Thursday, June 10, 2010
Retweeting Tea Party Hot Air
This "Tea Farty" site will liberate your inner 10-year-old, who (guaranteed!) can't get enough of gas-passing jokes. The actual tweets of the anti-government, anti-Obama tea partiers (with bad spelling and mysterious syntax intact) gave us the only chuckles of the morning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
And these juveniles wish to be taken seriously?
The Tea Party Movement hot air isn't hot air to folks like Henry "Health Care" Reid or Richard "Land Trade" Burr. Incumbants on both sides are nervously waiting to see if they will be able to get out of the way of this proletariat movement. With no other caucus ready to take back our country, the Tea Partiers represent our last best chance to re-establish freedom and personal responsibility within our society.
Some feel the government is responsible for giving us basic needs such as housing, food, entertainment (government approved of course; as per Fairness Doctrine), and wages. The Tea Party is made up of Independents, Republicans, and yes, Democrats who realize that reliance on government is not so easy to reverse once embedded throughout society. "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability" - these are the words of Karl Marx. Our country is trending towards something similar - the Tea Party is oppossed to this.
I find it telling that Nancy Pelosi is no longer calling Tea Party members "Nazis" or any other names for that matter. Something she felt was a passing fad is now threatening a fellow Congresswoman (Boxer) in California. Pelosi realizes this movement will only grow in importance and clout so she now refrains from addressing it at all. In fact, she herself was derided by members of her own party last week at a town hall meeting. This was not reported by the mainstream media, but, like the Black Panthers intimidating voters during the 2008 elections; it really happened.
The Campaign Reform Finance Act (CRFA) is another example of how Tea Partiers will have an effect in upcoming elections. When President Obama denounced the Supreme Court Decision overturning the CFRA, nearly 80% of polled Americans sided with Obama. The Tea Party has since responded with the truth about CFRA, and that percentage is much lower now. What people didn't realize when Obama was shamefully deriding the Supreme Court Justices (I guess he wanted to kick their asses) in front of America, he was careful to leave out the fact that the CFRA not only prohibited large corporations from criticizing candidates, but it also denies organizations such as the ACLU, PETA, Sierra Club, NRA, and unions from engaging in this same sort of criticism!! Things take on a different light when it becomes illegal for you and I to pool our resources to endorse or oppose any politician who seeks public office! That is downright scary, and the the Supreme Court interpreted the law in an extremely fair fashion!!! Watauga Watch endorses and criticizes politicans - isn't it our right to do so?
The CFRA is something that Karl Marx himself would approve of. Denouncing or supporting candidates of different races, religions, ethnic backgrounds, personal views and otherwise is opposite of the base elements of communism. The Tea Party understands the dangers inherent in CFRA and other rules designed to silence you and me.
Go Tea Party. Save our nation before we are unable to do it ourselves.
Dog Tom
There is only the manufactured enemy for the Tea Baggers to attack.
"...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury; signifying nothing." - W.S.
BikerBard,
Runaway deficit spending is a manufactured enemy?
Are you sleep-typing during a fantastic dream or something?
Mike, the only reason runaway deficit spending is such a problem for us is because the real powers behind the throne have successfully pushed the meme that taxation is unfair and hurts the middle class. In reality "redistributing the wealth" is crucial for maintaining a democracy. When an extreme imbalance of wealth exists, societies devolve into class warfare. Our spending during and after WW2 was comparable to what it is now, but taxes on the upper income brackets were nearly triple what they are now.
"The absence of effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting has tended to create a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power. The prime need is to change the conditions which enable these men to accumulate power which is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise. We grudge no man a fortune which represents his own power and sagacity, when exercised with entire regard to the welfare of his fellows."
– Theodore Roosevelt, speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, "The New Nationalism" (August 31, 1910)
Dog Tom - some of us feel that we are the government, and the government is us (or at least should be) and therefore the real function of the government is to promote the general welfare.
Anonymous,
And many believe government works for us and should be limited in nature. The general welfare theories as they relate to government have not proved very effective at the Russians, Chinese, Nazis, and Cubans can all attest to. Personal responsibility and the freedom to choose one's destiny without burdensome nanny state rules and regulations are what set the US apart from other forms of government.
Dog Tom
Dog Tom - Personal freedoms include freedom from damage by companies that sell poisonous or dangerous products. It includes freedom to grow in a healthy environment. It includes freedom from the fear and stress of existing on the razor's edge of want or starvation. We need rules and regulations to protect us from the thieves and the parasites that inevitably move in to exploit any opportunity. Remember that rules and regulations come about as a response to problems. It's a simple fact that the more crowded and complex society becomes, the more rules and regulations we need to live safely and peacefully together. If you live on a homestead 45 miles from a neighbor, you can do pretty much as you please. If you live in a neighborhood 25 feet from the house next door, you must regulate your behavior much more.
You can do anything you want up to your property line or should be able to. Your neighbor can do the same thing. If you don't like what your neighbor does, buy his property or shut up about it. If your neighbor does something that hurts you or your property, sue him. Leave everybody else out of it.
Brushfire,
If what you say is true and we need more governemnt to fix our problems, then why is the current administration doing NOTHING about the oil spill? You mention the corporations and environemnt, but not a word on how the current administration is failing to act. 50 some odd days later and still no declaration of emergency or federal assests to the region. Why aren't there hundreds of skimming vessels taking the oil off the top before it reaches shore? It almost seems as if some want this disaster to be much worse than it already is. Why is the President not calling for aid programs for those affected in the Gulf? No Hollywood benefits have yet taken place which seems strange to say the least.
As for the government protecting us from dangerous or poisonous products, I feel personal responsibility to be far more important than the government regulating our personal lives. Cigarrettes kill people. Don't smoke. The government will only take the rules and regulations to the point that it is impossible to live our lives without breaking some ill-intentioned law. I understand the government even intends to regulate the food industry to the point that you will no longer be able to sell produce out of your garden to the local farmer's market? Is this the type of regulation from dangerous products that you want?
Government is supposed to protect the nation from enemies or situations that threaten national sovereignty and safety. Our wide open borders and the oil spill are two glaring examples indicative of the government's failure to do its' job. Yet Congress wants a Fairness Doctrine? Or to regulate some of our most basic civil rights such as the 2nd Amendment? I think they have it backwards.
Dog Tom
Oh sure, we need the courts clogged with lawsuits against idiots who crap in the creeks, and start careless fires , and let mean dogs run free, and play loud obnoxious music at all hours. What a great way to waste time, money and resources that could go to other purposes. What you just said was that rich people can have a decent life but those too poor to sue or buy all the land around them deserve to suffer from the meanness or stupidity of others.
Dog Tom:
Let's use your example of smoking. Let's have no laws, period.
Children can now purchase. Smoking ruins the dining of others as anyone can now smoke in a restaurant. I am exposed to second-hand smoke, causing a risk of cancer. People with lung problems are in danger due to second-hand smoke.
You see? It doesn't work just to say, "Don't smoke." We must establish "rules of the road."
Biker Bard,
The free market establishes the "rules of the road" not a government. Many restaurants did not allow smoking, while others did. No one is making you eat at restaurants who allow smoking. Banning smoking in all restaurants represents a draconian reponse by the government to establish what is best for people. What about Table Salt Biker? Salt kills people, so the government should prohibit restaurants from allowing customers access to salt, right? Grease and fat. Restaurants should not be allowed to serve meat (Ribeye!!! my mouth is watering already)marbled with more than a certain percentage of fat (set by government bureaucrats of course). Just think of all the lives we could save by unclogging all those arteries. The "rules of the road" will become so severe that even you will want out from underneath them. Would you like the govt. to ban ice skating on lakes because someone once fell through the ice and drowned?
The way I see it, a fool will hurt/kill himself anyway - not any of my business. If you are dumb enough to light a cancer-stick then I am not going to intervene, nor should I, in your impending death. Same thing with seatbelts. They told us that one reason insurance rates were so high is because of all the injuries stemming from abscence of seatbelt use. Even with the typical 80% compliance rate for seatbelt use, our insurance rates have not fallen now have they. Seatbelt use represents yet another example of government interference in our personal lives. It should be my decision, not the governments.
As for obnoxious music or loud dogs, our country managed to get along pretty well before we started relying on police to do our enforcement for us. Loud dogs were dealt with as were loud neighbors. Society learns how to get along via its own "rules of the road". My Grandmother kept chickens, and the neighbor's dog got out on a couple of occassions and killed some of here chickens. The shotgun came out and was kept behind the front door for a couple of months. Eventually when the dog got out again, granny was able to dispatch it with a single shot from Grandpa's ole Cherokee 16 Gauge. The neighbor apologized to granny and things went along normally thereafter. No police, no government interference, no unintended consequences by relying on government to solve problems.
Dog Tom
Dog Tom: The idea that things will work themselves out without rules or regulations sounds great, until you realize that the rules and regulations came about because things weren't working themselves out!
What I hear you say is that there is no way to distinguish between reasonable good regulations and unreasonable intrusive regulations. I disagree. We can justify regulations against smoking because smokers impact everyone around them. They put other's health at risk. We can justify seatbelt requirements because the horrific injurys and deaths in automobile wrecks impact many more people than the victims. I used to believe seatbelts should be a personal choice until I saw and heard an EMS responder who had just finished cleaning up the brains of someone who chose not to wear a seatbelt. We have to collectively decide which actions should be regulated based on how much those actions affect other people. I don't care how much salt you eat because it doesn't affect me. I do care about you driving while yapping on a cell phone because you put me and my loved ones directly at risk.
And let's not forget helmet laws for motorcyclists. Not to wear one is reckless.
Sometimes, we have to legislate stupidity.
In South Carolina (no helmet laws) they are called "organ donars."
Motorcyclists who don't wear helmets leave their messy brains all over the pavement for others to clean up. Not appropriate for crowded city streets.
Post a Comment