H/T DRJ
From a New York Times blog comes this beauty:
“Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”
(emphasis DRJ)
Did you get that? The President of the United States used the same grotesque blue innuendo that would be a workplace harassment violation that the leftists have been bandying about for some time now. Stay classy, Baracky baby. Stay above the partisan politics, Baracky baby.
But there is so much more in that quote. Like tearing down a poem, the write-up becomes exponentially larger than the piece itself.
Does anybody think that the … anti-government people … All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters …
(I’m not doing a “hide the truth by elipsis” Gleeeeeeenwald thing here (since the full quote is above) but focusing on a point.)
So, according to Obama, all Democrats are big-government, expansionist government people. There is no room for any Democrats to think government is too big or too controlling of our lives, according to Obama.
Does anybody think that the [Tea Party], anti-government people … it will encourage the extremists.
So, all the Republican, Independent, Democrat Tea Party folk are extremists. Baracky baby said it. Anyone who supports the Constitutional small government principle is an extremist.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive.
Thomas JeffersonI would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas JeffersonAn honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826), letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813
So, according to Baracky baby, President Thomas Jefferson was an extremist.
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
George Washington
Oops, Baracky baby just called our nation’s first President an extremist (to be avoided or ignored)!
I could go on tearing Baracky baby down out of that one quote, but that last Jefferson quote does quite well enough.
Back to that NYT blogsite:
“This is an opportunity to do something as big as Social Security,” [Representative Martin Heinrich (D-NM)] added. “And me, personally, I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.”
And since Social Security is bankrupt … And since Social Security is unconstitutional …
_______________________________
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor
So, all the Republican, Independent, Democrat Tea Party folk are extremists.
Well, I’d say nutbag extremists myself.
Which teabag rallies did Thomas Jefferson and George Washington march in again, John?
Aside from your fixation with homo-erotica and workplace harassment, I would suspect Washington and Jefferson could well have been part of the original Tea Party.
Phooy beclowns himself again. According to the assclown, senior citizens who attend Town Hall meetings asking their elected representatives specific questions and actually expecting straight answers makes them “nutbag extreamists.”
Obama sends his Brownshirt SEIU thugs to silence opposition, and New Black Panthers intimidate voters at the polls. Yet, Phooy is outraged that American citizens dare to think they might be included in “We the people.”
What a hate filled little anti-American pipsqueak you show yourself to be, Phooy. Crawl back under your slimy rock.
What else to expect from a community organizer. That’s all he knows in his learning from youth through Chicago politics, it’s us vs. them in a way we haven’t seen before.
Pho is so far to the extreme left that, in this country at least, he’d be in the 5% fringe. Possibly the 1% fringe.
And John, good points. Pho, the Mouse Potato, has not apparently looked up the original history of the “Tea Party” back around the time of the American Revolution. Indeed, that first Boston Tea Party helped spark it.
Maybe that particular piece of information isn’t available on Google, but most of us here in the US learned it in history class.
The original tea party was to protest taxation without representation. You have representation. And teabaggers were instructed to attend town hall meetings to disrupt them and intimidate the opposition, not to “ask specific questions and actually expecting straight answers.” They were instructed by their wealthy backers to fill these meetings with their shouts and threatening manners, and that’s what they did. ropelight’s fever dream of an ACORN/SEIU/Black Panther/Zulu Warrior army of giant afros is probably a reference to poorly thought-out reactions to teabagger interference in American politics. Some opponents of the teabaggers showed up to shout back as loudly. This did no good, and probably a bit of harm, but I’m sure it felt good all around to go screaming at each other.
Aw, give Phoe a break here. He’s from New Zealand. Can’t very well expect him to know the history of the American Revolution. Make with the clicky, Phoe.
(Actually, I didn’t know how nationwide the anti-Tea Act movement was. Apparently protestors actually turned back tea-bearing ships in Charleston, Philly, and New York, and the Boston ship was the only one that actually made port.)
Nangleator wrote:
Thank you for your grade-school input, Nangleator. This is why I never respond directly to anything you spew.
And, Jeff, your remark above is a perfect example of why I called you a Leviticus/Aphrael liberal and not an IMP/Huxter liberal on PP. You are still a moonbat idiot but at least you are one worthy of debate.
Nangleator, the Tea Act also would have given the East India Company a virtual de facto monopoly over tea distribution in America. That helped fuel resistance as well. For conservatives who think government is about to “take control” of our health care system, there’s a parallel there, though I’m not sure how many conservative populists realize that parallel’s existence.
Anyway, John, do you disagree with Obama’s point? He’s right in saying that the people leading and participating in these tea party protests aren’t going to vote for a Democrat whether or not that Democrat voted against the bill. And a no vote would keep the Democratic base at home, which would be bad news indeed to reps in tight districts. So while he could have used more artful language, the point is a good one.
John, ‘teabaggers’ is their own term for themselves. If you have a problem with that, it isn’t a problem with me.
Jeff, as I already wrote on my site (obviously referencing NY-23, but very fitting to all politics):
But, since I referenced my own words I had written before your question, absolute paranoiac anti-business-owner loons like blu will not link-surf to it.
The point is, the Tea Parties were anti-big-government and not a particular political party’s astroturfing (as Pelosi, Reid, MSM, et al claim).
Nangleator, you lie (as usual).
Naggy is the sort of bigot who would have thrown Rosa Parks off the bus. What rights do old people have when Teh One’s cockroaches are on the march? Rosa thought her citizenship should be respected, well not in Naggy’s world, she’s just another threat to government authority.
If it was up to him the dogs and fire hoses would soon show those pesky senior citizens who was boss. Naggy’s patron saint, and fellow Democrat in suppressing civil rights, Eugene (Bull) Connor, is smiling in approval.
Jeff, to further push my point about the Tea Parties (again linking to myself):
I have made it clear I will never vote for a Democrat. I will vote third-party before I vote for a Democrat. But that does not change the fact that independents and Democrats attended Tea Parties. And they could well vote for Democrats. But, if Obama is right and the only good Democrat is a big-government Democrat, then all the Democrats who showed up at Tea Parties will indeed vote the “good” Democrats out of office.
John, that’s a fair point. I voted for a Libertarian for governor and a Republican for House last year, so if that’s possible some of the anti-government populists could conceivably vote for Democrats. I guess each congresscritter has to guess at whether or not a vote for reform would alienate their district’s centrists more than a vote for it would alienate their base.
(Of course, some people could just be voting on principle either way. Maybe I’ve gotten too cynical to believe that congresscritters could be doing anything out of principle rather than out of self-preservation, but I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong there…)
Oh, off topic and just for the benefit of Dude with Toddler in the video above, Lincoln actually was fairly economically liberal for his time. He signed the first income tax and the first paper currency into law, as well as approving several new tariffs. He also provided a huge amount of government assistance in building the Transcontinental Railroad, and his administration was the first with a Department of Agriculture. He also signed the Morrill Act, establishing land-grant colleges. He favored a national bank and deficit spending. Economically, we’d recognize him as a tax-and-spend Democrat today.
He also spoke out against income inequality and concentration of wealth:
I’m not criticizing Dude with Toddler, because Lincoln’s economic policies are seldom studied thanks to that other thing that was going on at the time of his presidency, but I think using Lincoln to argue for lower taxes and less government involvement in the economy doesn’t work out so well.
But yeah, that CNN reporter was obnoxious.
John Hitchcock is hyperbolic.
Blubonnet is a closet marxist. What’s your point?
The following is from BigGovernment
Exclusive: Police Report on Gladney Beating by SEIU Thugs by Capitol Confidential
It has been more than three months since Kenneth Gladney was viciously attacked by SEIU employees. The assault wasn’t an accident, but a deliberate attempt to intimidate and silence tea party activists and town hall protesters. The morning of the Gladney assault, the White House presented to Senate Democrats a ‘battle plan’ to quell the protests. The White House advised Democrats “punch back twice as hard.” Gladney was the first casualty.
The Gladney beating took place at a forum on ‘Aging’, sponsored by Rep. Russ Carnahan. Carnahan had been caught flat-footed by earlier protests. This time he was more prepared; the day before the forum, Sara Howard took over as his communications director. Ms. Howard is a veteran leftist activist, holding senior positions with SEIU.
SEIU and partisan hacks like Media Matters have tried to spin away the Gladney beating. They would have you believe a 130 lb diabetic, recovering luekemia patient, picked a fight with men almost twice his size. The police report puts an end to that lie.
Phooy beclowns himself again. According to the assclown, senior citizens who attend Town Hall meetings asking their elected representatives specific questions and actually expecting straight answers makes them “nutbag extreamists.”
No, the people who showed up at the Teabag rallies are nutbag extremists. They were a bunch of hysterically whipped-up useful idiots with no idea of reality.
John is engaging in the silly fantasy of assuming that his historical heroes would agree with him. Nangleator punctured that quite nicely – Thomas Jefferson et al protested taxation without representation; they did not whine and moan based on
ludicrious misrepresentations of a popular and democratically elected President attempting to pass a Constitutionally acceptable welfare programme which has been demonstrated to produce better results in every other Western country.
Thomas Jefferson laid down legitimate complaints against King George. He did not run around screaming alternatively that George was a Leveller AND Atilla the Hun, or whining that George was actually born in Russia, or asking to see George’s nanny’s signed testimony that he proceeded from the royal womb.
Thomas Jefferson, if he were here today, may well have had something to say about health care reform. But he would also think the Teabaggers are nutbag extremists.
And I know this, John, because Jesus and Buddha told me.
Let me ask a simple question – health care in the US already takes up 17% of the GDP (as opposed to 12% in France, which has the best system in the world). And it is rising far faster than GDP growth.
Wingnuts are screaming to keep the status quo. At what point do you change your minds – when it takes up 20% of your money? 40%? 80%? At what point is health care reform acceptable given that not doing anything eventually bankrupts the US?
The Phoenician may have missed an episode of American history:
Perhaps you’ve never heard of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic American protest against high taxes imposed by the British.
As far as we know, neither Mr Jefferson nor Mr Washington participated in the Tea Party. They were both Virginians, and far away from New England at the time. But it’s safe to say that both took rather direct action against the British in seeking our independence.
The Phoenician wrote:
Apparently there is a misconception in New Zealand: our Kiwi Kommenter seems to believe that, once an election has passed, the people somehow lose the right to express their opinions when those opinions vary with those of the electted representatives.
Alas! There’s that pesky First Amendment, which notes as one of our righte the freedom to assemble peaceably to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Even the Framers recognized that not everyone would always be completely in agreement with the elected government during the time between elections.
It seems that you’ve relatively little knowledge of our third President. From Wikipedia:
After the Revolutionary War, Jefferson advocated restraining government via rebellion and violence when necessary, in order to protect individual freedoms.
Uh-huh.
“Oh, help, help. The option of paying private insurers or paying a cheaper public provider is an affront to my individual freedom! Oh, woe is America that hath such cruel calumity forced upon it!”
“Oh, and don’t get ridda my Medicare either.”
Nutbag extremists.
BTW, Dana, I notice you didn’t answer my question about health care costs and GDP…
Is this article satire?
Confused: No, this article is real.
I still can’t understand why persons like myself who do not wish to be party to government health care by either participating in or financing such are considered extremists and wingnuts. Yet those who would force us into it against our will are considered rational. Why do WE have to participate because YOU like the idea? Why are we threatened with fines and prison because we like an alternative? Why can’t we opt out without being ridiculed, fined, threatened and coersed? Why is it so important to the proponents of nationalized care to force everyone to do what they want?
Totally agree with you, JohnC. I’d like to opt out of funding the Iraq war, please.
Making a personal decision for yourself and you family about which healthcare provider you prefer isn’t exactly a national security issue. However, that said I’d didn’t want to opt in to the Iraq war and certainly would love to get out ASAP.
This Guy/Confused:
How about you try to pick a moniker and stick with it, hrmmm?
Dana: In my view, Phoenician is correct, that not only are there humanitarian incentives for reforming our health care system, but also there is a monetary incentive.
How can you be satisfied to spend 20% of GDP on health care, considering also that some of the key outcomes, like infant morality, and like life span, are not meeting expectations for a nation as wealth as ours.
You Conservatives are so wedded to the status quo, and blinded by your ideology, that you adamantly refuse to consider even changes for the better. I find this view most difficult to understand. You folks are in denial of reality, which then follows that you are adverse to solutions.
JohnC: What is it about enforcing a health insurance mandate that you do not understand? How can we achieve universal coverage without them? Perhaps the House Bill needs some revision on the enforcement topic, so what is your suggestion for enforcement of a mandate, from the viewpoint of a small business owner?
We could start by dumping the tea into the harbor.
The Iraq war isn’t a national security issue, except in that it reduces our national security. The health of our citizens is a national security issue.
The tea party protesters (is that offensive?) are considered nutbags because they protested the bailout of banks, which the previous president instituted. They protested the raising of taxes, which wasn’t and isn’t proposed by the new president. (In fact, he cut taxes for probably every last one of the tea party protesters.) They protested the loss of rights, when they lost no rights at all. In fact, they gained rights–the previous president would have had them rounded up in ‘free speech’ zones, as if the United States itself wasn’t a free speech zone. They protested the bailout, which was intended to help them and the economy. And they protested government spending, after being quiet for 8 years of a presidency that spent more than all the previous presidents combined.
The tea party protesters are considered nutbags because of their almost inconceivable idiocy, and their insistence on protesting against their own best interests.
Naggy said, “The tea party protesters are considered nutbags because of their almost inconceivable idiocy, and their insistence on protesting against their own best interests.”
Bravo Naggy! All Bow to the Wisdom of the Tyrant! Naggy the All Knowing decides what’s best for others, it doesn’t matter what tens of thousands of adult Americans think. Representative government is dead. The thoughts and opinions of citizens don’t count. Naggy the Infallible, says they’re “nutbags because of their almost inconceivable idiocy.”
American citizens are just too stupid to have their own opinions. Naggy the Despot can’t imagine anyone having a opinion different from his, much less actually be allowed to voice that opinion in public Town Hall Meetings, or horror of horrors actually have the right to have their opinions taken into consideration by their elected representatives.
Naggy the Tyrant wouldn’t allow the idiotic little people to actually participate in a decision which involved their own well-being. No, Naggy the Infallible knows what’s best for all the little people, so why allow idiots to have a voice or bother taking a vote?
And that, my fellow Americans, is what passes for democracy in Naggy the All Knowing’s Brave New World.
ropelight, you’ve equated my poor opinion of tea party protesters with a desire to suppress them? I’m a tyrant for expressing my opinion?
I don’t fear free speech, even of the opposition. But it’s a two-edged sword. Their freedom of speech exposes them to my freedom to ridicule. And they make it so easy!
Perry: “You Conservatives are so wedded to the status quo, and blinded by your ideology, that you adamantly refuse to consider even changes for the better.”
That always mystifies me, too. I think for some of them, a good idea from their opponent just plain looks like a bad idea. (ropelight will be along to claim that no Democrat ever had a good idea.) And also, some in the Republican party fear most of all a good idea implemented by a Democrat, and recognized as a good idea by all.
Unfortunately, our president is so willing to compromise, for the sake of bipartisanship, we end up with good ideas watered-down.
Why do we need to enforce universal coverage?
Maybe because they’re standing up for principles that transcend their own personal gain. Maybe they believe that freedom is a higher value than just getting free stuff for themselves from the government.
I don’t question their having certain principles, although I disagree with most, but their behavior leaves a lot to be desired in order even consider to take them seriously. Some of their signs are outrageous, in my view.
Eric: “Why do we need to enforce universal coverage?”
Do you really not know, Eric? In order to achieve universal coverage, thus rendering better health care for our citizens, and reducing costs by spreading the risk. I understand that younger folks, because they are healthier, would consider not having health insurance. The problem with these people is that they then force the rest of us to assume their risk. Said another way, if they have a catastrophic health event, then we taxpayers pay for the treatment. Mandated health insurance is the way to go, in my view.
That’s a good response, Eric, and I hope those people really felt that way. But it didn’t look to me like Obama’s policies were all about free goodies, with the bill dropped on our kids. It looked to me like poor people were protesting the raising of rich people’s taxes. And citizens protesting about an attempt to fix the economy.
Good point, Nangleator. I thought that as well.
Naggy, you are what you are, a dishonest person of little or no intelligence, limited education, and authoritarian instincts. Unwilling to grant others what you reserve for yourself, a fool and a hypocrite.
Democrats do occasionally have good ideas, but they quickly reject them in favor of expanding government at the expense of freedom and liberty, advancing the usual tax and spend agenda, and protecting Union thugs and funding ballot box stuffers.
Then there’s always undermining the military and making excuses for Islamic terrorists, killing the unborn, and substituting indoctrination for education in the public schools.
What possible use do Democrats have for new ideas, they already know everything anyway.
Ropelight:“
NaggyRopelight, you are what you are, a dishonest person of little or no intelligence, limited education, and authoritarian instincts. Unwilling to grant others what you reserve for yourself, a fool and a hypocrite.”Aw, poor widdle ropelight. Your insecurities are showing…
What’s funny is that the Boston Tea Party was specifically about taxation without representation.
The recent “teapartiers” are a minority among the public, and the fact is the majority of Americans want the public option, so you are supporting a protest against that which WOULD represent the MAJORITY, that WOULD represent the wishes of the people. Ironic that it would be called a tea party, when the will of the MAJORITY of voters is being SQUELCHED if anyone acknowledged seriously the “teapartiers” , but the will of the rich fat cats, the insurance companies, that let Cancer patients die, and so many more ugly things. THOSE insurance companies, who PAID for all the hype, both in Congress and through those like FOX, buses painted, for the “freedom” of Americans, which no doubt cost many thousands bussing folks, feeding them rhetoric, signs made in mass. Grass roots, my ass! Bull shit, and you eat it for dinner, John Hitchcock, and Ropelight.
The voters say “no” to this health care takeover. They have been saying “no” for quite some time now.
And your revisionist history regarding the original Tea Party is duly noted.
And, blu, how about that classy way Baracky baby “laid his thing down”? (MIB reference) Higher standards for higher offices and all that. Post-partisan and all that.
While you’re at it, blu, do explain what the first and third Presidents of this great nation said, as referenced by Mr Pico and myself. And do explain how the Chicago Tea Party was anti-CNN, as clearly stated by the (fired) CNN reporter. And do explain how CNN did its darnedest to violate “Fair Use” to shut up Founding Bloggers (thus sending that above video viral).
No, John Hitchcock, only the teaparty kids said no. MOST of the population WANT the public option. THAT is the irony. And, it shows the absurdity of the teaparty crowd, the foolishness, the obvious fact that there are a certain number of folks in this country that are easily manipulated, and they are the FAUX viewers, and Rush Limbaugh groupies, and other insurance company shills.
And I DID explain it. You all foolishly are for the fat corporate powers, exactly what the founding fathers warned of, the power abusers, in which in those days of our forefathers and the ORIGINAL teaparty in Boston, were fighting against BIG POWER and BIG MONEY. You just keep screaming the will of those monied powers. Laughable. Sorry, but it is kind of funny. I’m embarrassed for you all though.
Again, blu, Although House Passes Health Care, Most Voters Still Oppose the Legislation. While you’re on your anti-Constitutional, anti-Founding Fathers, pro-marxist binge, you might actually want to examine some real numbers.
Why do you hate democracy?
Because, blu, a democracy in its purest form is not a good thing. That’s why we have a Constitution. That’s why we are a Constitutional Republic.
If 3 men and 2 women vote on whether to engage in “adult entertainment” and the 2 women vote “no” but the 3 men vote “yes” then democracy has it. The 2 women must engage in “adult entertainment”. But, if there is an overarching Constitution, the 2 women can be saved from that.
Got it? No? I thought not.
And why, blu, do you refuse to see that most voters DO NOT WANT the 1990+ page government health care take-over, even after I twice gave you a link to that information?
The reason the public is rolling its eyes, JH, is because Congress/insurance company friendships have interceded with the democratic process. Just look at the big obstacles to the people’s will. Joe Lieberman, and apparently his wife is closely doing business with health insurance companies. Keep looking. Google it up. You’ll see who is for our people healthy well being, and whose pockets are full. Don’t forget how much power those network sponsors have over networks too. Big money. So, the public, the smart ones, know the best wishes of the people, vs. the insurance companies, big power and money, that of which I mentioned moments ago, networks, and corporate interactive entities, and often partners in various business ventures like defense industry, for example. Basically it’s been mauled by big money now, as I understand it, and to be completely honest, I need to read more thoroughly on the specifics. Frankly, I’m sort of hoping the Senate, it’s next ball game, that “Bill”, the bill gets the microscope treatment.
Blu, this “people’s will” bovine byproduct you’re spreading runs fully counter to the voters. And I have twice given you the link to that information and thrice (now four times) pointed that out. And you are still showing your marxist petticoats. In other words, your Freudian Slip is showing. About 30 inches of it.
So, dictatorships suit you, as GWB brought us, in legalese, although, the public never heard the ugliest aspects of that, things like “disappearing” people, torture, pulling the rights of ANY defense, if GWB so says, for ANY whim GWB should contemplate.. They just showed on the tube, the fine, young men and women, starry eyed, which no doubt they are, but if people knew the tragedies, a soldier had to see, many, those soldiers would/could feel, walking into a town in which was blown to hell, bodies burnt. Iraq, what a horror, that shouldn’t have happened. Does the tyranical horror of what has taken place in Iraq phase you? Who else can you think of that thought things like torture (“for a good reason” ?),
This suits you, constant wars, psy-ops, duping US citizens, personal family fortunes are on the rise, because, jr. is in the Whitehouse making wars happened. Carlyle Group guys are going to be sittin’ prettier even still. Duplicitous as Hell. Government and corporate owners one and the same, each one part of the machine that sucks up your tax dollars, in the many many many many many BILLIONS! Defense industries are like that. Eisenhower, and Lincoln, and General Smedley Butler, most highly decorated in history in his time, and James Madison, and others. Interactive money machine. You should google up GWBush’s family history. You might be surprised, if you dare.
Blu, in what depraved world does the term “Constitutional Republic” become defined as a dictatorship? And, since I destroyed your “the people want” bovine byproduct with statistical facts, you have suddenly turned to “the public doesn’t know”? Weren’t you all for democracy in its purest right before I put you on the outside, looking in? Now you have to use your Top Secret clearance to get information the public doesn’t know in order to push your will on the public? And you’re still pushing your marxist anti-business bovine byproduct?
Really, blu, you should go to that other article, “Tear Down This Wall”, and you should watch and read. You might learn something. Providence knows there have been miracles before.
Blu wrote:
I guess that I don’t understand how President Bush could have been a dictator if he had to go through Congress to get what he wanted, if the Congress could be controlled by an opposition party due to free elections during his term, and if an opposition party candidate could be elected to replace him.
Dictatorships normally don’t allow opposition, yet you’ve been a regular here, for several years, posting whatever you wished, yet the Bush Secret Police never came and threw you in jail.
Okay, freedom of speech is still intact. No one is denying that.
However, when Congress would have a bill pass, Bush would sign it, but when he did, he would add his modification, which basically said, “I will do what I want”. Signing statements makes one a monarch. Clinton also did it, but Bush did it, somewhere in the range of a thousand times. The Patriot Act is draconian. Obama has not done enough to reverse it.
Incidentally fascism can be in place, while free speech is in place. Do I need to bring along the 14 Characteristics of Fascism again?
14 characteristics of fascism…
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
Back to the tea party let’s listen to them, as they are respectfully asked to describe their positions, what they are protesting. Let’s hear from the tea party, a real short couple of clips, you many not want to hear the second one though, after the first.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7508