http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/politics/16taxday.html?ref=your-money

Oh man, this is soooo bogus!  It's like Joe the Plumber.  A ginned-up pseudo "grassroots" movement to protest taxes on tax day. 

The organizers of this FOX News hype claim they want to revive the spirit of original "Boston Tea Party" in which colonists boarded three ships bearing the East India Company's tea and dumped the cargo into Boston Harbor.  They did this to protest the Tea Act, which benefited primarily the East India Company and more importantly because the colonists insisted the Tea Act violated their constitutional right to be taxed only by their local representatives, in other words, taxation without representation. 

The Republican Party in 2009 is protesting an increase in taxes on the most wealthy Americans and calling it grassroots.  These teabaggers have no legitimate claim to taxation without representation like the Massachusetts colonists in 1773.  They just don't like to pay taxes.  Period. Boo-f**king-hoo!  Nobody does, but it's the price we pay for a livable society. 

Since Reagan, the American rich have had a 28-year orgy of low taxes while more of the burden was shifted onto the working classes.  Social inequality has warped American culture into a state of mass schizophrenia.

The Obama Administration has been cautious and conservative with its call for tax reforms.  The money has to come from where the money is.  Thanks to the super rich getting their way for the past generation, most of the money is concentrated in the highest few percentile of the wealthy. 

Quit bellyaching you self-pitying clowns, and stop perverting the history of what my ancestors did in Boston 235 years ago!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/znaika.gif

The best part of it all is that they're throwing the word "teabagging" around. ;D

The best part of it all is that they're throwing the word "teabagging" around. ;D


Rachel Maddow agrees...and so do I!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/napoleon.gif

Okay, I'll 'fess...I clicked on this thread for all the wrong reasons!  :D

A little history lesson here which isn't found in your average History text about the Boston Tea Party. I read this awhile ago and used the info in a paper. I TRIED to find my notes to give everyone a reference as to what book I read it in but alas, I couldn't find it. So, please forgive me. I am stating this from memory.

The tea in question was sitting in the harbor for days. The Colonists didn't want the tea because it VERY old-something like 7 years old. However, if it was unloaded, the Colonists would be forced to pay taxes on it. The British governor at that time told the Colonists that the tea was going to be unloaded whether they liked it or not-and thus forced to pay the tax on it. But, (as Max already stated) it was dumped the night before it could be unloaded.


And also the taxation without representation was just a rally cry because Parliament DID offer but at that time, it was a bit problematic due to transportation issues. It is not like they could board a plane and be in London the same day.


Ok, history lesson over.


These so-called teabaggers just crack me up. Personally, I think they are protesting because their party is NOT in power any more. Oh, and I love how Paul Krugman describes this: an atroturf movement as opposed to a grassroots movement. Astrotruf-as everyone knows, is fake grass.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat  

wonkette's been ripping into these guys all day long. it's quite funny. although the teabags they've been mailing to congress have started more than one anthrax-style scare the shut down some congressional offices and some yokel tossed a box of teabags over the white house fence today, creating a big security freakout and causing pennsylvania avenue to get shut down. i thought these folks DIDN'T like terrorism!

and of course rachel maddow's been talking about, who came up with this first, the paultarians or the neopubbies. i find the ron paul folks much more sympathetic than the mainstream republicans who grabbed on to this. i think they're misguided about a lot of things but the stuff about fractional reserves and so forth makes a lot of sense to me.

Just out of curiosity, how many people DON'T know why the word ''teabag'' is so funny?  ;D

Just out of curiosity, how many people DON'T know why the word ''teabag'' is so funny?  ;D
apparently just about everybody in flyover country. :P

i remember exactly when i learned what "teabagging" means: 1998, when i saw the movie "pecker."

apparently just about everybody in flyover country. :P

i remember exactly when i learned what "teabagging" means: 1998, when i saw the movie "pecker."


Yeah, that's where I heard it too.  Thank you John Waters!

Of course, "A Dirty Shame" is a great supplement to the Urban Dictionary.
;)

Just out of curiosity, how many people DON'T know why the word ''teabag'' is so funny?  ;D



To be honest, I didn't know until recently.  :-[




Cat

actually the definition in pecker is a little different from the one in urban dictionary.

actually the definition in pecker is a little different from the one in urban dictionary.


So, the definition for "rusty trombone" is a bit different from the one in "A Dirty Shame."
8-P

Oh man, this is soooo bogus!  It's like Joe the Plumber.  A ginned-up pseudo "grassroots" movement to protest taxes on tax day. 


The depressing thing is that it worked.  Rick Santelli's rant was genuine, but it took only a few weeks for it to be hijacked by the Elephant party.  I'd contemplated showing up, but the more I saw it getting hijacked by partisan interests, the more disgusted I became.

The only thing I'll say in defense of the teabaggers (LOL!) is that, unlike the protests drummed up by the left (I'm looking at you, IntSoc / and your ANSWER front group), at least most of the protest signs were handmade with nothing more than Sharpie markers.

But if these people were truly opposed to wasteful spending, where the hell were they from 2000-2008?

My protest?  I took the day off without pay (which actually took a bit of arranging since I'm salaried and have plenty of vacation pay.  Technically it was a one-day unpaid leave of absence).  I showed up at the office anyways, hung out at the water cooler, helped a few friends with random things (which may or may not have been work-related), and placed one small breakeven daytrade (in the name of Capitalism).  After $18 in commissions, I broke even to the nearest dollar - zero tax impact.  But I engaged in honest and voluntary trade from which the government will see no tax revenue. 

(OK, so technically, my broker will pay taxes on the $18 in commissions it earned today, but that's on their conscience, not mine.  If I'd been really clever, I'd have sold at a $12 profit instead of a $18 profit, so I could to deduct the $6 I lost to deny the government the $6ish - at about 33% corporate tax rates - that my broker is going to have to pay on the $18 commission...  but if I'm going to split hairs like that, I should have cut the breaker to the fridge for 24 hours, because the 7 kilowatt-hours of electricity I drew off the grid today is also taxed...  But even us fanatics have to draw the line somewhere.)

  It's always nice to see the protests against coercion and theft by the government... :)

  I think these protests are evidence of Obama pushing too hard to move us too far to the left too quickly.  Newton's laws of motion seem to apply to politics as well as physics.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction...

   It's always nice to see the protests against coercion and theft by the government... :)

   I think these protests are evidence of Obama pushing too hard to move us too far to the left too quickly.  Newton's laws of motion seem to apply to politics as well as physics.  Every action has an equal and opposite reaction...
im not sure if giving hundreds of billions of dollars to bankers can be considered in any way "left." i dont really see obama being particularly left, which actually frustrates me. if he were doing what the left was calling for, he would have nationalized the banks and fired the thieving execs who did this to us. and ironically, i think it would be quite popular.

im not sure if giving hundreds of billions of dollars to bankers can be considered in any way "left." i dont really see obama being particularly left, which actually frustrates me. if he were doing what the left was calling for, he would have nationalized the banks and fired the thieving execs who did this to us. and ironically, i think it would be quite popular.


  On second thought, compared to Bush Obama is a motionless statue.  Bush pushed...

 

Teabagging, family values . . . I spot a Republican joke!!! :)

I saw the Tea Party;s on FOX News. People are tired of big government spending. I mean Government got big with George W. Bush is and is only getting bigger with Obama with this cap and trade stuff for example.

Obama is more left wing than I thought we was. I thought he was more of a centerist. However in Obama's defense he is a centerist in some issues. I like Obama's idea with the high speed rail-system. I like his leadership and speeches that he gives but he's hit or miss with his policies.

Here;s the break down for you of party affilation that attented these tea party's:

Democrats-29% of registered voters attented the Tea Party's

Republicans-47%

Independents- 29%

im not sure if giving hundreds of billions of dollars to bankers can be considered in any way "left." i dont really see obama being particularly left, which actually frustrates me. if he were doing what the left was calling for, he would have nationalized the banks and fired the thieving execs who did this to us. and ironically, i think it would be quite popular.
First off yes I agree with you that giving billions to banks is not left wing I mean that started under George W. Bush so its a bipartisin issue of giving money to banks.

I think firing the theiving banking excecs would have been popular but nationilizing banks would have been a disaster I mean the government can't even manage its own money wisely and you trust them to run a bank? No.

But if these people were truly opposed to wasteful spending, where the hell were they from 2000-2008?

That is a fair point where were people where were the Tea Party protesters when George W. Bush was in office? But I think the continuing bailouts of the banks made people upset and the government printing money made people upset. However Obama is gonna spend more than George W. Bush ever spent.

That is a fair point where were people where were the Tea Party protesters when George W. Bush was in office? But I think the continuing bailouts of the banks made people upset and the government printing money made people upset. However Obama is gonna spend more than George W. Bush ever spent.
i know, it's a pain in the ass how much the government is spending, and i for one am not big on the bank bailouts or the increases in defense spending. i think we could cut defense by 2/3 and be just fine dealing with the somali hordes.

but for those who complain about spending: what is your solution to the broken healthcare system? the fact that we're dependent on a nonrenewable energy resource that's fast running out? the fact that we're poisoning our own environment? we need to find solutions to these problems, or we will die. that's not an exaggeration. and solving these problems takes money. so aside from frivolous asides for rich people and useless spending on missile defense and goofy hyperexpensive jet airplanes, some of this spending is understandable and necessary. these problems arent going to fix themselves and we've been ignoring them for decades.

First off yes I agree with you that giving billions to banks is not left wing I mean that started under George W. Bush so its a bipartisin issue of giving money to banks.

I think firing the theiving banking excecs would have been popular but nationilizing banks would have been a disaster I mean the government can't even manage its own money wisely and you trust them to run a bank? No.
bank nationalization is actually a temporary solution. you nationalize, restructure, fire the bad actors and bring in independent accountants to clean up the books. takes about a week. then you hire new folks to fill the staffing gaps and reprivatize. it's not a permanent solution and i dont think anyone's suggesting that.

Social inequality has warped American culture into a state of mass schizophrenia.


I love it!  Brilliant Max.  ;D

I seriously wonder how many of the protesters make more than 250k a year.  I mean, how many of them do you think are even going to be affected by Obama's tax proposals?  That's what really kills me about all of this.

i know, it's a pain in the ass how much the government is spending, and i for one am not big on the bank bailouts or the increases in defense spending. i think we could cut defense by 2/3 and be just fine dealing with the somali hordes.
but for those who complain about spending: what is your solution to the broken healthcare system? the fact that we're dependent on a nonrenewable energy resource that's fast running out? the fact that we're poisoning our own environment? we need to find solutions to these problems, or we will die. that's not an exaggeration. and solving these problems takes money. so aside from frivolous asides for rich people and useless spending on missile defense and goofy hyperexpensive jet airplanes, some of this spending is understandable and necessary. these problems arent going to fix themselves and we've been ignoring them for decades.
I agree about about dealing with the pirates I mean why can;t the ships that carry people from the US to go overseaes just carry guns? I mean thats an easy solution for dealing with something like the Somali pirates for example. What do you do about North Korea though? I mean King Jong II is out of touch with reality totally I mean the guy doesn't even take orders from the United Nations.

I agree our healthcare system is broken.

The thing is like you sort of said the timing of this spending is bad I mean this the worst reccesion since the early 80's reccesion and the government is spending money like its 2004(boom times.)

I love it!  Brilliant Max.  ;D

I seriously wonder how many of the protesters make more than 250k a year.  I mean, how many of them do you think are even going to be affected by Obama's tax proposals?  That's what really kills me about all of this.
Its not even Obama's tax proposals its about big government spending. However, the tea party's in Sacramento, California yesterday did have something to do with governor's Schwartzanager's tax increases in CA that affects everybody in CA not just the rich.

I am for Obama's tax increases on the rich I mean Obama is right the rich can pay a little bit more taxes because they make more. I am not for  US states taxing the rich more though. In my opinion we don;t need states increasing taxes on the rich when Obama is already doing it.

I really wish that people would learn their left from their right. This country has been leaning to the right for so long and anything in the center seems "far-left". And it really bugs me that people throw terms around like socialism & Marxism when they don't know what the f*** they are talking about! Might I suggest a course in Political Science by someone who KNOWS what they are talking about rather than the likes of Rush, Sean, or Bill.


It just floors me how people protest against their own interest. Who is Obama going to raise taxes on? The rich. I'm sure all those people who were wearing teabags on their hats do not make even close to the $250,000. He is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire and we all know who those tax cuts benefited. They just don't get it-you cut Federal taxes and who has to pick up the slack? The states. So, you are paying higher property taxes to pay for schools, and such. So the answer is to cut more taxes. There goes our roads. How soon do we forget about I-35 in Minneapolis. But yet, people scream, "Why weren't the roads & bridges repaired?" Well, how do you expect the roads to be repaired when revenues are limited because of (you guessed it) tax cuts. Yet, most of these protests took place in parks. How are the parks maintained? Well, through taxes. 

What people really should be protesting is how the corporate world gets away WITHOUT paying taxes. They ship jobs overseas so they don't have to pay high wages (or health care) and they take a lot of the earnings to tax shelters like the Cayman Islands and we, the taxpayers have to make up the $100 BILLION difference. That is something that ALL of us should be angry about.


http://www.uspirg.org/news-releases/product-safety2/product-safety-news2/washington-d.c.-new-study-highlights-100-billion-a-year-hidden-in-off-shore-tax-havens




Cat

I would protest too!

I might just ask Obama for a Stimulus check for $3000 while I'm at it...because that how much my parents owe me.

Looks like I'm stuck at home again for another year.  :\'(

Ted Nugent and Penn Gillette on the Glenn Beck show...who can complain!
:D

I really wish that people would learn their left from their right. This country has been leaning to the right for so long and anything in the center seems "far-left". And it really bugs me that people throw terms around like socialism & Marxism when they don't know what the f*** they are talking about! Might I suggest a course in Political Science by someone who KNOWS what they are talking about rather than the likes of Rush, Sean, or Bill.


It just floors me how people protest against their own interest. Who is Obama going to raise taxes on? The rich. I'm sure all those people who were wearing teabags on their hats do not make even close to the $250,000. He is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire and we all know who those tax cuts benefited. They just don't get it-you cut Federal taxes and who has to pick up the slack? The states. So, you are paying higher property taxes to pay for schools, and such. So the answer is to cut more taxes. There goes our roads. How soon do we forget about I-35 in Minneapolis. But yet, people scream, "Why weren't the roads & bridges repaired?" Well, how do you expect the roads to be repaired when revenues are limited because of (you guessed it) tax cuts. Yet, most of these protests took place in parks. How are the parks maintained? Well, through taxes. 


  I think the intention of the protests are primarily to express opposition to all the government overspending and over-taxation.  This is not just an Obama, Dem or Rep protest - the protests are directed towards all of government, including states.  Yeah, some people are toting their Obama signs, but I don't think that was the original intent...

  Don't worry, it's only been 70 some-odd days.  All this lovely deficit spending will require tax increases from everyone, it's only a matter of time.  So no need to fret, your increase will come, before the end of the first term...



What people really should be protesting is how the corporate world gets away WITHOUT paying taxes. They ship jobs overseas so they don't have to pay high wages (or health care) and they take a lot of the earnings to tax shelters like the Cayman Islands and we, the taxpayers have to make up the $100 BILLION difference. That is something that ALL of us should be angry about.

http://www.uspirg.org/news-releases/product-safety2/product-safety-news2/washington-d.c.-new-study-highlights-100-billion-a-year-hidden-in-off-shore-tax-havens

Cat



  We really should do something about that...

With these people, ANY taxation is over-taxation and ANY spending is overspending.

It's easy to poke holes in their arguments because their arguments are not really arguments so much as sentiments. 

99% of the clowns going teabagging will benefit from Obama's proposals.  The impetus of this "movement" seems not to be directly from FOX News, but from the Newt Gingrich wing of the Republican party--the fascists.  The interests served by these rallies are those of the wealthiest 1% of the population...perhaps the top few deciles of that top 1%.  There's a corps of about 300,000 or so extremely rich people who possess incredible wealth and influence in this country thanks to Reaganomics.  If you're one of them, you know you've got to keep the hoi poloi hating the words "tax," "spend," and "government."  The reasons don't have to make sense; you just have to keep them voting against their own interests and for yours. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif

http://www.mediatakeout.com/e3df39d940934aad/1239973203racistteapartysigns1.jpg


To be fair, I don't necessarily think this sign is racist. You could just as easily depict a white president like Bush as a knife wielding thug(which would actually be pretty appropriate...)

To be fair, I don't necessarily think this sign is racist. You could just as easily depict a white president as a knife wielding thug...
yeah it's more treasonous. but i agree it's not necessarily racist (except for the crime-african american connection, which is sorta tenuous here, i suppose.) the sillier signs i see at liberal protests are often of this sort. bush molesting uncle sam and so forth.

Why would somebody carry a poster that says "wap"?

O'bama is not Italian. 

yeah it's more treasonous. but i agree it's not necessarily racist (except for the crime-african american connection, which is sorta tenuous here, i suppose.) the sillier signs i see at liberal protests are often of this sort. bush molesting uncle sam and so forth.


Yes, and there is a graphic that shows the Republican elephant sodomizing somebody.  >:(

Yes, and there is a graphic that shows the Republican elephant sodomizing somebody.  >:(
well on that i say fair's fair. pubbies did kinda fudge up royally last eight years.

well on that i say fair's fair. pubbies did kinda fudge up royally last eight years.


Well if they ran that same graphic but instead of an elephant you had Barney Frank, there would be a huge uproar.

Well if they ran that same graphic but instead of an elephant you had Barney Frank, there would be a huge uproar.
well, the republicans tend to hate gay marriage so i think the image isn't bigotedly implying that republicans are secretly gay, just that they're fudging us.

i think you made a barney frank gay joke on this very board not too long ago and received no negative feedback.


I don't think so.  Show me the post!

Why would somebody carry a poster that says "wap"?

O'bama is not Italian. 


You're thinking of WOP...the guy with the sign is thinking of Batman with Adam West!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/darkangel.gif


Well if they ran that same graphic but instead of an elephant you had Barney Frank, there would be a huge uproar.


Hey that's Bawney Fwank in an elephant suit!
:D

yeah it's more treasonous. but i agree it's not necessarily racist (except for the crime-african american connection, which is sorta tenuous here, i suppose.) the sillier signs i see at liberal protests are often of this sort. bush molesting uncle sam and so forth.


Nope.  That's the black man as Nat Turner.  Feeeear of the big angry Negro!  As it was in 1909, so it is in 2009. 
::)

I don't think so.  Show me the post!


Well, the closest thing I can find is this:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=35334.msg1844960#msg1844960
(second post in the thread)

But I don't consider it offensive or insulting in any way.

Well, the closest thing I can find is this:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=35334.msg1844960#msg1844960
(second post in the thread)

But I don't consider it offensive or insulting in any way.


Nor was it intended.

I don't think so.  Show me the post!
yeah, i rethought and deleted that bit but not before you quoted. i'm thinking of someone else's post, i think, but i can't find it now.

This was the civilized revolution Rep. Bachman wanted. ::)  Republicans weren't bitching when Bush was taxing the hell out of the working and middle class.  Oh of course since Obama is in office they're complaining because it takes money in order to clean up an economic mess and perhaps have a little left over to help those who've lost everything.  Teabagging to me is just pansy bitching about not having power anymore.

This was the civilized revolution Rep. Bachman wanted. ::)  Republicans weren't bitching when Bush was taxing the hell out of the working and middle class.  Oh of course since Obama is in office they're complaining because it takes money in order to clean up an economic mess and perhaps have a little left over to help those who've lost everything.  Teabagging to me is just pansy bitching about not having power anymore.


You got that right!

i gotta admit the size of the budget makes me pretty queasy too. oddly, though, the national debt is so large now that it's just not going to be paid off. it simply is not possible. so i dont know what the resolution of the debt is going to be, but raising taxes to pay it off is unlikely. raising taxes on large quantities of the public is instant political suicide anyway, we seem to like to have the benefits of public services but no one wants to pitch in. so we're going to get the society we deserve, with an attitude like that.

as for the protests being nonpartisan...

http://www.mediatakeout.com/e3df39d940934aad/1239973205racistteapartysigns2.jpg
http://www.mediatakeout.com/e3df39d940934aad/1239973203racistteapartysigns1.jpg
http://www.mediatakeout.com/e3df39d940934aad/1239973201racistteapartysigns.jpg

now to be fair i've been to a few antiwar and otherwise liberal protests and have seen dorks there with all sorts of idiotic signs that made me pray no one from the press would see them. but there was a LOT of the above at the teabagger protests, along with open talk of seceeding from the union, naked nostalgia for the confederacy, and open talk advocating violence against the president. it's pretty hideous stuff imo, and i'd be ashamed to have had anything to do with it. policy debates about obama's budget is one thing, and i'd welcome people criticizing the size of the budget on reasonable grounds, but that's not what these guys are bringing. they're bringing violent reactionary extremism of the worst sort.


  So, the plot thickens.  It's not what it appeared to be at first glance, this tea party...

  That's one of the great things about free speech,: It empowers complete fools to proudly identify themselves, so the rest of us know who the hell to avoid...

  I certainly don't envy Obama his job. This is a complete f**king mess.  He could heal the sick, walk on water, and bring world peace in the rest of his days, but he's always going to be remembered for the bailout.  Sad, in a way, but that's also part of the reason for the hype.  They want Obama to fail.  They don't care how badly that failure would hurt their neighbors.  They just want the Democrat to fail...

   So, the plot thickens.  It's not what it appeared to be at first glance, this tea party...

   That's one of the great things about free speech,: It empowers complete fools to proudly identify themselves, so the rest of us know who the hell to avoid...

   I certainly don't envy Obama his job. This is a complete f**king mess.  He could heal the sick, walk on water, and bring world peace in the rest of his days, but he's always going to be remembered for the bailout.  Sad, in a way, but that's also part of the reason for the hype.  They want Obama to fail.  They don't care how badly that failure would hurt their neighbors.  They just want the Democrat to fail...
i actually totally blame obama for the bailout, and i think the bailout sucks. i just see the teabaggers don't seem to acknowledge that this policy is probably the most bush-like aspect of the obama administration (hell, he literally inherited it!) and that their, the teabaggers', ideological masters -- foxnews, et al. -- actually support the bailouts themselves, but would like to also use the bailouts to stir up populist fervor now that someone with a D after their name is doling them out. i think that's why a lot of the teabag protests are fast devolving into "obama's a kenyan muslim terrorist saudi commie" silliness.

and again, to be fair, when i've gone to left-wing protests i've seen plenty of crazies and spent lots of time furiously facepalming. it seems like the left is doing a very effective job of making these teabaggers look like fools. you could go to an antiwar rally in 2003 and find all sorts of people calling bush a "fascist" but i'm not aware of a foxnews commentator ever confronting one of those protesters and asking flat out what their definition of fascism was or why they thought bush qualified. they had someone from CNN do just that at a teabagger rally and it made the guy look like an idiot when he had no answer.

so i think jon stewart got it right when he said the right, in demonstrating, has become everything it always hated about the left. i think they thought, well, the liberals have been getting away with all this outrageous stuff in demonstrations for decades, now it's our chance! but because the left already knew all the tricks they were more able to turn it around and throw it in the teabaggers' faces. so to speak.

What people really should be protesting is how the corporate world gets away WITHOUT paying taxes. They ship jobs overseas so they don't have to pay high wages (or health care) and they take a lot of the earnings to tax shelters like the Cayman Islands and we, the taxpayers have to make up the $100 BILLION difference. That is something that ALL of us should be angry about.

http://www.uspirg.org/news-releases/product-safety2/product-safety-news2/washington-d.c.-new-study-highlights-100-billion-a-year-hidden-in-off-shore-tax-havens




Cat
I used to be on a automobile site and they used to talk us down(the Japanese Car Owners) sayng we should buy Domestic Big 3 vehicles. The "Buy American" car people totally excuse when Fortune 500 american companies ship jobs overseas but Buy American car people complain when American people buy import branded cars instead and say keep our jobs in the US. Thats a double standard!

   So, the plot thickens.  It's not what it appeared to be at first glance, this tea party...

   That's one of the great things about free speech,: It empowers complete fools to proudly identify themselves, so the rest of us know who the hell to avoid...

   I certainly don't envy Obama his job. This is a complete f**king mess.  He could heal the sick, walk on water, and bring world peace in the rest of his days, but he's always going to be remembered for the bailout.  Sad, in a way, but that's also part of the reason for the hype.  They want Obama to fail.  They don't care how badly that failure would hurt their neighbors.  They just want the Democrat to fail...
Dave, thats ridiculous and you know it. The public had alot more beef with George W. Bush than they do with Obama.

Dave, thats ridiculous and you know it. The public had alot more beef with George W. Bush than they do with Obama.


Personally, my argument is that the Republicans are currently doing to themselves what the Democrats did to themselves around the buildup to the Iraq War.

Basically, the average person views these tea parties as silly as they viewed a lot of the more extreme anti-war people.

Personally, my argument is that the Republicans are currently doing to themselves what the Democrats did to themselves around the buildup to the Iraq War.

Basically, the average person views these tea parties as silly as they viewed a lot of the more extreme anti-war people.
What does anti-war have to do with government being big spenders?

I used to be on a automobile site and they used to talk us down(the Japanese Car Owners) sayng we should buy Domestic Big 3 vehicles. The "Buy American" car people totally excuse when Fortune 500 american companies ship jobs overseas but Buy American car people complain when American people buy import branded cars instead and say keep our jobs in the US. Thats a double standard!



The thing is, most of the "foreign" cars are built right here in the U.S. by American workers. And there is also the issue of the Big 3 building bigger & bigger gas guzzlers. When gas was at a $1.20 or lower, it wasn't much of an issue. But last year when it was up to close $4 a gallon or higher, THEN the Big 3 realized that they should have been making more fuel efficient cars-and by that time it was, of course, too late.

But, the point of my last post was the fact that corporations are using tax shelter so they don't have to pay taxes and ALL of us have to pick up the slack. 



Cat

What does anti-war have to do with government being big spenders?


Something to do with not getting ourselves into unwinnable, unnecessary wars so the government can spend our tax dollars making corrupt crony defense contractors fat and happy at our expense.
???

Something to do with not getting ourselves into unwinnable, unnecessary wars so the government can spend our tax dollars making corrupt crony defense contractors fat and happy at our expense.
???




;D ;D ;D ;D  Karma for that.



Cat

I love it!  Brilliant Max.  ;D

I seriously wonder how many of the protesters make more than 250k a year.  I mean, how many of them do you think are even going to be affected by Obama's tax proposals?  That's what really kills me about all of this.


Let's see, taxes on cigarettes and alcohol just went up across the board, that tends to affect those on the lower end of the income scale and this irresponsible and reckless spending is completly unfunded. Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000 and getting rid of the exemptions many of them claim won't even come close to raising anything like the several trillion dollars the President has already committed. As it stands, the current proposals that will affect high earners aren't projected to earn more than 30 to 35 billion a year by 2012. Before I hear the cries of "he'll close corporate loopholes", this refers to around 900 billion dollars that the Tax Policy Center refers to as 'unverifiable revenue'. Essentially, the President wants to increase the amount of taxes taken from large corporations by 25%.. in a down economy.

Whilst I find the manner of protest humorous, I happen to agree with the theme behind it. You can't continue to spend money you don't have and can't get! I know I'm about to hear the liberal roar "Over the past 8 years, that's all that's happened!" I agree, now don't you want to change that?

Let's see, taxes on cigarettes and alcohol just went up across the board, that tends to affect those on the lower end of the income scale and this irresponsible and reckless spending is completly unfunded. Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000 and getting rid of the exemptions many of them claim won't even come close to raising anything like the several trillion dollars the President has already committed. As it stands, the current proposals that will affect high earners aren't projected to earn more than 30 to 35 billion a year by 2012. Before I hear the cries of "he'll close corporate loopholes", this refers to around 900 billion dollars that the Tax Policy Center refers to as 'unverifiable revenue'. Essentially, the President wants to increase the amount of taxes taken from large corporations by 25%.. in a down economy.

Whilst I find the manner of protest humorous, I happen to agree with the theme behind it. You can't continue to spend money you don't have and can't get! I know I'm about to hear the liberal roar "Over the past 8 years, that's all that's happened!" I agree, now don't you want to change that?



Obama is looking to overhaul the ENTIRE tax structure of this country by the end of the year. That should be interesting and I really hope it can be done and be a bit more fair to ALL.



Cat

Obama is looking to overhaul the ENTIRE tax structure of this country by the end of the year. That should be interesting and I really hope it can be done and be a bit more fair to ALL.

Cat


Fairness includes punishing success?

I would agree that the Bush tax cuts were unfair, as it were, but the top 5% already contribute over 53% of all personal tax revenue in the country. I simply fail to see why they should fund further programs that don't serve to benefit them in any way.
And regardless of this fact, as I've already stated, the proposed tax increases on the highest earners aren't projected to increase revenue by any more than 30 billion a year by 2012.

I don't disagree that the tax system needs to be overhauled, but all that is currently happening is a greater burden is being placed on the system and as it stands, the system simply cannot pay for it. Even by implementing all of the new proposals that the President is pushing for, there will still be a vast shortfall. Just another 4 years of deficit spending.

Fairness includes punishing success?

I would agree that the Bush tax cuts were unfair, as it were, but the top 5% already contribute over 53% of all personal tax revenue in the country. I simply fail to see why they should fund further programs that don't serve to benefit them in any way.
And regardless of this fact, as I've already stated, the proposed tax increases on the highest earners aren't projected to increase revenue by any more than 30 billion a year by 2012.

I don't disagree that the tax system needs to be overhauled, but all that is currently happening is a greater burden is being placed on the system and as it stands, the system simply cannot pay for it. Even by implementing all of the new proposals that the President is pushing for, there will still be a vast shortfall. Just another 4 years of deficit spending.



Most of the laws written in the last 20 or so years have benefited the rich. That is because they are rich enough to have Congress in their back pockets. So because of that they benefit lot more than you & I do from the Government. And the way society is now, we (the regular commoners of this nation) are forced to kowtow to the corporate interest. What I fail to understand is why someone coming home for Iraq or Afghanistan with possibly without a limb or two, can't get medical care but these fat cats on Wall Street can get a bailout from Uncle Sam so they can redecorate their office after taking a vacation to a very plush spa.



Cat 

Most of the laws written in the last 20 or so years have benefited the rich. That is because they are rich enough to have Congress in their back pockets. So because of that they benefit lot more than you & I do from the Government. And the way society is now, we (the regular commoners of this nation) are forced to kowtow to the corporate interest. What I fail to understand is why someone coming home for Iraq or Afghanistan with possibly without a limb or two, can't get medical care but these fat cats on Wall Street can get a bailout from Uncle Sam so they can redecorate their office after taking a vacation to a very plush spa.



Cat 


Those earnings $250-300,000 are not the 'wall street fat cats' you talk of.

Fairness includes punishing success?



If you think success gets punished in this country, try failure!
:-\\

If you think success gets punished in this country, try failure!
:-\\


Do you mean that in this country we don't prop up those that have failed in the past? Correct. Good. Excellent. Rejoice for we do not live in a socialist state!

Do you mean that in this country we don't prop up those that have failed in the past? Correct. Good. Excellent. Rejoice for we do not live in a socialist state!
well, plainly we DO prop up those who have failed in the past, but only if they can afford to buy congressmen or participate in the banker-federal reserve-treasury revolving door system. regular people who fail -- or who, just as often, are forced into failure by others who then profit from their failure -- are left to die, go on a shooting spree or wind up shivering in the streets, muttering to themselves. great system.

well, plainly we DO prop up those who have failed in the past, but only if they can afford to buy congressmen or participate in the banker-federal reserve-treasury revolving door system. regular people who fail -- or who, just as often, are forced into failure by others who then profit from their failure -- are left to die, go on a shooting spree or wind up shivering in the streets, muttering to themselves. great system.


The natural selection of the economic system.

The natural selection of the economic system.
the wanton accumulation of ill-gotten wealth, you mean.

there's nothing "natural" about economics. it's an artificial system devised to enslave the many to the benefit of the few. and it's working delightfully well.

The natural selection of the economic system.


I believe it was Anatole France who said "The laws of Paris are just.  They forbid everyone from sleeping under the bridges, begging in the streets and stealing  bread, the rish as well as the poor."

Social Darwinism, you gotta love it.

Mr. T. has clearly demonstrated his preference for fascism. 

Reeee-member, Reaganomics cannot fail.  It can only BE failed. 

I saw the same kind of ideological religiosity among my friends on the far left: Communism IS the ultimate evolution of man; therefore, if a communist state does not succeed, it is because men are weak, not because communism does not work. 

Can we move on now?
::)

if the principles of trickle-down economics don't seem to jibe with observed reality, in other words, the problem must lie with reality, not with the principles of trickle-down.

I've let myself be dragged away from my original point here (this so often seems to happen) - How is this reckless spending going to be funded? I've not actually seen anybody comment on my original posts key points, primarily that the very experts consulted in regard to raising tax revenue are saying that all of these proposed spending plans simply cannot be funded with the current changes to taxation policy. Thus, unless we are to have another deficit spending President, we're going to see increases across the board.

we are to have another deficit spending Presidenti think you might have answered your own question here.

the thing is, the national debt is already so extravagantly high it's never going to be repaid. i don't know how the debt question's going to be resolved but higher taxes to pay it off isn't going to be it. there's no way you can tax your way into generating 10 trillion dollars of surplus.

i think you might have answered your own question here.

the thing is, the national debt is already so extravagantly high it's never going to be repaid. i don't know how the debt question's going to be resolved but higher taxes to pay it off isn't going to be it. there's no way you can tax your way into generating 10 trillion dollars of surplus.


So.. and you have to remember I haven't been impressed with the last 8 years of deficit spending, the whole Democratic argument against reckless spending from the former fiscally responsible party, was utterly disingenuous? It was wrong and irresponsible for a Republican President to further the national debt, but if a Democrat does it.... well, the debts never going to be paid down anyway!

So.. and you have to remember I haven't been impressed with the last 8 years of deficit spending, the whole Democratic argument against reckless spending from the former fiscally responsible party, was utterly disingenuous? It was wrong and irresponsible for a Republican President to further the national debt, but if a Democrat does it.... well, the debts never going to be paid down anyway!
i'm not really much more of a fan of the spending than you are. the stimulus, yes, maybe... the bailouts and defense budget increases, not so much.

this was interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsEv5zljXV0

i did actually think CNN lady lost her objectivity BIG time (much like that mullet dude who FOXnews claimed was an "anchor" and who started ranting about "fascism") and i also find the ron paul branch of the conservative movement much more sympathetic than the foxnews conservative wing. i disagree with the paulers on a lot but i think there's room to begin a discussion and possibly forge a compromise; with neocons etc., not so much.

this was interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsEv5zljXV0

i did actually think CNN lady lost her objectivity BIG time (much like that mullet dude who FOXnews claimed was an "anchor" and who started ranting about "fascism") and i also find the ron paul branch of the conservative movement much more sympathetic than the foxnews conservative wing. i disagree with the paulers on a lot but i think there's room to begin a discussion and possibly forge a compromise; with neocons etc., not so much.



I agree that she lost her objectivity. Fox Noise jumped all over this which cracks me up because that is how Fox interviews people.

Kettle meet Pot.



Cat

So.. and you have to remember I haven't been impressed with the last 8 years of deficit spending, the whole Democratic argument against reckless spending from the former fiscally responsible party, was utterly disingenuous? It was wrong and irresponsible for a Republican President to further the national debt, but if a Democrat does it.... well, the debts never going to be paid down anyway!


See...if you get elected to the House, you'll find it really easy to be "fiscally responsible" about OTHER congressmen's districts but as soon as you're "fiscally responsible" about your own, YOU don't get re-elected.

That goes doubly for senators and states!
::)

What does anti-war have to do with government being big spenders?


Extremism.

The average person isn't antiwar.  The average person isn't anti-taxes either.

Most people realize that some war is necessary and that some taxes are as well.

For people to say they are currently protesting big spending with tea parties, they seem very hypocritical for not having done the same when Bush greatly elevated spending.

Even though Obama has dramatically increased spending, Bush did the same thing before him.

I agree that she lost her objectivity. Fox Noise jumped all over this which cracks me up because that is how Fox interviews people.

Kettle meet Pot.



Cat
funny thing is, she's on the fast track to get fired but the foxnews reporter who started ranting about fascism... far as i know, his job is totally secure.  ::) why? maybe it's because CNN has bottom-of-the-barrel standards whereas fox has no standards at all? i mean, yeah, could be.

funny thing is, she's on the fast track to get fired but the foxnews reporter who started ranting about fascism... far as i know, his job is totally secure.  ::) why? maybe it's because CNN has bottom-of-the-barrel standards whereas fox has no standards at all? i mean, yeah, could be.



Last week Fox was ranting that Obama was a socialist, this week he is a fascist. I am curious what it will be next week-Anarchist? Dictator? Pornocrist?  (Believe it or not, there is such a thing as Pornocracy  http://www.reference.com/browse/Pornocracy ) I think we all need score cards to keep up with Obama's changing political beliefs according to Fox News.



Cat

Last week Fox was ranting that Obama was a socialist, this week he is a fascist. I am curious what it will be next week-Anarchist? Dictator? Pornocrist?  (Believe it or not, there is such a thing as Pornocracy  http://www.reference.com/browse/Pornocracy ) I think we all need score cards to keep up with Obama's changing political beliefs according to Fox News.



Cat
ummm... pornocracy gets MY vote.  :P

devil's advocate, the right wing flavor of the week is to associate socialism with fascism. the whole right-left schism is sorta given short shrift. part of it is that the nazis were national SOCIALISTS. the point being originally that hitler was very corporatist-oppressive in the german cities but instituted a kind of socialism in the countryside because it worked best for food distribution. he was never ideologically "socialist" but it suited his purposes in certain instances. but jonah goldberg and his ilk have seized on this to associate the left wing with nazism. it sorta works for them if you dont pay attention too closely. which the pro-wrestling fans who watch Fox tend not to do.

sorry for the slam on pro-wrestling from out of nowhere.

ummm... pornocracy gets MY vote.  :P

devil's advocate, the right wing flavor of the week is to associate socialism with fascism. the whole right-left schism is sorta given short shrift. part of it is that the nazis were national SOCIALISTS. the point being originally that hitler was very corporatist-oppressive in the german cities but instituted a kind of socialism in the countryside because it worked best for food distribution. he was never ideologically "socialist" but it suited his purposes in certain instances. but jonah goldberg and his ilk have seized on this to associate the left wing with nazism. it sorta works for them if you dont pay attention too closely. which the pro-wrestling fans who watch Fox tend not to do.

sorry for the slam on pro-wrestling from out of nowhere.


Hitler was a liberal. 

Socialist = Liberal

National Socialist Party = Nazi

Therefore, Hitler was a liberal and liberalism caused the Holocaust!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sabber2.gif

liberalism caused the Holocaust!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sabber2.gif


Finally! Some sense!

Extremism.

The average person isn't antiwar.  The average person isn't anti-taxes either.

Most people realize that some war is necessary and that some taxes are as well.

For people to say they are currently protesting big spending with tea parties, they seem very hypocritical for not having done the same when Bush greatly elevated spending.

Even though Obama has dramatically increased spending, Bush did the same thing before him.
I think the difference is Obama is spending money like crazy in a recession(witness the tea-parties) where as George W. Bush spent money unwisely during boom times. I do agree though big government spending wether it be under W. Bush or Obama is a no-no. I do however support Obama's plan for a national high speed rail system even if he has to print money to do it because something like a National High Speed Rail System can help our economy right away and reduce our usage on fuel/oil.

I think the difference is Obama is spending money like crazy in a recession(witness the tea-parties) where as George W. Bush spent money unwisely during boom times. I do agree though big government spending wether it be under W. Bush or Obama is a no-no. I do however support Obama's plan for a national high speed rail system even if he has to print money to do it because something like a National High Speed Rail System can help our economy right away and reduce our usage on fuel/oil.


Most of the Bush years were still considered a recession although there were brief periods of low growth.  A few markets like real estate were booming, but as we've seen in the last 2 years, most of this growth was artificial and tied to unsustainable speculation.

The Rail System sounds interesting, but I'd have to see the details to comment on it.

I think the difference is Obama is spending money like crazy in a recession(witness the tea-parties) where as George W. Bush spent money unwisely during boom times.


Boom times which were built on an illusion inside a mirage!
::)

Boom times which were built on an illusion inside a mirage!
::)


Yes, like an enema.. a mystery wrapped in a riddle...

Finally! Some sense!


What about Centrists? :D

Yes, and there is a graphic that shows the Republican elephant sodomizing somebody.  >:(


Would you happen to be refering to this?  ???

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpghttp://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s78/AL-B_photos/HumpYou.jpg

;D

Most of the Bush years were still considered a recession although there were brief periods of low growth.  A few markets like real estate were booming, but as we've seen in the last 2 years, most of this growth was artificial and tied to unsustainable speculation.

The Rail System sounds interesting, but I'd have to see the details to comment on it.
Thats untrure I mean from mid 2002 to mid 2007 cannot be considered as recession times. I do agree there were times of low growth in the economy when Bush(w.) was president.

The Housing Market...thats another thread.

Thats untrure I mean from mid 2002 to mid 2007 cannot be considered as recession times. I do agree there were times of low growth in the economy when Bush(w.) was president.

The Housing Market...thats another thread.


Officially you may be right, but the "prosperity" was limited to the top, and the middle class lost ground, so for most of us, it WAS a recession.

Officially you may be right, but the "prosperity" was limited to the top, and the middle class lost ground, so for most of us, it WAS a recession.
Don, you were suffering financially when Bush(W.) was president?

Don, you were suffering financially when Bush(W.) was president?



His name is NOT Don. His name is Carlos. Don is his title.



Cat

His name is NOT Don. His name is Carlos. Don is his title.



Cat


Didn't you have to explain that just a little while back to the same folks?
;)

Don, you were suffering financially when Bush(W.) was president?


Yes and no, but that's not the point.  As a whole, the middle and working classes saw their real income decline, while the income of the wealthiest grew by leaps and bounds.  Further, the wealthiest's share of total income expanded, especially at the very top, so inequality grew.

Didn't you have to explain that just a little while back to the same folks?
;)



Yup. I should do a search to how many times I have had to tell people that.



Cat

Yup. I should do a search to how many times I have had to tell people that.



Cat
well, you didn't actually HAVE to.

well, you didn't actually HAVE to.



Maybe some day when I have too much time on my hands.  :D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

I found out this morning on C-SPAN that Obama wants to punish success and achievement because he's a Marxist and that's what it says in "Marx."  Richard Marx?
:D

I found out this morning on C-SPAN that Obama wants to punish success and achievement because he's a Marxist and that's what it says in "Marx."  Richard Marx?
:D


It don't mean nothin, these words that they say.
It don't mean nothin, these games that people play.
It don't mean nothin, no victim, no crime.
It don't mean nothin, till you sign it on the dotted line.

I was going to write a parody of the song, but then I realized I'd only have to change the word "Hollywood" to "Washington".  (Could even let "california snow" stand as-is, though an east-coast four-syllable word for drugs would be better.)  Maybe change "producer" to "scriptwriter", but is there really any difference?

Republicans could sing it about Democrats.  Democrats could sing it about Republicans.  Americans could sing it about Demopublicans.

And like the anti-tax protests, it wouldn't mean nothin.

I found out this morning on C-SPAN that Obama wants to punish success and achievement because he's a Marxist and that's what it says in "Marx."  Richard Marx?
:D



No, Harpo.



Cat

I think the lesson the Repubs should learn about the teabag party is that when they come up with some name for a movement or something, they really should Google it first just to make sure that it doesn't have another meaning.



Cat

I think the lesson the Repubs should learn about the teabag party is that when they come up with some name for a movement or something, they really should Google it first just to make sure that it doesn't have another meaning.



Cat


Darn!  They were just about to sail the Great Lakes on the Cleveland Steamer!
:D