T1B

Exactly.
There are a shitload of 'centrist' republicans who were duped into voting for Barry because he campaigned hard as an outsider who would bring real change to Washington.
Instead, he took the very worst of George Bush and stepped on that accelerator.


Marty, yes, there is a split in the tea party.
The one thing they all pretty much agree on is out of control spending and budgets - such as Barry just proposed a few weeks ago.

The movement began with Ron Paul followers, and an important part of Paul's platform is a much more 'reserved' foreign policy than we've had for decades.
Later, the 'Palin wing' very predictably formed - and they give emphasis to 'God' and military interventionism that Paul doesn't.



RACK OCmike!

Very solid takes all the way around.

Without the funding of the Koch brothers and similar plutocrat corporate fuckstains, the Tea Baggers would never have gotten a single candidate elected. The notion that it was some sort of populist grassroots movement is a lie. Sure, there are a lot of uneducated and very scared--and religious--folks out there who are ready to COMPLAIN. Great, but if you are prepared to suggest that any Tea Bagger has put forth a sensible or practical suggestion or policy, well, let's see it. Because the childish draconian nonsense being strutted about by these deluded morons is shunned by even the GOP. Think about it.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The notion that it was some sort of populist grassroots movement is a lie.

it was and still is a grassroots movement, you laughably disingenuous charlatan.

You've got nothing, yet you still insist on dropping in here with patently false screeds. When called on it, you run and hide. For instance, you described NAFTA as being a part of the "right wing" agenda. When I pointed out that Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for it and that Clinton signed it into law, your response was crickets as you moved on to some other talking point you picked up from whatever diseased entities you get your parroted takes from.

Get away from me boy, you bother me.

What's up with the pantie wad in yer crack, wags? I've never said anything good about Bill Clinton. In fact I regard him as a sociopathic rapist who was and remains completely whored out to the corporate plutocrats and the Zionazis. And you certainly can't find anything I've said to the contrary. Of course NAFTA is the heart of the neo-liberal agenda, and its legacy has been catastrophic. Or what? Are you really prepared to defend NAFTA?

We notice you parrot the blindly blaring noise of the Tea Baggers. That is, you don't address the plain fact of the Koch brothers--and similar funders--financing the confused crowd of clowns and cowards that comprise the carping Christers named after a disgusting sex act--generally performed by hyper-hypocritical GOP senators in men's public bathrooms. The average Tea Bagger is almost too dumb to breath. The general statement issued by a Tea Bagger is cause for embarrassment for any traditional conservative or Republican. The Demos love the imploding morons--despite their rashness and dangerous tendencies. Think about it....Palin? Bachmann? Who else? The weird little buzzing head Rand Paul? You see, what we're asking is to see ONE respectable--admirable--Tea Bagger. And let's see ONE practical policy of this so-called movement.

Well the Tea Party that got behind folks this election did so with the notion they would introduce and push for Term Limits.

We'll see where that goes. But I do think it is practical in today's day in age. I think the creation of a "politically elite" class in this country is doing more harm than good.

I don't know that the founders envisioned a career politician or not to be serving in the house and senate. Even if they did, remember - it's a "living breathing document" that wasn't concrete. We discussed that in regards to slavery. People are more corruptible - it seems - today.

I think they should take a look at limits in the Supreme Court too.


Why the fuck not ? We're butchering the Constitution anyway. How about doing something that hamstrings the politicians as much as it has private citizens and states ?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The average Tea Bagger is almost too dumb to breath.

I'm ashamed for making it that far into the shitpost.

LTS TURD wrote:The average Tea Bagger is almost too dumb to breath.

Always good times when one misspells a common english word while trying to make the point that someone else is dumb.

Great job, dicklick.

poptart wrote:

LTS TURD wrote:The average Tea Bagger is almost too dumb to breath.

Always good times when one misspells a common english word while trying to make the point that someone else is dumb.

Great job, dicklick.

It's English.

And there's no spelling errors--and it's perfectly true.

I've offered examples--Palin, Bachmann--of prominent Tea Baggers who are obviously dumber than a bag of sand. So...where's the example of a Tea Bagger who is actually reputable? Rand Paul? That's tough sledding once you get one or two issues deep. Who else? And what about actual policies they advocate? Term limits? That's nothing new--and remains completely impractical. Now if they were calling for an amendment to override the utterly disastrous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision recently rendered by the radical Supreme Court, this would be serious and noteworthy. As it is, their simplistic and childish rantings remain an embarrassment to the GOP, and a laughingstock for everyone else.

Dude...you're crazy.

I believe this is filed under TOTKO.

OCmike wrote:Dude...you're crazy.

^^^^^^^^

testimonial

LTS TURD wrote:And there's no spelling errors--and it's perfectly true.

LTS TURD wrote:The average Tea Bagger is almost too dumb to breath

Breathe, asswipe.

:doh: :doh: :doh:



Talk about kicking your own ass...

Look, twit, if a slight spelling error is all you've got--and causes you to jump around--well this says volumes about your hollow act.

Now, who's the reputable Tea Bagger? Which can stand in public and not seem a clown?

Which "policy" of these simpletons can stand even the GOP scrutiny--without exasperated nose-holding?

In short, explain why the NPR guy was lying.

And notice that no one is applauding him for honestly dismissing the bigoted gibberish of the fake Muslim.

In short,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17eSUnQ-_ek :wink:

Relax, LTS. Just take a deep breathe and count to ten. You'll be fine and we can all breath a sigh of relief.

Well , if one of these parrots could actually produce a reputable Tea Bagger, I'll juggle plates on a unicycle. But no, it's not there.

Meanwhile, the taped NPR "fake donor" skit turns out to be basically fraudulent...that is, deceptively edited..

One "big warning flag" Tompkins saw in the shorter tape was the way it made it appear that Schiller had laughed and commented "really, that's what they said?" after being told that the fake Muslim group advocates for sharia law. In fact, the longer tape shows that Schiller made that comment during an "innocuous exchange" that had nothing to do with the supposed group's position on sharia law, David reports.

Tompkins also says that O'Keefe's edited tape ignores the fact that Schiller said "six times ... over and over and over again" that donors cannot buy the kind of coverage they want on NPR.


So, are we surprised?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:...that is, deceptively edited..

Yes, of course. That's the ticket. "Selectively edited." Schiller wasn't really a bigoted asshole taking money from scummy Muslim freaks. He was merely selectively edited to appear that way. That explains his immediate resignation.

He didn't accept their money at all. He told them no. And they weren't Muslims at all. And the tape was selectively--that is, deceptively--edited. Dispute this? And he was fired--the "resignation" a formality--and this it turns out was premature. Calling the Tea Baggers "racists" certainly isn't bigoted or being an asshole. It's accurate.

What's your point? That NPR is too careful in maintaining a proper objectivity?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Calling the Tea Baggers "racists" certainly isn't bigoted or being an asshole. It's accurate.

False statement.

Really? Gee, you forgot to offer anything to back up that terse decaying acorn rattling down the gutterpipe...


lil' profile of who we're talking about...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPEAXatv ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fp8_nP3 ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb_yqcxi ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpi7qro4 ... re=related

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I'll juggle plates on a unicycle.

I believe that.

Can't be any more difficult than the clown act you perpetrate here.

I bet you can lick your own balls too.

So..let's see the reputable Tea Bagger? WTF!! What a little weasel--a playground catcall and running away? How sad--and the neighbors in Cribdeath must be somewhat dismayed with your kiddie act.

LETS TARD wrote:So..let's see the reputable Tea Bagger?

Is there some reason you don't recognize Rand Paul as reputable?

What..except that he's named after Ayn Rand? Or that he's a classic chick in a guy's body? Or that he can't resist riffing unto radical waves given even half a chance--and he's been given the whole tray. He's a live wire, a bright fellow. But...and I want you to answer this sincerely to yourself...do you really believe he actually Believes?..the standard Christer trip he's playing? Really? Well, you're wrong. Okay, do you believe he's really the utter corporate whore he shamelessly plays? You're right. :wink:

You've got nothing.

Noted.

No, I've got several good reasons right there why he should be treated with serious suspicion. And consider that he has no base or coalition in the senate, and that for every seemingly attractive position he might advocate there's two odious and extreme positions he's excitedly expounding.

Who else?

LETS TARD wrote:for every seemingly attractive position he (Rand Paul) might advocate there's two odious and extreme positions he's excitedly expounding.

You mean odious and extreme like ... proposing a one year budget with a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit, right on the heels of burying us already in a 14 trillion dollar hole?

Something odious and extreme like that?


You're a serious fuckin' toolshed, dude.

It's not "either/or," wad. It never is, and relegating everything to that automatically is the obvious sign of a religious type or a total fool.

As for Ayn Rand Paul, anyone can propose draconian measures. But coming up with actual plausible legislation is something else. He's a right-wing radical whose basic ideas--as usual with extremists--end up coming all the way around the back and start appealing to the left wing radicals. Or what, you never noticed that?

But until we see him, say, actually get up and publicly demand we get out of Afghanistan now, he's just blowing smoke. As usual, his real agenda is union busting and trampling women's right to choose.