By Joe Nocero, who is one of the regular columnists now. Quite aside from the outrage of comparing tea partiers to terrorists, Nocero is — presumably unwittingly — insulting Muslims.
ADDED: It was Joe Biden, you may know, who started calling the GOP "terrorists." My point here is that substituting the word "jihad" goes against 10 years of political chiding about the way peaceful, moderate Muslims use the word.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
113 comments:
When will people learn that not all anarchists are terrorists? There is an important distinction between the ends and the means.
Well if you define jihaed in the liberal PC way of "struggle for right", yeah Tea Party Republicans are waging jihad.
"The Tea Party Republicans are waging Jihad, not that there's anything wrong with that."
In many ways the Tea Party was able to inflict great damage so far to quote: The ridiculous, self-inflicted debt ceiling-fest cost the US government $1.7 billion dollars. That's the amount of additional interest the USG had to pay investors when it went into the market to see Treasury bills on Monday
Triangle Man, so not all anarchists are terrorists. I certainly accept that. I would go farther and say most anarchists (true ones) are not terrorists. Most of them are libertarians with an attitude.
What's that old internet phrase? When you start calling someone names you've lost the debate?
More proof their collective bullshit about new civility was just that.
That's their new meme, trying it out.
Hell, the Vice President even sez the TPers are terrorists, so it must be true.
Didn't they shoot Gabby?
roesch-voltaire, nonsense. Much more damage is being caused by this stupid plan that fails to cut and actually increases debt. The Ryan Plan or CC&B would have helped.
So is your philosophy, I follow Dem talking points, therefore I am a libtard?
"Their goal, they believed, was worth blowing up the country for, if that’s what it took."
Funny that the NYT can make an anology to something that they don't admit exists!
R-V struggles for relevance and thus ties a logic pretzel worthy of a mobius strip. Just had to find something negative to say, didn't you?
That petty sum you cited is a paltry drop in the bucket in the ocean and you know it. What do you suppose the total cost of Congress not doing their lawful duty and passing a budget in the last 800+ days has cost the country?
@roesch-voltaire:The ridiculous, self-inflicted debt ceiling-fest cost the US government $1.7 billion dollars.
12 hours INCREASE in the national debt, in other words.
And the compromise that has been worked out will continue to increase the debt for decades--it does not cut one fraction of a cent from the budget (any fraction).
Hint: The problem is not with the tea party republicans. Not at all.
I would go farther and say most anarchists (true ones) are not terrorists. Most of them are libertarians with an attitude.
There is nothing to the right on the American ideological spectrum than true anarchist (smallest level of government possible, ie, none). In order for an anarchist to cause harm to body and property, their tendency has to slide left toward totalitarianism (the largest level of government possible).
Hurling a brick through a window is, in itself, a totalitarian act. He who can destroy a thing controls a thing.
@r-v: Guess which Tea Party politican said this, and worsened our financial situation by playing politics with the debt ceiling?
" The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.
Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.
Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.
And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.
Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities."
Of course you know the answer. You voted for him in 2008.
"roesch-voltaire said...
In many ways the Tea Party was able to inflict great damage so far to quote: The ridiculous, self-inflicted debt ceiling-fest cost the US government $1.7 billion dollars. That's the amount of additional interest the USG had to pay investors when it went into the market to see Treasury bills on Monday"
This is so stupid it is actually painful. The USG incurs that amount of debt every fucking day of the year.
Us v. Them. Bring it on.
r-v
Maybe the $1.7 billion bill should be sent to the politicians who lied and said that the US would default if the deal was not made by today.
I would go farther and say most anarchists (true ones) are not terrorists. Most of them are libertarians with an attitude.
I agree. If the left wants to label the Tea Party movement with an "-ist", it would be more correct to label it anarchist.
If we were "waging jihad," the Democrats would be falling all over themselves crying "why do they hate us?" "how can we understand them?"
Yeah. I want lower spending and less government. I'm a terrorist. I'm waging jihad on America.
Goddammit, but I really, truly HATE Democrats.
@Triangle Man:it would be more correct to label it anarchist.
How is thinking the government should spend LESS money, equivalent to thinking there should be NO government?
It would be not be correct in any sense to describe the Tea Party as "anarchists".
'I agree. If the left wants to label the Tea Party movement with an "-ist", it would be more correct to label it anarchist.'
More correct still would be "realist."
I agree. If the left wants to label the Tea Party movement with an "-ist", it would be more correct to label it anarchist.
Disagree. Ever tea partier I know acknowledges a role for government. Very un-anarchist. If anything, if you really want to slap a moniker ending in an -ist, go with strict Constructionists or Constitutionalists.
I prefer Teahadists.
I don't understand what kind of mind can confuse "No government spending is legitimate" with "There is an optimum level of government spending and we are currently over it".
Seriously, the Tea Party is the second one, not the first one. Anyone who spent five minutes paying attention can see that.
"I prefer Teahadists."
Fine with me, Garage. Just as I prefer "traitors" for the Democrats.
I prefer Teahadists.
Well, yes, garbage, anything less than vicious lying would not be you.
In the space of a few months, the NYT has accused the Tea Party and Sara Palin of complicity in the Arizona massacre and, now, of being terrorists.
And, low life bastards like garbage just eat it up. You are pure scum, garbage.
Every time you post here you disgrace yourself. And, you're too damned stupid to even know it.
@Scott M
Strict constructionist is how the Tea Party might describe itself, but not how the left would describe it. Since idealogical underpinnings of the Tea Party are small government, the extreme case is anarchy. Just as the ideological underpinnings of the left are social welfare, the extreme case is Communist or Socialist. This is how the right labels progressives. By analogy the Tea Party is anarchist.
One thing in favor of Joe, he waits until 2/3's of the way through the piece before outing himself as a complete idiot.* Which is to say, he successfully tricked me into reading up until that point.
*"...Obama should have played the 14th Amendment card..."
I kinda like Teahadist. I'll need to get me a bumper sitcker.
Just as the ideological underpinnings of the left are social welfare, the extreme case is Communist or Socialist.
The extreme opposite of anarchy is tyranny, not communist or socialist, in their pure definitions. In practice, that's maybe what they tend to, but even the USSR didn't have one single guy calling all the shots.
But calling Obama a "socialist" is hate speech.
"Teahadists" and "Freedom Fighter" both have a certain je ne sais quoi.
I do know that both Roach-Voltaire and Garage Mahal
♥ debt and red balloons.
O'Reilly had a piece last night on lefty commentators jumping on the Tea Party as "terrorist" meme.
It really does make one think that, if there's not a hive mind these commentators are plugged into, then JournoList still lives somehow.
The inability of supposedly intelligent commentators to analyze their very much mainstream opposition without vilification is a sad commentary on how bankrupt journalism is now.
But we here all knew that, didn't we, or else we wouldn't be hanging out here chez Althouse?
"The ridiculous, self-inflicted debt ceiling-fest cost the US government $1.7 billion dollars."
Like TV Lenny used to say: "The more you spend, the more you save!" I never understood that, 'til now.
But we here all knew that, didn't we, or else we wouldn't be hanging out here chez Althouse?
I'm only here for the donuts.
So what about T-Bill rates, as someone mentioned?
They have gone through the roof!
From 7/15/11 to 8/1/11 the daily rate increase 700%!!!!
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!
Actually, though it did increase 700%, it was from virtually 0% to essentially 0%.
0.02% to 0.14%
Wow!
John Henry
@Scott,
When you find a chocolate-covered one, please pass it over.
Mucho Grats!
Several here have made the comment that tea partiers are not anarchists. Quite right. Anarchists support the abolition of all government. Semantically, at least. Many actual anarchists from Kropotkin on actually support strong, totalitarian government enforcing socialism.
The tea partiers seem to generally be minarchists or libertarians, supporting small, limited and local government.
A better word would be "liberal" as in believers in liberty and freedom.
As Hayek said back in the 40's this is an excellent word that has been hijacked by people who use it in almost its exact opposite meaning.
We should work at taking it back.
I am proud to be a liberal.
John Henry
Another word we liberal TP supporters might adopt, not for ourselves but for our opponents in "fascist".
Fascism, as propounded by Mussolini is a socialist movement. It is the control of the means of production by the government. In the name of the people, of course.
It is a bit different from Marxist, Chinese, Russian and other types of socialism in detail (national vs international, for example) but not in overall methods or ends.
Those of us who oppose Obama et al should start calling ourselves anti-fascist.
Let's start calling a spade a spade.
(Can I say that or is it racist?)
John Henry
Its the mother fuckers who are bankrupting this country who are the real villains. This country is about to go over a cliff and it won't be pretty. Time to stock up.
If the Gray Lady accuses the Tea Partiers of "waging jihad", isn't that raaaacisst?
Ann Althouse said...
It was Joe Biden, you may know, who started calling the GOP "terrorists".
Actually, it was some idiot Congressman named Doyle from PA who said it first and Halo Joe took it up.
Fact is, the Lefties have been talking terrorists and Taliban and the economy held hostage for a few days.
Be nice, as Bernie Goldberg noted, if they'd actually use the word on the real terrorists, but that would take some guts.
One last definitional peeve:
Why do people talk about raising taxes when what they really mean is raising tax rates?
One might think they would be the same thing and they may be. But they may also not be.
Think of it like a McDonalds hamburger stand.
McDonalds could care less what price they charge. They will charge whatever price maximizes total revenue. (Or try to, anyway. It is tricky to actually achieve)
If they raise the price of a hamburger, will they make more or less money? If they raise the price, they will sell fewer hamburgers but will make more on each one. Does the increased price offset the decreased volume? If yes, raise the price. If no, leave it alone.
Tax rates are analogous to the hamburger price. Tax revenues are analogous to profit. It is revenues, not rates we need to be concerned with.
If we raise tax rates, will tax revenues rise or fall?
We can look at several historical examples under Reagan, Kennedy and Coolidge where rates were lowered and revenues increased substantially.
Are we at the point now where lower rates will increase revenues? I would say yes.
If so, raising rates would be for political reasons (let's get those rich bastards) rather than for fiscal reasons.
John Henry
I'm sure the "No Labels" crowd are on the case.
YoungHegelian said...
O'Reilly had a piece last night on lefty commentators jumping on the Tea Party as "terrorist" meme.
Yeah, Goldberg said it showed they had no imagination.
So very true.
"..@roesch-voltaire:The ridiculous, self-inflicted debt ceiling-fest cost the US government $1.7 billion dollars.."
Actually, no, it cost the taxpayer. Thanks though for demonstrating the typical liberal mindset that our money really doesn't belong to us.
I'm drinking green tea right now.
#1: What else would you call them? Kidnappers I suppose...instead of using the Democratic process (pass a Bill thru both Houses, President signs), they held the US economy hostage in order to get their agenda enacted;
#2: They are not anarchists either...they simply want to enjoy the benefits of government (Social Security, Medicare, Defense) but don't want to pay for it.
You don't know how right Biden was. In Islam, Jihad is an individual's striving for spiritual self-perfection.
If you looked at America as an individual, Tea Party Republicans have strived for the good old days of smaller govt., greater individual freedom. To Tea Party Republicans, that was America's "self-perfection".
Don't forget one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Of course, we have to twist our mind into a pretzel to believe Biden could be so thoughtful. He, nonethless, stumbled upon the truth.
"Tea Party Republicans have waged jihad on the American people."
Then why is it just liberals who are bleeding?
I kind of like teahadist so ill take that over teabagger. Dumbassess still works for liberals though.
John Henry,
I'm with you regarding your definitional stuff.
Let's hear from that hero of the environmentalist left, Henry David Thoreau:
"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
"Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government."
"They are not anarchists, either. They simply want to enjoy the benefits of government. . .but don't want to pay for it."
OK, Machine - go find me a Tea Partier who doesn't want to "pay" for the "benefits of government." I'll wait.
Frankly, if you're actually serious, your keepers shouldn't let you play with anything sharper than a rubber ball.
"...#2: They are not anarchists either...they simply want to enjoy the benefits of government (Social Security, Medicare, Defense) but don't want to pay for it...'
Actually, I posted yesterday that SS, Medicare and defense combined total $1.9 trillion and current revenues more than make up for that. It's the other $1.7 trillion Bambi wants to spend.
machine said...
#2: They are not anarchists either...they simply want to enjoy the benefits of government (Social Security, Medicare, Defense) but don't want to pay for it.
I belong to the Tea Party. Are you going to tell me that I didn't pay for the Social Security that I'm now receiving? A payment that I made every pay day since 1963. Defense? Do you mean that I really didn't serve in the US Army? That I didn't dutifully pay my taxes?
#1: What else would you call them? Kidnappers I suppose...instead of using the Democratic process (pass a Bill thru both Houses, President signs), they held the US economy hostage in order to get their agenda enacted;
You have no idea what you're talking about, this bill is going through the normal democratic process. Both houses will pass the bill and the President will sign, just like any other piece of legislation.
Feel better now?
#1: What else would you call them? Kidnappers I suppose...instead of using the Democratic process (pass a Bill thru both Houses, President signs), they held the US economy hostage in order to get their agenda enacted;
Apparently you've never seen Schoolhouse Rock. Part of passing the bill is the negotiating that goes on, over and over, in order to finalize the details before a bill gets voted on.
Or didn't they cover that in your civics classes?
Tell me...what do you feel about elected officials fleeing their state so that their legislature cannot qualify a quorum in order to prevent even HAVING a vote AT ALL?
What do you call those types of elected officials?
Tax rates are analogous to the hamburger price. Tax revenues are analogous to profit. It is revenues, not rates we need to be concerned with.
During the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama stated clearly that fairness in the tax code was more important than maximizing revenue, and that he would be willing to accept less in tax receipts in exchange for raising the capital gains tax.
In other words, he recognized that "supply-side" (Laffer) economics is true ... but that he didn't care. He values "fairness" in the tax code more than tax revenue.
Obviously, he's not alone in his assessment. He was just honest enough to put it on the record.
WV: quiduck. What you say when you don't have time to yell, "QUICK! DUCK!"
"...Apparently you've never seen Schoolhouse Rock..."
My guess is no one under 35 has. Liberals love to say democracy, practicing it is another story.
Conjunction Junction, what's your function?
Hoosier - "Actually, I posted yesterday that SS, Medicare and defense combined total $1.9 trillion and current revenues more than make up for that. It's the other $1.7 trillion Bambi wants to spend."
There is nothing sacred cow about defense or medicare, and SS is treated separately and on paper, is adequately funded. There is nothing sacred cow about heeding demands the poor or the rich be spared any sacrifice while the middle class is being savaged.
And within that "other" 1.7 trillion, there are plenty of functions America believes are indispensible and would dump Bush's prescription drug plan for seniors to keep going - National Parks, National Weather Service, NOAA, DOE R&D, etc.
"...And within that "other" 1.7 trillion, there are plenty of functions America believes are indispensible and would dump Bush's prescription drug plan for seniors to keep going -National Parks, National Weather Service, NOAA, DOE R&D, etc...."
The 2008 budget was $2.7 trillion. Can someone honestly day reverting to that level of spending would result in some kind of economic collapse?
Seriously?
I'm tellin ya, Cedarford has chosen to go to the dark side.
I can't believe there's no "civility bullshit" tag on this one.
I have a "Proud Teahadist" stick on my bumper.
How did you get a stick to stay on your bumper? Doesn't driving down the road with a piece of tree on your car look odd?
I'm pleased by the backhanded admission that Tea Partiers pose no existential threat to the US and that only hysterical bedwetters worry about them. (That is still what good liberals believe about actual jihadists, correct?)
Scott - take your teahadism elsewhere. We don't want your filth in here. We are all progressives.
I prefer Teahadists.
Amen brother garage. We need to stand up to these terrorists. They are worse then Al Quaeda!
Somebody's garage door isn't opening all the way.
I belong to the Tea Party. Are you going to tell me that I didn't pay for the Social Security that I'm now receiving?
Actually, you didn't pay for it. True, you paid your SS taxes, but they weren't kept in any sort of trust or lock-box--they were spent covering the costs of your parents' social security, along with national defense, NASA, dairy subsidies, $900 toilet seats, etc. As it turns out, I and my co-taxpayers are now paying for your SS.
Your welcome.
*You're
Ugh. I feel like a terrorist when I do that.
As it turns out, I and my co-taxpayers are now paying for your SS.
Well, then, I paid for those before me. Are you arguing that there isn't enough money being paid into it to pay off those presently receiving checks? I still paid into the program. A sum of money that I'm now getting back.
And, how are you paying for my Social Security benefits? Through your Federal taxes? The sum of money that is taken out of your check for Soc. Sec.?
When I was working, was I not paying for those who were collecting Social Security benefits at that time? How else is it supposed to work?
Christopher in Ma said...
Yeah. I want lower spending and less government.
I'm a terrorist. I'm waging jihad on America.
Goddammit, but I really, truly HATE Democrats.
Yes. Me too. Only visceral hatred will fuel the counterrevolution on those thugs.
Actually, you didn't pay for it. True, you paid your SS taxes, but they weren't kept in any sort of trust or lock-box--they were spent covering the costs of your parents' social security
So I guess the only people who don't want to enjoy the benefits of SS without paying for them are the advocates of private accounts.
A private account would have been nice, unfortunately, that wasn't an option.
So I guess the only people who don't want to enjoy the benefits of SS without paying for them are the advocates of private accounts.
Truth bomb.
"Actually, you didn't pay for it. True, you paid your SS taxes, but they weren't kept in any sort of trust or lock-box--they were spent covering the costs of your parents' social security, along with national defense, NASA, dairy subsidies, $900 toilet seats, etc. As it turns out, I and my co-taxpayers are now paying for your SS."
When a private citizen sets up such a system, they go to prison. Now, I'll grant you that there are things that it should be legal for the government to do that shouldn't be legal for private citizens (e.g., executions). But even if you think a Ponzi scheme comes under that heading, do you really think it's still a good idea?
"Only visceral hatred will fuel the counterrevolution on those thugs."
Head on over to NROs "Corner," ricpic, and read Jonah Goldberg's "To Hell With You People" post on Democrat civility. He's got some sweet visceral hatred going.
Mirriam-Webster's definition of "jihad" in their dictionary for English learners defines it as "a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their beliefs."
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/jihad
But perhaps they'll change it to "struggle" or someting if CAIR complains ...
It's not war war.
Visceral hatred is a sure-fire vote-getter. Pat Buchanan would never have reached the White House without it.
Well, none of the people the New York Times accuses are actual subscribers, now.
And, stores that advertise inside that fish wrap ... don't see customers who'd cut out an ad ... and bring it with them.
In other words? The NY Times isn't even worth it as a coupon!
Nor would you go there if you lost your dog. You'd go to Craig's List.
Cry me a river.
HA!
Back in 1972, when Nixon was president. He still had to go to the NY Times' editorial board, hat in hand ... to beg for their endorsement.
Gee. Back then the NY Times chose McGovern.
And, they didn't even feel the pain. Novo is news. They've been blocking the pain off ever since.
machine said...
#2: They are not anarchists either...they simply want to enjoy the benefits of government (Social Security, Medicare, Defense) but don't want to pay for it.
Apparently the Tea Party is not a minority group. It's the 50+% who pay no income tax.
That is what you were saying, right?
Another word we liberal TP supporters might adopt, not for ourselves but for our opponents in "fascist".
Fascism, as propounded by Mussolini is a socialist movement. It is the control of the means of production by the government. In the name of the people, of course.
You are fairly close, but that isn't going to help. Indeed, the brand of socialism that Obama, Pelosi, et al. seem most comfortable with is fascism. Part of how it is different from the communism brand of socialism is that there is a place for large companies in fascism, and that is that they will benefit if they put the interests of the state first. Yes, I am talking "crony capitalism". The way that GE interacts with the Obama Administration, and visa versa, would have warmed the heart of Benito Mussolini.
That is part of why big business is a lot happier with Obama and the Democrats than are smaller companies - they can utilize their lobbying muscle to get their paid lobbyists to grease the skids for more money from the government. It is a win-win for all concerned - the Democratic politicians and the big businesses. Unfortunately for them, reality, in the form of a run-away budget and borrowing, is intervening, along with those evil tea partiers.
The way that GE interacts with the Obama Administration, and visa versa, would have warmed the heart of Benito Mussolini.
Yes, but Mussolini made the trains run on time while POTUS' attempt to get trains to play with ended with a whimper and a strengthening of resolve for his political opponents.
Mussolini made the trains run on time
Not so fast, Red.
It was a turn of phrase, Bronze (the most evil color).
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Having passed through the first two phases, looks like the lib establishment is now fighting the TEA party.
Joe must be right. He works for the New York Times. So presumably he needs a bodyguard, since Jihadists (at least the kind he is insulting) are ruthless killers.
Hire someone to watch your back, Joe. If you are right--and you know you always are--someone is out to get you
I was just completing the phrase, for greater precision.
It's a melaninist thing, Pinky; you wouldn't understand.
Dear NYT: When we get to Jihad, you'll be the first to know.
"Pinky" is OUR word. You are NOT allowed.
That's OK. "Brain" is ours.
Roesch-voltaire:The ridiculous, self-inflicted debt ceiling-fest cost the US government $1.7 billion dollars.
Idiotic. People who believe crap like this are part of the group that got us into this mess.
If you think you can ascertain short term cause and effect in the bond market, you should go to work for Goldman Sachs. There you will learn that they don't know either. Only a fool thinks they can figure the reasoning for short term market fluctuations.
Personally I expect interest rates for the US government to rise over the next several years. Two reasons: (1) the Treasury can't keep rates low by massive intervention forever; (2) until we really deal with the budget problem, our creditworthiness is going to decline in the eyes of the holders and buyers of our bonds.
That's OK. "Brain" is ours.
What you cocoa-skinned freaks eat is your own business.
Mmm, ginger brains. Such a delicacy, due to their scarcity.
too far?
Had the radio on today and some Democrat called the Republicans "extremists". Was is it about name calling instead of using persuasion?
Olive branch: Ginger > Mary Ann.
Plus, some of my favorite servant girls are gingers.
99% of left/liberal rhetoric and behavior seems to boil down to:
"It's not evil when we do it".
The use of the word "Jihad" is not going to work very well, and neither is using the word "extremist". The left has been using the later for quite some time now, and most have already come to the conclusion that anything to the right of a moderate Democrat is considered "extremist" by the left, which, of course, includes almost anyone writing for the NYT.
The one word that might worry the Tea Party is "terrorist", because that is part of what they go out of their way to avoid. Remember, this is the group that leaves protest sites cleaner than when they arrived (as contrasted to leftist protesters who tend to leave trash everywhere and destroy things wherever they protest). This is why those black Congressional agitators were able to walk through a crowd of Tea Partiers, without once hearing the "N" word that they were so hoping to hear.
Many of the Tea Partiers are the bedrock of America. The people who work hard, save, etc. And, being called "terrorists" may possibly dissuade some of them to back off.
The one thing that is probably going to minimize the damage is that it first came from the gaffomatic VP, Joe Biden. No one, and I mean no one, takes what the guy says seriously, because if they did, they would be petrified of what might happen if the President ever was unable to perform his office. I would not be surprised one bit, if he were checked in to a facility soon after leaving office, given what appears to me to be rather advanced senile dementia (ok, the guy really has never had enough marbles up above to rub together, but I think he has gotten worse).
Forget the debt ceiling, debt, and deficits. Let the government explicitly raise taxes and await a response from the taxpayers in kind. People should be consciously aware of the policies which through involuntary exploitation serve to destroy their wealth (i.e., the product of their labor), denigrate their dignity, and promote progressive corruption.
Did they think the so-called "health care reform" would be sufficient to purchase majority support? They must have been very disappointed, and even frantic, when Enron 2.0 (i.e., AGW/AGCC/"climate disruption) failed to materialize.
No, if they want to pursue policies of redistributive change in an effort to eviscerate their competing interests, then they will have to confront the people they hope to exploit.
I'm confused.
I know I'm an immigrant and all, but I could have sworn that when I was studying for the citizenship exam I learned that when citizens band together behind a political movement and elect representatives who take those views to Washington, it's called *DEMOCRACY*, not *TERRORISM*.
Silly me.
If we were not paying for our own SS then why are our benefits based on what we paid in over the years. Obviously if they are keeping a record and basing the benefits on payments, then we essentially paid for our own SS.
It's interesting that NYT would equate Muslim struggle with terrorism. I was under the impression that the problem stemmed from orthodox Muslims or the so-called extremists, and not from the general Muslim population. At least that has been my personal experience. Apparently, NYT would beg to differ.
The Tea Party are revolutionaries. Fortunately, the American revolution was successful in divesting Americans from the vehicles of left-wing oppression. What remains is an ever vigilant effort to conserve the individual liberty that Americans have fought and died for.
It is the generational progressives (the rebels with a cause and without a clue) and their anarchist alter egos that are Western civilizations version of terrorists.
In any case, let the rebels struggle. They should know by now that the people always rise in revolt to left-wing regimes.
Blow up Israeli kids in in pizzaria and you're a "militant." Elect a representative of the wrong type and you're a "terrorist."
The ridiculous, self-inflicted debt ceiling-fest cost the US government $1.7 billion dollars.
My goodness. That's almost FOUR HOURS worth of Obama government spending!
James Taranto has an op ed in today's Wall Street Journal that is a good rebuttal to the NYT piece.
Ya know, I have the strangest feeling that even if the negotiations had gone nearly 100% Obama's way, Nocero would have written, and the Times would have printed, essentially the same op-ed.
The only way they'd ever be happy is if the Republicans voluntarily disbanded, saying "please, sir, may I have another" on their way out the door.
But it isn't going to happen and the Times had better get used to that.
@dick:If we were not paying for our own SS then why are our benefits based on what we paid in over the years. Obviously if they are keeping a record and basing the benefits on payments, then we essentially paid for our own SS.
You give me a dime a week for a year and the end of the year I will give you $52: give me two dimes a week I'll give you $104.
Your benefits are based on your payments and I kept a record. Yet I'm obviously paying you far more than you paid in.
My relatives who were young adults when SS security began are in their 80s and 90s now. They have taken out far more in benefits than they (or their husbands) ever put in.
Forget the blinded partisanship of blaming increased interest costs on Republicans when Obama and his fellow Democratic allies including the media were the ones talking up the liklihood of default. The revealing point is that RV believes 1.7 billion is "great damage", but when his fellow leftists handed out 1.7 Trillion he cheered.
Apparently RV believes the source of spending determines whether it is good or "great damage".
What a tool.
Joe's boss is clean and articulate, but Joe is proud to come from a state that wanted to join the Confederacy. Joe's political opponents are terrorists who use hard-liner negotiating tactics.
Post a Comment