Republicans and Teapublicans

Even the msnbc describes the tea party as a grassroots movement. If you disagree, I'm happy that tea-haters are moving on from being spoonfed delusional rhetoric. I'll pass on the corporatist (left) accusation.

 

"One might ask if there are any differences between an 18th century Tea Partier with today's Tea Partier. Seems to me they both seek to stop forced taxation; one from a foreign monarchy and the other from an oligarchy"

As I recall, the 18th century Tea Partier complained about "taxation without representation". The present-day Tea Partier complains about "taxation". However, there is a question as to legitimate representation. Representation is said to arise from the ballot box. Nevertheless, hundreds of millions of dollars are expended annually to assure the election of representatives who hope to get elected and (down the road) reelected. Well-heeled contributors (being relatively small in number) could be called an "oligarchy". I don't have a problem with that provided we recognize long suffering Tea Partiers as the first line of defense for the same oligarchy that so effectively controls the ballot box. It's true: You can fool some of the people all the time!

 

"The Republican Party is fractured between mainstream members - the old "Rockefeller Republicans" - and the Tea Party, which started off as a fiscally conservative movement and has morphed into a puppet for the Dominionist".

Thanks for the link; very instructive! But never mind the Rockefellers; where are the Republicans like Lincoln and Eisenhower? Today's crop of Republican candidates is a gold mine for comedians concocted from a diverse mixture of many fruits and nuts. But the important question is: What happened to the moderate and/or generally conservative Republicans? Is it possible they are now "undeclared" Independents or God forbid, "closet" Democrats?

 

We'll see how nutty they are when they win the elections again this year. And Obama is yet another 1 term democrat.

 

Lincoln would most likely be considered a moderate Republican nowadays. Eisenhower would be considered a moderate Neo-Democrat, at least based upon my studies of him.

One of the problems with the current Republican party is that you have such a variety of ideological diverse politicians. You have the establishment and moderate Republicans such as John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. You have libertarian Republicans such as Ron Paul. You have policy wonks such as Paul Ryan. Finally, you have the intransigent Tea Party Republicans that stand by their vague principle on fiscal responsibility that is outlined in the "Contract From America." I cannot name a Tea Party Republican because it depends on the constituent.

 

"Michele Bachmann received her law degree from Oral Roberts University, a private Christian school founded by a televangelist and a choice destination for many dominionist acolytes."

It's not entirely clear that Michelle Bachmann actually has a "law degree". She is said to be a graduate of a law school associated with Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, Oklahoma. However, as I understand it, this law school (or law program) is no longer in business. It appears it did not measure up to Oklahoma standards.

She is also said to have a degree in "Tax Law" but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim. At any rate, The Minnesota Judicial Branch presently shows Michele Marie Bachmann as: Not Authorized (to practice law in Minnesota). Her "CLE Status" is shown as: Voluntarily Restricted (By Choice).

It appears she was elected on the basis of certain claims that may have been, shall we say, embellished? Her public service record in Minnesota demonstrates a long standing truth: You can fool some of the people all the time! (See document, below.)

 

Take a look at the rally videos. You'll see the same sweathogs (I know, old terminology, but totally apropos) I see.

 

The original TEA movement may have been about taxes and government spending. However, the movement quickly evolved into a campaign to abolish all social programs. Of course, it's not going to happen but TEA party lunatics (many on "welfare" themselves) continue to claim it's all about "taxes and spending". But when pressed for details, we discover their "plan" is to reduce taxes to a level sufficient to support only "legitimate" programs. They tell us, in no uncertain words, they are "mad as hell" about "wasteful" spending. It remains unsaid (but understood by all) that they will decide (after the election) what is "legitimate" and what is "wasteful". No, this is not about "taxes and spending". This is about the political agenda of social conservatives and TEA party lunatics.

 

"Bachmann remains a charismatic and conservative candidate. But, unless she can reverse her current free-fall, she looks like she will be on the outside looking in at the fight for the Republican nomination.”

Speaking of MICHELLE BACHMANN, Rolling Stone Politics (as a by-product of their report on Bachmann) provided a much-needed definition of "batsh*t crazy". According to Rolling Stone, even SARAH PALIN never rose to the level of "batsh*t crazy". Link to:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/michele-bachmanns-holy-war-20110622

 

I may have seen one of the women you describe. She was interviewed by a reporter as a part of his story on the TEA party. As far as I could see, she had no tattoos. But as it turns out, she previously had a knee replacement paid for by Medicare (or Medicaid). The reporter suggested this was inconsistent with her well-earned TEA party activist reputation. She explained, "there's nothing wrong with that as a stop-gap measure; but not as a life-style". This "explanation" is hard to follow. I find it difficult to picture the same people getting multiple knee replacements as a "life-style". At any rate, it confirms by suspicion that a fair number of TEA party members are themselves on "welfare".

 

None of them are on welfare. Why is it so hard for you libs to understand that people (Tea Partiers etc) may indeed use welfare as a stop gap measure, but quickly move off of that entitlement measure to move on with their lives--like the woman you use as an example? And none of them have tattoos, for debasing one's body is soley left to the liberal faction of our society.

 

Oh for Gawd's sake!
None are on welfare...oh except for a little while.
And none have tattoos...ya right...

Libby...do you ever tire of stepping in "it" for us all to see?

 

You may have noticed Buzz Lightyear, that I have been found to be 'RIGHT' as close to 100% of the time as you can get. For the .0000000001% of the time that I am wrong, it is because I received that information from a liberal rag and I didn't thoroughly vett the obvious agitprop before posting it here to this forum. We're all not perfect you know.

 

Good lord...

I hate to have to be the one to break this to ya son...but ur usually wrong.

The problem here is simple...T-Baggers seem perfectly willing to be hypocrites.

- Its OK to collect welfare...but entitlements are bad.
- Its OK to collect SS...but entitlements are bad.
- Medicare and Medicaid are useful...but entitlements are bad.
- Government spending it too high...but don't touch the military

an on and on...at what point do you people listen to urselves and realize the silliness of your movement?

 

It is absurb to judge the TEA partiy members "tattooed and welfare recipents" ESPECIALLY when liberals are supposedly and specifically for those who choose to be different! Please, the same description can be used for Obama supporters. To me just looks like the individual citizens that comprise this nation. Whether we agree or disagree, we are still just a group of typical citizens of this country, uniquely!!!

Conservatives lean more towards the founding Constitutional authority with citizens in control of their government, liberals more towards government authority over citizens.

 

What **********s and Conservatives alike seek to do is to phase out all of these entitlement programs, once and for all. George Bush tried to push through a proposition to have a mere 6% of our Social Security monies go into a private investment of our own liking. But of course the Dem congress wouldn't even vote on it.

Conservatives also seek to have private medical savings/investment accounts for the individuals. We are all stuck wasting tax monies on these current entitlement programs, so until we eliminate them all, and or start phasing these boondoggles out, it only makes sense that those people (Conservatives) that are already enrolled in them--use them until we get the complete republican sweep in 2012 in which we get back to investing in America minus the socialism aspect of it.

Btw, Conservatives all know that the only power the government should have is in providing for nation defense, i.e. our military as outlined in the Constitution. Looks like I'm back at that 100% correct rating.

 

Speaking of the TEA party, the most unpopular multimillionaire in Florida is the current Republican, TEA Party governor, Rick Scott. He became a multimillionaire by billing Medicare (some say over billing Medicare). Scott is staunchly opposed to "ObamaCare". After all, high cost Medicare is the single most important chapter in his rags-to-riches biography. He and the previous Republican governor, neo-conservative Jeb Bush, do not always see eye-to-eye. Recently released emails reveal that:

"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush was disappointed that Gov. Rick Scott fired the mother of an Army soldier who had just been killed in Afghanistan as well as others who worked in the governor's office." If interested, the URL is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/27/jeb-bush-rick-scott_n_938985.html

Former Governor Jeb Bush is of course, a member of the Bush dynasty which (on more than one occasion) vowed to lead us all to the Promised Land. Of course, we never got there. But now, the TEA Party's Rick Scott vows to lead us to the Promised Land. At some point it should become apparent to everyone that the road to hell is paved with good intentions or (as the case may be) Republican bullsh*t (see photo below).

 

Libhater: Surely you must know that when this woman needs her other knee replaced she will of course rely on Medicare. But there's nothing wrong with that; she paid into Medicare for many years! Nevertheless, TEA party members will find this either acceptable or intolerable depending on a very fundamental TEA party principle: IT'S ACCEPTABLE IF I DO IT; IT'S INTOLERABLE IF THEY DO IT. The very concept of "they" is central to TEA party doctrine. This woman restates this fundamental principle as follows: It's a "stop-gap" measure if I do it; but it's a "lifestyle" practice if they do it.

 

Wow, you pay 15% of your income in state income tax, eh?

What state do you live in?

What "medicaid tax" do you pay? Is that a state tax or federal tax?

How do you pay 10% SS tax? Are you self employed?

I'd suspect you're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, but I'll give you a chance to explain. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

California has 15% state income tax. Everyone is taxed 6.2% ss up to $100,001 dollars, their employers are taxed another 6.2% for every dollar they pay up to 100,000. That's 12.4% total, there is no difference between taxing the employer for employing and taxing me for my income. The same with medi*care*, everyone is taxed 1.45% for themselves, and 1.45% from the employer. It's a federal tax, for a total of 2.9%.

If you thought I was making (*)(*)(*)(*) up, you could have easily googled all of this.

 

Actually, it's people from other countries who are uninformed about taxes.

The avg American citizen pays not only income taxes, but federal, state and local taxes on nearly everything they purchase. Gasoline, for example. Most of us pay around $.40 per gallon in taxes on top of the price of gasoline. Cigarettes? Over $2 a pack in taxes alone. Phone service? At least 10 different taxes and surcharges are added to your bill. Utilities like electricity, gas & water? Same thing, heaps of taxes and fed surcharges on top of your monthly bill. Planes, trains, automobiles? Same -- fed, state, local taxes on top of the cost of travel.

Americans are being taxed to death... it's no surprise TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY is the buzzphrase of 2011. Only the very naive (and misinformed) think we can afford MORE.