, i do feel certain that given the vast debt bomb we built up and that must be unwound, that is what "recessions" in the past were "for", that we can't go cold turkey now.


Given the deflation we are seeing and the lack of anything close to a growth path out of this deal, we are just buying time via the issuance of all this support to try to get a gradual wind down of the leverage from the last 20-30 years and not have it hit all in 1-2 years which would devastate the finances of this country.


We have "priced in" a level of earnings in many areas that many knew were not attainable.

Now that those models are shown to be worthless , there are many stores of wealth(formerly) that are now underwater.

To have let the cliff diving continue on it's own seems to me a possiblilty of a 60 year decline.


As it is, due to the last 20-30 years of bad actions , i think we are in for at least 10-20 years of nothing at best.

The markets may do whatever and the numbers may be massaged , but there is a new baseline being established, i am not sure where it is, but it's not the last 30 years, no way.

I guess I am saying this path they are on is not what I would have taken, but I don't know that it really matters either way.

What has to happen in this area will happen.

[ddog]

more spending and more regulations, that's always the answer. and its always the wrong answer. no matter how bad things get someone will always say that we still need even more spending and regulation.



how about different regulation.

and regulation is the base for a capitalist society, count on it.

if you want free market capitalism of the type you seem to wish for , the pirates are your best example of that system in action.

feel it , know it.

[ddog]

PJB: The True Haters
by Patrick J. Buchanan

On Good Friday, John Demjanjuk, 89 and gravely ill, was ordered deported to Germany to stand trial as an accessory to the murder of 29,000 Jews — at Sobibor camp in Poland.

Sound familiar? It should. It is a re-enactment of the 1986 extradition of John Demjanjuk to Israel to be tried for the murder of 870,000 Jews — at Treblinka camp in Poland.

How many men in the history of this country have been so relentlessly pursued and remorselessly persecuted?

The ordeal of this American Dreyfus began 30 years ago.

In 1979, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) at Justice, goaded and guided by Yuri Andropov’s KGB, was persuaded that Demjanjuk was “Ivan the Terrible,” a huge, brutal, sadistic guard at Treblinka, who bashed in babies’ heads and slashed off women’s breasts, as he drove hundreds of thousands of Jews into the gas chambers.

Demjanjuk’s defense was simple: I was never at Treblinka.


http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-true-haters-1495



since there were gvt , they always shout about the evil hordes that are coming for you out there somewhere.

We are just trying to protect you after all.

[Tom]

So you favor not hounding down nazis?

Was his return done under law?
Was he abducted?

It is up to the courts to decide.
Not hounding suspected nazi's is unacceptable.

[Tom]

Just got back from our local TEA party parade - impressive. Over 2,000 people marched through downtown and gathered at the Liberty Pole.

Local (left leaning parer) reporting about 200 people! :lol:
Sorry Charlie, we counted!

Peaceful, concerned citizens protesting the folly of their government.
Libs won't like that.

Glen Beck - live from the Alamo at 5 today, on FOX (Fair and Balanced)

[Bubba X]

Were the food stamp ladies from your recent rant there?

[Tom]

Gee, Bubba, let me explain it to you.
People who do not pay taxes are probably not to pissed about them being high, so I doubt they would show up, unless they thought there might be free refreshments, or thought they could pick some pockets, or were paid by ACORN to disrupt the event. You know, OBama's Gestapo?

[Bubba X]

So, what were the people there most peacefully concerned about? Please rank them from 1-"Very concerned" to 5-"I don't give a shit."

- How messed up the economy is, irregardless of blame
- Taxes
- Jobs
- Spending
- Guns
- Glenn Beck's inconsistent hair color

[cj's dad]

So, what were the people there most peacefully concerned about? Please rank them from 1-"Very concerned" to 5-"I don't give a shit."

- How messed up the economy is, irregardless of blame
- Taxes
- Jobs
- Spending
- Guns
- Glenn Beck's inconsistent hair color


Note to Professor Bubba; there is no such word !!

[Bubba X]

Note to Professor Bubba; there is no such word !!

Alas, there is such a word. Irregardless is considered acceptable in casual speech form. It is a blend of the words irrespective and regardless.

So, it's ok to use at the track or strip club; less so in church or competitive debating.

[Tom]

So, what were the people there most peacefully concerned about? Please rank them from 1-"Very concerned" to 5-"I don't give a shit."

- How messed up the economy is, irregardless of blame
- Taxes
- Jobs
- Spending
- Guns
- Glenn Beck's inconsistent hair color

OK, I will type this slower....

TEA Party.
Taxes - Enough Already.

So I guess TAXES is high on the list.
Spending is there too.

Unlike lib demonstrations, we are there for a specific purpose, not general idiocy and anarchy and anything goes. Most were civilized, law-abiding people, God-Fearing people, concerned about their country.They acted like adults. Nothing at all like the ACORN and Union sponsored demonstrations at AIG employee houses. Not at like your typical lib event.

Now, if you want any more info, cut out the obvious, yet typical bullshot you have posted continually for days now. and watch FOX tonight - CNN has already show their bias in the coverage. Completley Nauseating Nerds.
But I'm sure ou will buy it. :lol:

[Bubba X]

:1a: OK, I will type this slower....

TEA Party.
Taxes - Enough Already.

watch FOX tonight - CNN has already show their bias in the coverage. Completley Nauseating Nerds.
But I'm sure ou will buy it. :lol:

Sorry, I do not watch Fox and I do not watch CNN. I'm a Lehrer/BBC person. Frankly I watched Beck once or twice and he is everything you claim the calm, peacful people at your event are not.

[NJ Stinks]

....CNN has already show their bias in the coverage....

Thank God FOX has not shown their bias in the coverage!! :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

I suppose you watched the both?
I did.

CNN: "Why are to so few Black people here?"
Citizen "No one was invited. I just came. you will have to go ask them."

CNN: "We saw a sign calling Obama the Anti-Christ." No video offered.
CNN: "One protester called for Obama to be impeached." No video offered.

Care to show me Fox's bias?

[Tom]

:1a:

Sorry, I do not watch Fox and I do not watch CNN. I'm a Lehrer/BBC person. Frankly I watched Beck once or twice and he is everything you claim the calm, peacful people at your event are not.

Examples?

[Bubba X]

Examples?
The "Glenn Beck 9/12 Project" is a good one. Isn't it sort of odd that he is using the events of that day (well, the day before) to further himself? Beck's popularity, career, etc... all grew markedly after the 9/11 tragedy.

Yet, on his radio show in 2005, Beck said this:

"This is horrible to say, and I wonder if I'm alone in this. You know it took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 victims' families. I don't hate all of them. I hate probably about 10 of them. But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them."

Just google "Glen Beck I hate 9/11 victim families" and you'll find the clip. As an extra bonus, in the same clip he manages to call the people stuck in the Superdome in New Orleans during the hurricane "scumbags."

I don't mind people making money. But a guy like this? Let someone else watch him and pay his bills. Not me.

[Tom]

In context, what he said was pretty much on the mark.
But back to this, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread or the people demonstrating today (post 92.....no relevance).
But then that never stopped you before did it?

[Quagmire]

Just got back from our local TEA party parade - impressive. Over 2,000 people marched through downtown and gathered at the Liberty Pole.

Local (left leaning parer) reporting about 200 people! :lol:
Sorry Charlie, we counted!

Peaceful, concerned citizens protesting the folly of their government.
Libs won't like that.

Glen Beck - live from the Alamo at 5 today, on FOX (Fair and Balanced)

Did you see anyone from "Obama's Gestapo" there?

[Tom]

You mean ACORN?
They will probably be flocking to the major markets for TV coverage of their planned and scripted disruptions.

If you mean his REAL Gestapo - the one profiling American citizens because of their political beliefs, those guys are government employees who are probably at work today - targeting returning soldiers, people who believe in God, or people who are opposed to moronic spending. Those guys are on overtime.
48% of the population meet Obama's definition of urban terrorists.

[Bubba X]

In context, what he said was pretty much on the mark.
But back to this, that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread or the people demonstrating today (post 92.....no relevance).
But then that never stopped you before did it?

You asked me a question and I answered it. Now you come back (S.O.P., natch) and say it's irrelevant. Uh huh, sure.

You go on not thinking for yourself. It's easier that way. Don't feel bad; there a lot of people who live that way.

[Quagmire]

You mean ACORN?
They will probably be flocking to the major markets for TV coverage of their planned and scripted disruptions.

If you mean his REAL Gestapo - the one profiling American citizens because of their political beliefs, those guys are government employees who are probably at work today - targeting returning soldiers, people who believe in God, or people who are opposed to moronic spending. Those guys are on overtime.
48% of the population meet Obama's definition of urban terrorists.

Thank God you didn't run into any of them, it would have sucked if they hauled you off to one of those FEMA camps.

[Bubba X]

48% of the population meet Obama's definition of urban terrorists.

Straight from the b.s. populist sayings page in handbook of the far right lunatic fringe on how to moan about your lot in life.

You've certainly got your work cut out for you.

[ArlJim78]

nice size crowd in downtown Chicago, estimate is 3,000 strong which is not bad for being deep in enemy territory. no lunatics or infiltrators. just a bunch of fired up, fed up people. young, old, rich, poor diverse group. lots of fun.

[ArlJim78]

how about different regulation.

and regulation is the base for a capitalist society, count on it.

if you want free market capitalism of the type you seem to wish for , the pirates are your best example of that system in action.

feel it , know it.
i'm okay for different regulation, smarter regulation, yes.

if i say that more regulation is not the answer it does not automatically mean that I want no regulation. there is a middle ground. people automatically blame lack of regulations without even thinking about it. its an easy target.

[ArlJim78]

PJB: The True Haters
by Patrick J. Buchanan

On Good Friday, John Demjanjuk, 89 and gravely ill, was ordered deported to Germany to stand trial as an accessory to the murder of 29,000 Jews — at Sobibor camp in Poland.

Sound familiar? It should. It is a re-enactment of the 1986 extradition of John Demjanjuk to Israel to be tried for the murder of 870,000 Jews — at Treblinka camp in Poland.

How many men in the history of this country have been so relentlessly pursued and remorselessly persecuted?

The ordeal of this American Dreyfus began 30 years ago.

In 1979, the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) at Justice, goaded and guided by Yuri Andropov’s KGB, was persuaded that Demjanjuk was “Ivan the Terrible,” a huge, brutal, sadistic guard at Treblinka, who bashed in babies’ heads and slashed off women’s breasts, as he drove hundreds of thousands of Jews into the gas chambers.

Demjanjuk’s defense was simple: I was never at Treblinka.


http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-true-haters-1495



since there were gvt , they always shout about the evil hordes that are coming for you out there somewhere.

We are just trying to protect you after all.
of course not, when did I call pirates a big threat? its a relatively minor issue, but it is an issue nonetheless.

i never understood why they've been after this guy for what seems like all my life. i really don't support it.

[riskman]

Returning to the "Tea Party? anyone" this article is a good read.http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory185.html

"So the right hates taxes but loves the wars and rightwing projects that make them necessary. Furthermore, their government under Bush was so enormous that it could not finance itself on taxation alone – much of his warmongering and central planning was funded through borrowing, even as his Ownership Society relied on inflationary easy credit. The depression we face resulted mostly from these policies and every single horrible thing Obama is doing had its precedents in the Bush era. Indeed, the Republicans made such a mess that a full Democratic takeover and move toward socialism were practically inevitable.

Bush created the biggest bubble ever in the name of free enterprise and waged two wars with potentially cataclysmic implications for a century to come. He was like a Hoover and Wilson mixed in one, and by refusing to reject Bush conservatism as strongly as Obama liberalism, today’s conservative movement is still more than a let-down as opposition to the Obama nightmare. Until conservatives adopt libertarianism, the love of peace and freedom regardless of party, they can only be taken so seriously when they complain that taxes are too high."

[prospector]

of course not, when did I call pirates a big threat? its a relatively minor issue, but it is an issue nonetheless.

i never understood why they've been after this guy for what seems like all my life. i really don't support it.
cold, windy, and crowded with Real Americans at the tea party i attended today...local tv coverage was there as well as local press...no fire breathing radicals were spotted..just fed up, concerned citizens..with great signs..

[boxcar]

Note to Professor Bubba; there is no such word !!

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry:irregardless
Pronunciation:*ir-i-*g*rd-l*s
Function:adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date:circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that *there is no such word.* There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Bubbly Bub is right, CJD. There is such a word; however, note the last two sentences. Now we can understand why Bub chose this weird word: It, like he, are both far from general acceptance status, which explains his affinity for this kind of word.

The last sentence offers good advice: Avoid using the word -- and by extension, avoid the user, also, in this case.

Boxcar

[Bubba X]

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

Main Entry:irregardless
Pronunciation:*ir-i-*g*rd-l*s
Function:adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date:circa 1912

nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that *there is no such word.* There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Bubbly Bub is right, CJD. There is such a word; however, note the last two sentences. Now we can understand why Bub chose this weird word: It, like he, are both far from general acceptance status, which explains his affinity for this kind of word.

The last sentence offers good advice: Avoid using the word -- and by extension, avoid the user, also, in this case.

Boxcar
Yo, Miss Marple.

The blue is disastrously constructed. Most 6th graders would expect a C- at best. It, of course, is singular. Are, of course, ain't singular. But, hey, they are both fairly long words and you can't be expected to know everything.

The red, of course, should read, "... also, by extension, avoid..." That probably would knock you down to an overall D+.

Still enough to pass. Congratulations. Give yourself a cookie.

[PaceAdvantage]

Jeez some of you really know how to bog down a thread...

[Floyd]

Jeez some of you really know how to bog down a thread...

You called?

[jballscalls]

cold, windy, and crowded with Real Americans at the tea party i attended today...local tv coverage was there as well as local press...no fire breathing radicals were spotted..just fed up, concerned citizens..with great signs..

Glad you had a good time. A friend of mine even took his two kids out of school to go to the local one. I would have gone to the one here in Portland but alas had to work, can i still be a Real American even if i couldnt attend?

[ArlJim78]

gee, see if you can detect any hint of a bias in this CNN reporters attempt to interview a man at the Chicago rally. Notice she won't let him answer and is antagonistic in her interrogation.


6G3fvNhdoc0

there are just so many things wrong with this. not the least of which is that she keeps trying to spring facts on the guy about the $400 tax credit and the $50 billion that Illinois should receive from the stimulus. newsflash for CNN, these rallies weren't formed by people demanding to receive more money from Washington! the whole idea is to REDUCE spending. this rally was AGAINST the stimulus and this gal comes in touting how big our cut from the stimulus is supposed to be. totally clueless.

[prospector]

Glad you had a good time. A friend of mine even took his two kids out of school to go to the local one. I would have gone to the one here in Portland but alas had to work, can i still be a Real American even if i couldnt attend?
yep, i'd consider you one..

[boxcar]

I would have gone to the one here in Portland but alas had to work, can i still be a Real American even if i couldnt attend?

Only on the condition that you make up for it by attending one on July 4th. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Yo, Miss Marple.

The blue is disastrously constructed. Most 6th graders would expect a C- at best. It, of course, is singular. Are, of course, ain't singular. But, hey, they are both fairly long words and you can't be expected to know everything.

The red, of course, should read, "... also, by extension, avoid..." That probably would knock you down to an overall D+.

Still enough to pass. Congratulations. Give yourself a cookie.

But, master of the English language (not!), "it and "he" are the DUAL subjects. "It, like he, are BOTH far from...". It and he, therefore, are the twin subjects of the sentence! For example, if I had constructed the sentence this way: "It and he are both far from...", it would have have denoted the same thing. It wouldn't read too swell to say, "It, like he, is both far from..." Nor would it read well if I had written, "It and he is both far from..."

Go back stroking your pet rock. Better yet -- go hide under it and eat moss!

Boxcar

[lsbets]

That had t be some of the worst reporting I've ever seen.

[ddog]

So you favor not hounding down nazis?

Was his return done under law?
Was he abducted?

It is up to the courts to decide.
Not hounding suspected nazi's is unacceptable.


i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude you did not look at the whole article, for if you did and this was your best then i am ashamed for you.

Or maybe you agree that a man should be sent around the world until some court some where may find him guilty of something at sometime somehow.


Better to let a hundred free than suffer the over weaning prosecutors that abound in this country.

Maybe at the end of it all , they can try him for being born in germany if nothing else.
:ThmbDown:

[jballscalls]

yep, i'd consider you one..

Right back at you! hopefully Obama and crew will take note of today and realize many of us want less government

[NJ Stinks]

gee, see if you can detect any hint of a bias in this CNN reporters attempt to interview a man at the Chicago rally. Notice she won't let him answer and is antagonistic in her interrogation.


6G3fvNhdoc0

there are just so many things wrong with this. not the least of which is that she keeps trying to spring facts on the guy about the $400 tax credit and the $50 billion that Illinois should receive from the stimulus. newsflash for CNN, these rallies weren't formed by people demanding to receive more money from Washington! the whole idea is to REDUCE spending. this rally was AGAINST the stimulus and this gal comes in touting how big our cut from the stimulus is supposed to be. totally clueless.

I agree. The bias was blatant and clueless. :ThmbDown:

[Secretariat]

The teabagers? I've never seen so many people who make over $250,000 complaining about the rise in their taxes. It was hysterical, and will be forgotten tomorrow. Had to love Obama's comment. "Uh..I just cut taxes for 95% of you." :lol: :lol: :lol:

[jballscalls]

The teabagers? I've never seen so many people who make over $250,000 complaining about the rise in their taxes. It was hysterical, and will be forgotten tomorrow. Had to love Obama's comment. "Uh..I just cut taxes for 95% of you." :lol: :lol: :lol:

my buddy said most of the people who were at his rally, including him were very much middle class people who don't make lots of money. 33 percent or so is still a very high tax.

[Secretariat]

my buddy said most of the people who were at his rally, including him were very much middle class people who don't make lots of money. 33 percent or so is still a very high tax.

You do realize that Obama's budget includes a tax cut for those making under 250K? Where were these same people protesting taxes when Bush was President when 95% of them were paying more? It's a political stunt that wil lbe off the news tomorrow or the next, but it is good for a laugh.

[Floyd]

You do realize that Obama's budget includes a tax cut for those making under 250K? Where were these same people protesting taxes when Bush was President when 95% of them were paying more? It's a political stunt that wil lbe off the news tomorrow or the next, but it is good for a laugh.
"95% of Americans will receive a tax cut in the next year if the upcoming Obama budget passes. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/a-warning-about-the-tea-p_b_186979.html) Only Americans with incomes above $250,000 will receive a small tax increase -- and even then their taxes will be much lower than almost any time in the last 80 or so years. This increase on the top incomes will help pay for some of the Republican-caused economic damage as well as reduce the budget deficits that the country has faced ever since the same income group received tax cuts after George W. Bush was elected. (This is similar to the tax increase in first Clinton budget that led to the great economy of the 1990s and large budget surpluses.)"

[Tom]

Ah, Sec, which is it again? The cherry or gape Kool Aid you love so much? :lol:

Let me tell you, oh clueless one - this was a day for citizens, not parties, and if you think very many of them were rich people, it shows how damn little you know. I was there during lunch and just got home. Good, honest people, dems, repubs, indies, all with one thing in common - fed up with Fedzilla and ready to do something about it. Forgotten tomorrow.....think again, parrot-boy. You saw the awakening today. Theses aren't midless libs you're seeing here.

Your analysis of today was the funniest thing you ever posted.
BTW, how is OBama profiling citizens setting wtih you? You werre a bit antsy when we suggested it backin 2001. And the contiuation of wire taps........Obama giving you a warm and fuzzy, or was that Mathews?

[Tom]

95% of Americans will receive a tax cut in the next year if the upcoming Obama budget passes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/a-warning-about-the-tea-p_b_186979.html)


And you bought that? :lol::lol::lol:

[Secretariat]

"95% of Americans will receive a tax cut in the next year if the upcoming Obama budget passes. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/a-warning-about-the-tea-p_b_186979.html) Only Americans with incomes above $250,000 will receive a small tax increase -- and even then their taxes will be much lower than almost any time in the last 80 or so years. This increase on the top incomes will help pay for some of the Republican-caused economic damage as well as reduce the budget deficits that the country has faced ever since the same income group received tax cuts after George W. Bush was elected. (This is similar to the tax increase in first Clinton budget that led to the great economy of the 1990s and large budget surpluses.)"

Good post. Tom is too busy posting fradulent posts in other threads to bother getting the facts.

[prospector]

You do realize that Obama's budget includes a tax cut for those making under 250K? Where were these same people protesting taxes when Bush was President when 95% of them were paying more?

yes, many of us that you still call republicans were objecting to the spending bush did...
laugh if you want, but based on what i saw today, it ain't going away..they passed out lists of phone numbers/emails for state and federal lawmakers..they named some of the stupid earmarks they voted for..
the main signs i saw were fair tax signs and term limit signs..
earmarks and pork drove people to the rallies..
"party like its 1773" was a popular sign...

[PaceAdvantage]

That had t be some of the worst reporting I've ever seen.And they call FOX biased? Holy shite!

I loved her "not appropriate for family viewing" line....wwwwwhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttt tt?

Is she kidding? She should lose her job. Seriously.

She wasn't an O'Reilly, or Hannity, or an Olbermann....she was a janey-on-the-stop REPORTER reporting during a LIVE NEWS broadcast...not an opinion show.

Have you EVER seen a FOX REPORTER go after someone like that on a NEWS PROGRAM (note, I did not say an OPINION PROGRAM, like O'Reilly).

[Rookies]

Funny, the local right wing ( err... talk radio ) station- WBEN Buffalo, which features one hard core con after another, panned the tea people today. Didn't really suggest that they/you were clued out rubes & neophytes, but did totally question the efficacy of the process. That is, politicians could just yawn and go back to sleep as nobody was speaking to them face to face and that there wouldn't be any proper follow up.

Two interesting sugggestions for the anti tax crowd by two of them:

1) If you spot your politician in line at the supermarket or out to dinner with the wife/husband, THAT'S the time to out him/her with your views. Creates profound embarassment in public, rather than the no contact situation of a protest.

2) It's not enough to protest generically aboput tax. The point is to telll your congressman NOT to accept $$$$ for HIS OWN district. That's the only way to get the point across as so many people say:
" GIVE US the $$$$, just not anyone else."

[Lefty]

rookies, your last two sentences contradict each other.

[Rookies]

rookies, your last two sentences contradict each other.

Don't think so, but maybe I wasn't stating HIS opinion as clearly as I could. The host was stating that the only way the protest would be a success was for people to say: " WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING (local pork projects) FOR US ! " However, he believes most ordinary people will say, given the choice: " DON'T GIVE IT TO ANYONE ELSE, BUT FOR GOD'S SAKE, GIVE IT TO US. "

Therein, lies one of the basic problems of human nature. It's a reverse NIMBY.

[lsbets]

The teabagers? I've never seen so many people who make over $250,000 complaining about the rise in their taxes. It was hysterical, and will be forgotten tomorrow. Had to love Obama's comment. "Uh..I just cut taxes for 95% of you." :lol: :lol: :lol:

Unsurprisingly, you don't get it. First, Obamas budget represents a massive tax increase on all Americans through plans like cap and trade. Second, the spending represents a tax on the future of all Americans. Third, the people who were out there understand a basic truth that you will never get - as government grows, liberty is diminished. Its not about who's marginal tax rates go up or down, it is about an expansion of the size and scope of government which we have never seen before, and which will do more to diminish personal liberty than anything Bush ever did.

BTW - nice parroting of Maddow in your opening. Who is her other viewer?

[Tom]

But let's ask Joe Biden about the taxes.

Hey Joe! Are you guys really going to give 95% of us tax cuts?

[boxcar]

That had t be some of the worst reporting I've ever seen.

Any resemblance between the obnoxious, belligerent antics of this airhead reporter and real reporting is purely coincidental. She wasn't there to report, as much as she was to make her statement. She asked the questions (because this is what a reporter is supposed to do), but had no interest whatsoever in allowing the man to answer them. She simply wasn't interested in hearing what he had to say. But she sure was interested in getting her message out to the audience.

As usual, the MM think the news is all about them.

Boxcar

[Tom]

On the FOX coverage, they made it a point to question why the people were there and pressed some that sounded flaky. Pretty FAB reporting to me.

[Lefty]

sec, I guarantee you that most of the people at the "tea parties" don't make $250,000 a yr. A tax cut for 95%? What a joke. When will libs ever learn that if you raise taxes on an upper group, then they will invest less in the economy and their businesses. That means the lower groups lose jobs. so an extra $13 or so in the paycheck means zilch if there's no paycheck. Also $13 doesn't go very far when energy goes through the roof due to his stupid cap and trade taxes and everything else goes up due to the massive inflation his spending and printing of money will cause.

[ddog]

well if energy taxes go up and it results in the "lower groups"(lefty term) staying off the roads, then I am all for it.

thx lefty.

[jballscalls]

That reporter from CNN was pretty disgusting. However the guy she was interviewing was kind of a dork though, i dont think he had anything interesting to say, but she was still way out of line and obviously was just there to get her message across.

[JustRalph]

CNN board members sit around and try to figure out why they are number 3 in cable news............ this is amazing..........


They actually think people still watch them

[boxcar]

well if energy taxes go up and it results in the "lower groups"(lefty term) staying off the roads, then I am all for it.

thx lefty.

Yes, of course! The roads should be reserved only for you and other elitists. All others can take public transportation or walk or bike. But a word of caution:
Don't think your skateboard can keep up with traffic or is any match in a crash against cars or trucks.

Boxcar

[falconridge]

[ ... ] "it and "he" are the DUAL subjects. "It, like he, are BOTH far from...". It and he, therefore, are the twin subjects of the sentence! [ ... ]

BoxcarNo, they’re not—obviously, decidedly, emphatically not! As you’ve typed them, this succession of words (don’t flatter yourself that you’ve “constructed” a “sentence”) is, as Bubba remonstrates, a gross abomination.

First: the phrase like he (which, with he being the incorrect pronominal case [the proper usage is like him], has problems all its own), is a subordinate clause, effectively in apposition with It, the sole subject of … well, for convenience’ sake, let’s call it your “sentence.” As such, it is functionally sequestered (pace, Paul Allen!) from the sentence’s other components, and serves as a descriptor of—not a secondary or complementary or (as you put it) “DUAL” subject with—It. You wouldn’t write—would you?—something like “Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, like I, are a sage, eloquent, and incontrovertibly righteous opponent of the godless iniquity that is liberalism.” Of course you wouldn’t.

Second: in this context, use of both is supererogation itself; it begs jettisoning (especially as it has apparently confused you about subject/verb agreement). On the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Elements of Style (and forevermore), let us honor Messrs. Strunk and White by heeding dictum #17 in Will’s parvum opus: “Omit needless words” (let me admit right here that it has never been without a considerable effort of resolution that I prevail upon myself to act accordingly; mea maxima culpa :blush: ).

Third: consider, if you will, why you’ve fallen into the same trap that ensnares so many other pseudo-intellectuals. Use of the nominative case (as in your “like he” jumble) when another (namely the objective) is clearly called for, is not—I cannot emphasize this enough—a sign of intelligence, sophistication, or gentility; it’s simply muddleheaded, affected, and (to use a word you’re apparently fond of casting upon your gainsayers) stupid. The same people who wouldn’t dream of blurting such idiocies as “Give he a call” or “Don’t look at I; ask she!” blithely, brainlessly, routinely perpetrate atrocities like “Rupert didn’t bother to pay Hortense and I the same attention he gave Cassandra and Cuthbert.” Ugh!

I’d have thought you knew better, Boxcar. Your ham-handed attempt to defend the indefensible marks you as a self-involved, lazy-thinking poseur. Your boorishly sarcastic, clichéd, puerile rebuffs (“master of the English language (not!)” and “Go back [sic] stroking your pet rock. Better yet – go hide under it and eat moss!”) indicate even worse. :mad:

Quo usque tandem abutere, Boxcar, patientia nostra? Minding your writing a bit more sedulously may actually improve your thinking.

--falconridge

[Bubba X]

No, they’re not—obviously, decidedly, emphatically not! As you’ve typed them, this succession of words (don’t flatter yourself that you’ve “constructed” a “sentence”) is, as Bubba remonstrates, a gross abomination.

First: the phrase like he (which, with he being the incorrect pronominal case [the proper usage is like him], has problems all its own), is a subordinate clause, effectively in apposition with It, the sole subject of … well, for convenience’ sake, let’s call it your “sentence.” As such, it is functionally sequestered (pace, Paul Allen!) from the sentence’s other components, and serves as a descriptor of—not a secondary or complementary or (as you put it) “DUAL” subject with—It. You wouldn’t write—would you?—something like “Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, like I, are a sage, eloquent, and incontrovertibly righteous opponent of the godless iniquity that is liberalism.” Of course you wouldn’t.

Second: in this context, use of both is supererogation itself; it begs jettisoning (especially as it has apparently confused you about subject/verb agreement). On the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Elements of Style (and forevermore), let us honor Messrs. Strunk and White by heeding dictum #17 in Will’s parvum opus: “Omit needless words” (let me admit right here that it has never been without a considerable effort of resolution that I prevail upon myself to act accordingly; mea maxima culpa :blush: ).

Third: consider, if you will, why you’ve fallen into the same trap that ensnares so many other pseudo-intellectuals. Use of the nominative case (as in your “like he” jumble) when another (namely the objective) is clearly called for, is not—I cannot emphasize this enough—a sign of intelligence, sophistication, or gentility; it’s simply muddleheaded, affected, and (to use a word you’re apparently fond of casting upon your gainsayers) stupid. The same people who wouldn’t dream of blurting such idiocies as “Give he a call” or “Don’t look at I; ask she!” blithely, brainlessly, routinely perpetrate atrocities like “Rupert didn’t bother to pay Hortense and I the same attention he gave Cassandra and Cuthbert.” Ugh!

I’d have thought you knew better, Boxcar. Your ham-handed attempt to defend the indefensible marks you as a self-involved, lazy-thinking poseur. Your boorishly sarcastic, clichéd, puerile rebuffs (“master of the English language (not!)” and “Go back [sic] stroking your pet rock. Better yet – go hide under it and eat moss!”) indicate even worse. :mad:

Quo usque tandem abutere, Boxcar, patientia nostra? Minding your writing a bit more sedulously may actually improve your thinking.

--falconridge

Ay, que vida tan cruel, si?

You have your Rush, your FOX and your new gun, so all is still well, right?

[toetoe]

MISS-tuh Chehm'n,

Whereas forsooth and verily, I object to " ... them, this succession of words ..." and "convenience' sake," nada obstante, your thrust is well taken --- as Marilyn Chambers was reportedly heard to say on her deathbed --- and hereby applauded. Boxcar mustneeds be gainsaid, again againque. We might call such contortion of language "doing a Boxcar Wheelie."

This screed was sponsored by:

Boxcar Medical Centers ... if you need an injection, we'll stick it to you.

[Tom]

a Boxcar Wheelie."

This screed was sponsored by:

Boxcar Medical Centers ... if you need an injection, we'll stick it to you.


:lol: You are killing me!

[toetoe]

Quick and dirty solution: "It and he are ..." or even "He and it are ..."

All fixed now ? Well, wha-frigging-la. :jump: .

[falconridge]

MISS-tuh Chehm'n,

Whereas forsooth and verily, I object to " ... them, this succession of words ..." and "convenience' sake," nada obstante, your thrust is well taken --- as Marilyn Chambers was reportedly heard to say on her deathbed --- and hereby applauded. Boxcar mustneeds be gainsaid, again againque. We might call such contortion of language "doing a Boxcar Wheelie."

This screed was sponsored by:

Boxcar Medical Centers ... if you need an injection, we'll stick it to you.
Duly--and respectfully--noted. For " ... them, this ... " I might--then again, might not--be able to build a case. No time just now, as I'm off for a tete-a-tete at 1:20. More anon--perhaps.

"Convenience' sake," like "goodness' sake," happens to be an exception noted on an early page of the original Strunk & White. I'd never availed myself of said option prior to loosing my own screed earlier today. Thought the 50th anniversary would be as good a time as any to try on a new one.

Must run! Back soon,

f.r.

[ddog]

Yes, of course! The roads should be reserved only for you and other elitists. All others can take public transportation or walk or bike. But a word of caution:
Don't think your skateboard can keep up with traffic or is any match in a crash against cars or trucks.

Boxcar


i can only guess at the depths of stupidity that would believe such an admonition needed among we the elites!

Box, get a grip , they are on sale for 11.99 at Costco :lol:

[toetoe]

Fridge,

Loose yer screed, notcher patience.

I perceived a scurrying, scattery quality to your diatribe, now explained by your haste to get out and nurse at the public tete. No doubt you will be found in absentia, where, according to my sources, a delightful golf course has been built.

Tom,

I pray you were joking, as I would hate to know I had killed a fellow circlejerker. Gimme five, now --- UP HIGH [SLAP !!!] --- now down low --- too slow. :rolleyes: .

[JustRalph]

Fox Wipes the Floor with the other networks ..........Tea Party Coverage carries the night



The O'Reilly re-run at 11p just about beats any 3 of the Cnn shows in prime time together :lol: :lol:

[ArlJim78]

this thread might be a classic.

[Bubba X]

Fox Wipes the Floor with the other networks ..........Tea Party Coverage carries the night



The O'Reilly re-run at 11p just about beats any 3 of the Cnn shows in prime time together :lol: :lol:

Most non far-right wingers have two things they'd rather be doing at 11 pm other than watching TV.

[prospector]

Most non far-right wingers have two things they'd rather be doing at 11 pm other than watching TV.
circle and hand?

[Tom]

What's over...NBC? :lol::lol::lol:

[NJ Stinks]

What's over...NBC? :lol::lol::lol:

Sorry to break the news, Tom, but around 10.5M folks watch NBC's Nightly News. It's numero uno and more than doubles the FOX shows. Although I'm sure JustRalph can confirm that bit about FOX for me. :cool:

[Lefty]

Wow, no wonder so many people were brainwashed into voting for Obama. These folks are unfair and unbalanced.
And, guess what, they're FREE. you gotta pay for cable and satellite.

[PaceAdvantage]

Wow...Glenn Beck gets almost twice the viewership in his 5pm slot than any of the other non-Fox hosts in ANY other time slot...:lol:

No wonder he's suddenly shown up on the left's radar screen. Of course, they have nothing but bad things to say about him...

[ddog]

PA


Is this another of your rushbo type defenses?
Do you ever listen to the guy?

Instead of your usual left critique :sleeping: what is your opinion of the guy?

Or is that a given?

[boxcar]

Wow, no wonder so many people were brainwashed into voting for Obama. These folks are unfair and unbalanced

...and unglued.

Boxcar

[toetoe]

I used to hear him on AM radio. Perfectly capable, just ... :sleeping: ... boring. Don't get me wrong, Katie "Death Rictus" Couric makes me want to poke out my eyes.

[Lefty]

Glenn Beck used to be on CNN. I wondered what he was doing there? I thought, 'this guy should be on Fox' Now he is. TV prgm not boring at all.

[ddog]

Glenn Beck used to be on CNN. I wondered what he was doing there? I thought, 'this guy should be on Fox' Now he is. TV prgm not boring at all.


lefty, now I am treading on thin ice here, but i listen to part of his radio gig almost every morning while puttin around and he is not much more than a weepy clown although his lack of depth on almost anything he brings up is funny in itself.

Once he is past his pocket constitution and his they are all out to get me rants he runs down quickly.

[toetoe]

No lesser an authority than Mr. Van der Scion Cooperphrage 3 X 23 weighed in on the event, explaining the difficulty of othertasking whilst teabagging. Oh, and the 800-pound., 24-inch gorilla in the room ? That's behind him now, thanks very much.

You've all been mah-velous, and I hold you in the highest irregard. I am simply whelmed.

Scrotell T. Baggins

[delayjf]

Unsurprisingly, you don't get it. First, Obamas budget represents a massive tax increase on all Americans through plans like cap and trade. Second, the spending represents a tax on the future of all Americans. Third, the people who were out there understand a basic truth that you will never get - as government grows, liberty is diminished. Its not about who's marginal tax rates go up or down, it is about an expansion of the size and scope of government which we have never seen before, and which will do more to diminish personal liberty than anything Bush ever did.

Isbet, I think he gets it - in fact he's down with it.

[ddog]

[B]The Moral Duty to Cut and Run
Why America Must Lose the War in Iraq

What is a patriot to do when his country's cause is unjust? Since our government's invasion of Iraq in 2003, that question has been smoldering in the hearts and souls of many thoughtful and patriotic Americans.

Nobody loves this country more than do members of the America First Party. We will defer to no one in our loyalty and love for its Constitution, the spirit of its Founders, or the overflowing blessings which God has bestowed upon it. America is unexcelled in wealth, beauty, majesty, and goodness.

But we are not blind to the faults that have developed of late in our nation. That is why our party fights for our country - to preserve its heritage, to restore those things in need of repair, and to maintain it as a bastion of liberty, opportunity, and greatness. We put our trust in God, that He will be our Helper in this noble enterprise.

http://americafirstparty.org/archive/hey_cutandrun.shtml

We must start over, the whole thing is a shadow of the ideals many now want to proclaim support for since the politcal tide turned from their party.

[Lefty]

The iraq war is just. And it's simply not logical to equate a war against terrorists with a domestic squabble with your neighbor. But don't worry, if you think the war is a sham, just wait till we get hit again. It is almost inevetible with the dims approach to foreign policy. Did you hear what Chuck Schumer said a few days ago. 'The days of traditional values and strong foreign policy is over.'
Obama bows to kings, shakes hands with tyrants and runs this country down. And now he's "outed" the CIA. Our enemies must be crapping their pants with glee.

[JustRalph]

Lou Dobbs on critics of the Tea Party types

kOycxiaBcGI

[George Sands]

No, they’re not—obviously, decidedly, emphatically not! As you’ve typed them, this succession of words (don’t flatter yourself that you’ve “constructed” a “sentence”) is, as Bubba remonstrates, a gross abomination.

First: the phrase like he (which, with he being the incorrect pronominal case [the proper usage is like him], has problems all its own), is a subordinate clause, effectively in apposition with It, the sole subject of … well, for convenience’ sake, let’s call it your “sentence.” As such, it is functionally sequestered (pace, Paul Allen!) from the sentence’s other components, and serves as a descriptor of—not a secondary or complementary or (as you put it) “DUAL” subject with—It. You wouldn’t write—would you?—something like “Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, like I, are a sage, eloquent, and incontrovertibly righteous opponent of the godless iniquity that is liberalism.” Of course you wouldn’t.

Second: in this context, use of both is supererogation itself; it begs jettisoning (especially as it has apparently confused you about subject/verb agreement). On the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Elements of Style (and forevermore), let us honor Messrs. Strunk and White by heeding dictum #17 in Will’s parvum opus: “Omit needless words” (let me admit right here that it has never been without a considerable effort of resolution that I prevail upon myself to act accordingly; mea maxima culpa :blush: ).

Third: consider, if you will, why you’ve fallen into the same trap that ensnares so many other pseudo-intellectuals. Use of the nominative case (as in your “like he” jumble) when another (namely the objective) is clearly called for, is not—I cannot emphasize this enough—a sign of intelligence, sophistication, or gentility; it’s simply muddleheaded, affected, and (to use a word you’re apparently fond of casting upon your gainsayers) stupid. The same people who wouldn’t dream of blurting such idiocies as “Give he a call” or “Don’t look at I; ask she!” blithely, brainlessly, routinely perpetrate atrocities like “Rupert didn’t bother to pay Hortense and I the same attention he gave Cassandra and Cuthbert.” Ugh!

I’d have thought you knew better, Boxcar. Your ham-handed attempt to defend the indefensible marks you as a self-involved, lazy-thinking poseur. Your boorishly sarcastic, clichéd, puerile rebuffs (“master of the English language (not!)” and “Go back [sic] stroking your pet rock. Better yet – go hide under it and eat moss!”) indicate even worse. :mad:

Quo usque tandem abutere, Boxcar, patientia nostra? Minding your writing a bit more sedulously may actually improve your thinking.

--falconridge

What an entertaining post! Never has Boxcar's writing been put to better use!

[hcap]

What an entertaining post! Never has Boxcar's writing been put to better use!Boxcarian-the act of inflating the language to match ones' own ponderous ego.

[Tom]

hcap....abbreviation for Holy Crap!

[hcap]

hcap....abbreviation for Holy Crap!Tom, speaking of ponderous egos. Found Obamas birth certificate yet? Or too busy out teabagging and invading DC?

[fast4522]

Pure hate will only serve to destroy the left, sure many Americans might have had a axe to grind with Bush on election eve, but I am very confident most dislike the psycho euro rubbish, going on and did not sign on for it. The republic will stand as it always has, every two years the full house is up for election and as we all know and enjoy, the pendulum swings the other way, and the fruit cakes will moan again.

[NJ Stinks]

Pure hate will only serve to destroy the left, sure many Americans might have had a axe to grind with Bush on election eve, but I am very confident most dislike the psycho euro rubbish, going on and did not sign on for it. The republic will stand as it always has, every two years the full house is up for election and as we all know and enjoy, the pendulum swings the other way, and the fruit cakes will moan again.

Until then I wonder who is gonna moan for us? :p

(FYI, I don't hate anybody. For what? It's a free country.)

[PaceAdvantage]

lefty, now I am treading on thin ice here, but i listen to part of his radio gig almost every morning while puttin around and he is not much more than a weepy clown although his lack of depth on almost anything he brings up is funny in itself.

Once he is past his pocket constitution and his they are all out to get me rants he runs down quickly.My guess is that nobody in this world will ever be capable of impressing you more than you, so I tend to take your reviews with a grain of salt.

[Suff]

Fox Wipes the Floor with the other networks ..........Tea Party Coverage carries the night





The O'Reilly re-run at 11p just about beats any 3 of the Cnn shows in prime time together :lol: :lol:

As you are touting a few million Fox news watchers, here's a look at the real world as it speeds by your window. Top Global News Web Sites.

Nielsen web ratings released today.





1 MSNBC Digital Network 39,900,000
2 CNN Digital Network 38,724,000
3 Yahoo! News 37,902,000
4 AOL News 23,604,000
5 NYTimes.com 20,118,000
Nearly 40 million monthly unique users to MSNBC.com. Nearly 80 Million monthly users combined between CNN and MSNBC

http://www.editorandpublisher.com (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003963674)

[ArlJim78]

okaaay, i guess not everyone is familar with the difference between the web and cable tv.

[Suff]

okaaay, i guess not everyone is familar with the difference between the web and cable tv.

Obviously not. There is no difference. Its where people get their news that is the subject, or by the ridiculously repeated assertion that because more eyeballs watch Fox Channel then by some magical reason it indicates that the reporting is accurate or it is indicative of mainstream America.

But you know that Jim. You were not thinking that the touting was exclusive to a particular medium. But feel free to continue Jim your only helping the Democrats.

Republicans for the most part are not the political opponents of the Democrats. Blue Dog Democrats are the political opponents of the Democratic party. The DNC is working very hard to run progressive democrats in primaries against Blue Dog's. They are not concerned with republicans. 2010 does not have enough seats in play to even concern the Democrats. The Democrats are in cruise control mainly because of the crap seen here everyday.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nearly 40 million monthly unique users to MSNBC.com.Do they take into account that every time you log out of hotmail, you are AUTOMATICALLY sent to the msn/msnbc site?

[PaceAdvantage]

The Democrats are in cruise control mainly because of the crap seen here everyday.Why isn't off-topic a ghost-town by now? Why are you still here?

[Tom]

So Obama is just a reaction to us here at PA? :lol::lol::lol::lol: