http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/01/AR2010110106731.html Pretty good article.
Thought I'd share this crap from the Washington Post, funny how he talks about going to war to IMPROVE the economy and make Obama a SUCCESSFUL president. The Mullah's are crazy, but this guy is in that same boat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102905810.html How Obama might recover Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve. I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.
That's how I see it. It seems people have this deep-seated racism that is given justification by this movement. In all fairness though, a few of what compose the tea party today were b****ing and moaning when Bush was in office as well.
First, this writer obviously has never participated in any of the tea parties. There is no ascribed dogma -- the member opinions are quite diverse but united only in a few areas. That's why members of the tea parties decided early on to put aside the social issues. Obama upset middle Americans -- most of whom had scarcely ever participated in the political system other than to occasionally vote in Presidential elections -- by moving too far too fast. His unwillingness to disassociate himself from radicals like Wright, Jones and Ayers also made Middle America recoil in horror. Add his perceived control -- accurate or not -- by George Soros and the SEIU as well as his shady dealings with Rezko et al, and a huge reservoir of distrust was created. A great many members of tea parties -- especially in the Southern and Southwestern tea parties with whom I communicated and assisted -- were very happy to see the symbolic end of racism. I voted against Obama, but I always believed this was the silver lining in his election. Participants in the tea movement fear Obama's free spending and extended government mindset. They are people who understand budgets, whether household or business. Responsible people know that spending beyond your means is possible temporarily but not permanently. This criticism is not limited to this administation, the Democratic Party or the Republican party. Rather, the criticism is levied against every Congressional and legislative participant, including lobbyists. The writer's criticism of "taking government back" is somewhat justified because the phrase has never been "defined" by the tea parties. It is a rebellion against a vague but tangible feeling that average citizens have lost control of the system. Granted, no individual citizen ever has had control of the system, but the malaise has been magnified because, regardless of the party elected, the average person gets screwed while special interests with money -- corporate or union -- can buy power and extra "rights."
Possibly, I don't know nearly enough about Washington politics to make a judgement about that, but interesting you brought that up, I didn't even think of it in that way.
There are numerous things in here which aren't accurate. Obama has disassociated himself with Wright and was never really associated with Ayers to begins with. In addition there is nothing really radical about Jones, and no reason to disassociate with him. While Obama may or may not have upset middle Americans that has little to do with the tea party, which advocates identical positions to big business billionaires and not for policies that favor the most middle Americans. The tea party is more closely aligned in their positions with issues to huge corporations, Forbes, and other billionaires than tax policies that favor themselves.
As usual, no proof for your hackneyed "tea party diversity" nonsense. And we know why - there is none. In fact, all evidence points to the opposite. No. He campaigned on change. Some have liked it, some have not seen enough of it. His primary problem is the economy. This is stupidity and fear mongering. A tea party hallmark. Sure, sure. Right. Responsible people like George Bush, and Bush the Elder, and Ronald Reagan. Bull****. Epic bull****. No argument. But again one is left to ponder the timing, and think you and your ilk hypocritical asshats.
Disagree en toto. Also, a great many Tea members are small business owners (I am) and/or managers. We see first hand how easy it is for bureaucracy to stifle business with over-regulation (regulation is good, over-regulation is not). For example, just to ship a pallet of regular paint and epoxy resin, I had to satisfy all the federal regulations by the Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency as well as the origin and destination state codes. Wouldn't one code do? The needs and goals of big business and small business often are the same.
I find it hard to believe the 'tea party' would not have come about had Hillary been at the helm. Or Al Gore. Or John Kerry. And 'take back the government' is has been a pretty standard rallying cry for a long long time by many groups. So much so, that it's basically meaningless. But, they are a goofy lot. No question about that.
Except Obama has pushed for more to help small business than any administration in recent memory. He's offered tax breaks for small businesses that offer health care. He's proposed offering 100% tax break for funds spent on research and hiring new employees for small businesses. He's reduced the taxes on most small businesses and most Americans in general. The Tea Party isn't behind any of these breaks and neither are Billionaire big business guys like Steve Forbes. If it was so many small businesses guys comprising the Tea Party who were acting in their own interest that would be different. Sorry but look at the goal of Steve Forbes, and big businesses. They are almost identical to those of the tea party.
Seriously you and the rest of the Tea Party haven't been paying attention if you think Obama hasn't dissociated himself from Rev. Wright and Ayers. That is the key there "vague but tangible feeling". This is what is motivating the Tea Party that you are motivated by vague feelings but cannot focus on why that is. That makes for good suspense in movies but not what I would consider a good way to build or run a government.
A great many Americans were galvanized and motivated by the tea parties. Now that many of those former novices have some experience in how to work precincts and motivate new tea partiers, I look forward to what they can do in 2012. My role is rapidly come to an end, but I can still cheer them forward.
TEA Partiers can talk about spending, socialism, debt, etc. all they want to, IMO. That's fine. That's your opinion and I am capable of respecting it. I don't agree with it and think that spending is necessary in times of economic crisis and is why we're not actually in a worse position now, but that's MY opinion. Opinions will be opinions. But what I have a problem with is this: First, I don't know who "Jones" is. Second, Obama has distanced and disassociated himself from both Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers -- you just don't want to believe that a disassociation exists. That's just fear mongering and complete disregard for reality. That, unfortunately, I cannot respect and completely brings anything constructive you have to say down several notches of validity.
Since the tea party has decided to attack the federal government from within, I have decided that I, B-Bob, will become a Tea Party patriot, in an analogous show of strategy. I look forward to discussing many ideas to improve our politics and our great nation.
The Tea Party is probably more diverse than the crowd at the John Stewart rally. Honkymania... What? Worry about over-regulation and a nanny-state? That's for racists... <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/waOdmBdcS8w?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/waOdmBdcS8w?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
I thought the Tea Party was generally against federal regulations and in favor of allowing the states to make decisions individually. Now you're saying that the federal government should step in and override state regulations and codes because in this circumstance it would make your life easier?
Maybe I am a liberal pansy, but I don't see anything wrong with this. Those happy meals are poison. The alarming childhood obesity rates should show you that.
Quite frankly, what you think really does not concern me. I write what I believe. I have no motivation or reason to lie. Clearly, you do not relish a conversation with anyone who does not march in lockstep with you. I guess that is because doing so would make it too easy for you to stumble across the truth.
