Here ya go:
So the Tea Party favors increasing the deficit?
Of course not! They just favor tax cuts because they fix everything. EVERYTHING. Cutting taxes will reduce the deficit.
Speeding ticket? A tax could would have meant less money for police and so you probably wouldn’t have gotten pulled over.
Child killed by a speeder blowing through a school crossing? A tax cut would have caused the roads to decay so far that speeding through that intersection would have been impossible.
See? Tax cuts fix everything.
-Joe
Not to appear as someone who actually knows what the wining candidate is all about but, having finances in shambles all over the country, deficits through the roof, high unemployment and still possibility of the “double-dip” economic crisis, culture in Washington still the same as it was two years ago with lobbyists and BS left an right, the most important thing right now is if the candidate would let you masturbate without feeling guilty.
That’s some high grade value system you got going.
If it helps, I would also not likely vote for someone who insists that anyone wearing green was an evil leprechaun who should be shunned. It’s not because I’m Irish, and it’s not because I’m a fan of tiny gingers.
There’s two reasons. One is that it raises some frightening questions about their mental state, and two because whether or not someone wears green is not their business and they god damn sure shouldn’t be pushing their anti-faerie stance on the rest of us.
-Joe, couldn’t be more German if his name was Klaus von Wolfgang
Amen to that. I think this should definitively lay to rest the notion that the Tea Party is a basically libertarian movement. Some of them undoubtedly are, but if that were a significant part of the movement, they’d never back someone like this. Really all they are is the extreme wing of the Republican party, and they’re extreme in all sorts of different directions.
It’s interesting that many see the Tea Party as some noble effort, when it seems to be attracting candidates who are bonifide loonies. These are the best they can field? Support from Beck, Bachman and other crazies equals “progressive”?
I remember when Ross Perot was touting serious, consistent, fiscal conservatism to cut the deficit: Raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. Nobody seems to be saying that any more . . .
Odonnell may be the “none of the above” candidate. She is a tea bagger, but not supported by the Repub party. She is on TV asking for party money this morning.
I don’t think they like that word very much.
Where did you get the idea that the teabaggers are “progressive” in any way, shape, or form?
They’re about as regressive as you can get.
-Joe
It’s just a reforging of the Reagan Alliance, with its ingredients adjusted for the new Millenium. St. Heinlein predicted this, don’t cha know?
Depends on which issues you’re talking about. Fiscally, the Tea Party is in line with the GOP’s rhetoric, which is to say well to the right of the GOP’s actual policy in office. On “social issues”, they’re a mixed bag, but in practice most of them fall into one of the following categories: 1)small-government libertarians who actively oppose politicized social conservatism, 2)social conservatives who put those issues on the back burner because they see the fiscal mess as the immediate priority, or 3)don’t give a damn.
I see the sharpening of hostility to politicized social conservatism in Group 1, and the awakening of such hostility in Group 3, as awareness spreads that the GOP has been using social-conservative talking points the way a magician uses a scantily clad assistant (i.e. as a distraction while they perform a trick).
So, you’re more worried about possibility of “screw-up by association” (even though that association is only in your head; i.e. “Oh, if she thinks masturbation is wrong then she will…. she will… cut my taxe… penis!!!”) than actual direct screw up done already by someone whose mental state passed all the irrelevant questions?
Again, for me, it’s a strange reasoning.
And, by the way, I read the posted link on what she said and, first of all based on what she wrote, she does not sound as a mental case (as I’m sure many people accepted “suggestion” without taking time to review it for themselves) but rather someone with conservative views on sexuality. So, what?
All I’m saying is that everyone, it seems, is making their presumptuous conclusions about this candidate based on media frenzy full of headlines and suggestions and implications on things not just secondary but totally irrelevant.
I think this race defies easy analysis. Odonnell has her loonie side. I don’t even know how conservative she is because she was not taken seriously enough to be thoroughly analyzed. The Repub party today restated they will not financially back her, according to Fox. But this is actually splintering the Republican party.
She appeared a few times on Bill Maher’s . He looks for conservative women to appear on his show. She is cute and will talk and talk. i am sure he will put her on soon. Her goofiness wont be a secret for long.
Because it’s the same kind of stupid that leads her to say that there’s more “evidence” for creationism than evolution?
She exhibits extremely flawed thinking. If she wants to use that thinking to run her own life, that’s between her and her psychiatrist. Once she wants to use it to influence the lives of more than 300 million people it’s an issue of importance.
-Joe
Keep reading. How much do you need?
Looks to me like someone who actively worked to push her moral agenda.
YMMV
If I had actually said that, then you would have a valid point. The Tea Party believes that they are enlightened and represent the progressive arm of the right. Your delusion may vary.
This may be a “refudiation” of both parties. Both the Repubs and Dems run strong campaigns making promises they can not keep. Obama’s problem is not that he is socialist like the Repubs like to pretend, but that he did not deliver what he promised. The feeling is that in Washington it is still fat cat business as usual.
The health care bill got compromised by the Repubs and insurance companies.It did not get fixed like it should have. It may be a great political achievement, but it was terribly weakened.
We expected him to shut Gitmo. He has not. He was supposed to remove DADT. He did not.
We expected him to torch the bankers who destroyed the economy. He actually put their pissboy , Geithner, in power. Nobody went to jail. They are still looting away.
He was supposed to get out of Iraq. Leaving 50,000 troops is not getting out.
The financial bill will be watered down until it is worthless. They are fighting Warren ,who should run the consumer protection arm. The fear is she would do the job. Can’t have that in America.
The disconnect between the people and the politicians is coming in focus. The Boehner type Repubs are blind about that too.
You didn’t ask but here’s more anyway:
Still ok with her? If so follow the link, there’s more (I just picked some of the juicier bits).