Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Here's the text of an email I received. I'm not to re-circulate mass emails (this is the first time ever that I've done it). But I WILL DEFINITELY be sending a tea bag to the White House on April 1 to protest the ridiculous tax rates on our labor, and the unconscionable run-away spending that has prevailed in Washington since 2001.

In fact, I think it's time we organized a third political party, dedicated to restraint in taxing and spending. We should call it: "THE TEA PARTY." Our founding fathers would be mortified by Washington, DC in the 21st Century. They would be proud to see that their Tea Party has served as an example for Americans who are taxed in ways they found reprehensible.

The New American Tea Party[/b]

OK. folks, here it is. You may think you are just one voice and what you
think won't make a difference. Well, yes it will and YES, WE CAN!! If you
are disgusted and angry with the way Washington is handling our taxes. If
you are fearful of the fallout from the wreckless spending of BILLIONS to
bailout and "stimulate" without accountability and responsibility then we
need to become ONE, LOUD VOICE THAT CAN BE HEARD FROM EVERY CITY, TOWN,
SUBURB AND HOME IN AMERICA. There is a growing protest to demand that
Congress, the President and his cabinet LISTEN to us, the American Citizens.
What is being done in Washington is NOT the way to handle the economic free
fall.


So, here's the plan. On April 1, 2009, all Ameicans are asked to send a
TEABAG to Washington , D.C. You do not have to enclose a note or any other
information unless you so desire. Just a TEABAG. Many cities are organizing
protests. If you simply search, "New American Tea Party", several sites will
come up. If you aren't the 'protester' type, simply make your one voice
heard with a TEABAG. Your one voice will become a roar when joined with
millions of others that feel the same way. Yes, something needs to be done
but the lack of confidence as shown by the steady decline in the stock
market speaks volumes.

This was not my idea. I visited the sites of the 'New American Tea Pary' and
an online survey showed over 90% of thousands said they would send the
teabag on April 1. Why, April 1?? We want them to reach Washington by April
15. Will you do it? I will. Send it to; 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Washington ,
D.C. 20500 .

Forward this to everyone in your address book. Visit the website below for
more information about the 'New American Tea Party'. I would encourage
everyone to go ahead and get the envelope ready to mail, then just drop it
in the mail April 1. Can't guarantee what the postage will be by then, it is
going up as we speak, but have your envelope ready. What will this cost you?
A little time and a 42 or 44 cent stamp.

What could you receive in benefits? Maybe, just maybe, our elected officials
will start to listen to the people. Take out the Pork. Tell us how the money
is being spent. We want TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. Remember, the money
will be spent over the next 4-5 years. It is not too late.

Quite appropriate, I must say, with the White House announcing the President will sign the pork-laden Continuing Resolution, saying it's left over from the previous administration...

Not a good excuse for wasting the money...he could veto it and tell his fellow Democrats to remove the earmarks, but, no, he'll sign it privately and then say from now one, transparency...

I might just do this.....

Yawn...


Need to check out the "roots" of this "party"

My guess is that Scaife is behind it.

Spot-o-tea matie

Founded by Rick Santelli...

Nough said...


NEXT!

dbackjon wrote:Founded by Rick Santelli...

Nough said...


NEXT!

Party Pooper

Gil Dobie wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Founded by Rick Santelli...

Nough said...


NEXT!

Party Pooper

I didn't think anyone could poop on the Bison's party for the next 10 days...

dbackjon wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Party Pooper

I didn't think anyone could poop on the Bison's party for the next 10 days...

You can't roller skate in a Buffalo Herd.

Rick Santelli my ass.

This is a DCI job. Astroturf extrordinaire. The "tea party" website was registered to GOP consultant two weeks before the "tea party" meltdown was staged on CNBC... This is an op... and not even a very good one.

DCI - for those who aren't familiar - is GOP firm, specializing in what we call "black ops" which ranges in activities from planting "fringe element" protesters in with left wing protesters to make them look even more extreme to writing right wing "forward if you agree" emails. they also do stuff like this... set up a "staged incident" meant to incite your base, or lead reporters to believe that a right-wing movement is larger or more grassroots than it is.

Great idea...

I've got an old box of Lipton that's been sitting up in my cupboard since my last divorce...since I don't drink tea. Sounds like it's going to take a roadtrip.

lol... feel bad for the postal workers who irradiate and screen the white house mail... 1,000 teabags from 1,000 angry old right wing cranks from every corner of the country... lol

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:lol... feel bad for the postal workers who irradiate and screen the white house mail... 10,000,000 teabags from 10,000,000 angry Americans... lol

Accuracy...

Think of this as 10,000,000 American's creating postal jobs...the honest way.

Col Hogan wrote:Quite appropriate, I must say, with the White House announcing the President will sign the pork-laden Continuing Resolution, saying it's left over from the previous administration...

Not a good excuse for wasting the money...he could veto it and tell his fellow Democrats to remove the earmarks, but, no, he'll sign it privately and then say from now one, transparency...

I might just do this.....

Funny, they just mentioned on the news not 10 minutes ago that 40% of all earmarks were for Republicans including the single largest earmark of them all for Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) and a cool $75 million for Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why only Democrats should remove earmarks. Damn, Colonel, you used to be a fairly reasonable guy, what happened?

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Quite appropriate, I must say, with the White House announcing the President will sign the pork-laden Continuing Resolution, saying it's left over from the previous administration...

Not a good excuse for wasting the money...he could veto it and tell his fellow Democrats to remove the earmarks, but, no, he'll sign it privately and then say from now one, transparency...

I might just do this.....

Funny, they just mentioned on the news not 10 minutes ago that 40% of all earmarks were for Republicans including the single largest earmark of them all for Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) and a cool $75 million for Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why only Democrats should remove earmarks. Damn, Colonel, you used to be a fairly reasonable guy, what happened?

The list as of the 10th...

1) Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. -- $122,804,900

2) Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala. -- $114,484,250

3) Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. -- $85,691,491

4) Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. -- $76,899,425

5) Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. -- $75,908,475

6) Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska -- $74,000,750

7) Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa -- $66,860,000

8) Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. -- $53,133,500

9) Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. -- $51,186,000

10) Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii -- $46,380,205

11) Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. -- $39,228,250

12) Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. -- $36,547,100

13) Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt. -- $36,161,125

14) Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. -- $35,577,250

15) Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa. -- $27,169,750

16) Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. -- $26,628,613

17) Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. -- $25,320,000

18) Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis. -- $23,832,000

19) Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. -- $21,952,250

20) Former Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. -- $19,588,625

This is a bipartisan feeding at the trough...but the earmarks are just a drop in the bucket. It's the bailout bill pouring trillions into "pet projects" that are the real pork. The Omnibus earmarks are being used to distract American's while Congress and Obama rob not just our generation, but our children's and grandchildren's...therein lies the tragedy.

Conks doing as Conks do. Living in the past, lamely making parallels to the past. No wonder the Party is on its death bed.

It'll be hard for me to give up a tea-bag, but I might do it.
BTW, anyone who doesn't like iced tea is an unpatriotic American.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:lol... feel bad for the postal workers who irradiate and screen the white house mail... 1,000 teabags from 1,000 angry old right wing cranks from every corner of the country... lol

You are exactly what the beaucrats in DC love -- you are a tax-and-spend goverment apologist and the type of lapdog that they love. Joe Biden would call you a "Patriot."

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Quite appropriate, I must say, with the White House announcing the President will sign the pork-laden Continuing Resolution, saying it's left over from the previous administration...

Not a good excuse for wasting the money...he could veto it and tell his fellow Democrats to remove the earmarks, but, no, he'll sign it privately and then say from now one, transparency...

I might just do this.....

Funny, they just mentioned on the news not 10 minutes ago that 40% of all earmarks were for Republicans including the single largest earmark of them all for Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) and a cool $75 million for Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why only Democrats should remove earmarks. Damn, Colonel, you used to be a fairly reasonable guy, what happened?

Ahhh...I don't think I've ever said anything positive about any earmarks...Republican or Democratic...But who controls the legislature...the Democrats...so they must agree to remove them...that's all I meant...

President Obama had an opportunity to stand up to his campaign promise and eliminate earmarks, but he waffled...

In another thread, someone asked a question about what would have happened if McCain had been elected...and I responded we'll never know...Well, I'm willing to wager I can predict what would have happened with this piece of legislation if the senior senator from Arizona had been elected...

Col Hogan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Funny, they just mentioned on the news not 10 minutes ago that 40% of all earmarks were for Republicans including the single largest earmark of them all for Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi) and a cool $75 million for Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). I'd like to hear your reasoning as to why only Democrats should remove earmarks. Damn, Colonel, you used to be a fairly reasonable guy, what happened?

Ahhh...I don't think I've ever said anything positive about any earmarks...Republican or Democratic...But who controls the legislature...the Democrats...so they must agree to remove them...that's all I meant...

President Obama had an opportunity to stand up to his campaign promise and eliminate earmarks, but he waffled...

In another thread, someone asked a question about what would have happened if McCain had been elected...and I responded we'll never know...Well, I'm willing to wager I can predict what would have happened with this piece of legislation if the senior senator from Arizona had been elected...

My bad Colonel, I read your statement wrong. A couple of points:

1) The Democrats can't remove earmarks by themselves.

2) Getting rid of the earmarks (about 2% of the budget) won't reduce the budget, it will only change what the money is spent for and by whom. McCain's veto wouldn't change the budget by a dime.

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Ahhh...I don't think I've ever said anything positive about any earmarks...Republican or Democratic...But who controls the legislature...the Democrats...so they must agree to remove them...that's all I meant...

President Obama had an opportunity to stand up to his campaign promise and eliminate earmarks, but he waffled...

In another thread, someone asked a question about what would have happened if McCain had been elected...and I responded we'll never know...Well, I'm willing to wager I can predict what would have happened with this piece of legislation if the senior senator from Arizona had been elected...

My bad Colonel, I read your statement wrong. A couple of points:

1) The Democrats can't remove earmarks by themselves.

2) Getting rid of the earmarks (about 2% of the budget) won't reduce the budget, it will only change what the money is spent for and by whom. McCain's veto wouldn't change the budget by a dime.

Dawg, the democrats have the numbers in the House to do anything they want with no repub votes...in the Senate, they need some but not much GOP support to accomplish what they want...

And I disagree with your point of not lowering the budget...now, I can only speak on the earmarks in the DoD budget, but those earmarks are add-ons the Department did not request...if those earmarks were removed, the budget would drop...I assumed all the other earmarks are the same...add-ons for pet projects that add to the budget...

Col Hogan wrote:

houndawg wrote:
My bad Colonel, I read your statement wrong. A couple of points:

1) The Democrats can't remove earmarks by themselves.

2) Getting rid of the earmarks (about 2% of the budget) won't reduce the budget, it will only change what the money is spent for and by whom. McCain's veto wouldn't change the budget by a dime.

Dawg, the democrats have the numbers in the House to do anything they want with no repub votes...in the Senate, they need some but not much GOP support to accomplish what they want...

And I disagree with your point of not lowering the budget...now, I can only speak on the earmarks in the DoD budget, but those earmarks are add-ons the Department did not request...if those earmarks were removed, the budget would drop...I assumed all the other earmarks are the same...add-ons for pet projects that add to the budget...

If the Democrats can do what they want, why aren't they? Seems like they'd be looking to get even for what they got during the last eight years of miserable failure. (Yes T'man, we know the D's controlled congress for a whole two years of that looting spree).

I don't know if a Pentagon add-on is the same as an earmark or not, but the number I'm hearing for earmarks, 7.8 billion, is about 2% of the budget and a far cry from Senator Drool-in-his-Porridge's claim of $100 billion. My understanding is that earmarks come after the budget has been decided upon, and only direct whatever Agency normally controls that appropriation where x amount of it must be spent. In other words, the Senator gets to specify where a certain amount of the Agency's money will be spent. If he doesn't, they get the money anyway but spend it where they think it's needed. I could be wrong and would be happy to be educated on the subject.

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Dawg, the democrats have the numbers in the House to do anything they want with no repub votes...in the Senate, they need some but not much GOP support to accomplish what they want...

And I disagree with your point of not lowering the budget...now, I can only speak on the earmarks in the DoD budget, but those earmarks are add-ons the Department did not request...if those earmarks were removed, the budget would drop...I assumed all the other earmarks are the same...add-ons for pet projects that add to the budget...

If the Democrats can do what they want, why aren't they? Seems like they'd be looking to get even for what they got during the last eight years of miserable failure. (Yes T'man, we know the D's controlled congress for a whole two years of that looting spree).

Actually, dawg, if you look at what triggered the collapse, the precipitous decline of the dollar and collapse of housing values, that began in early 2006, when the Dems took control of Congress.

Oh, and btw, I predicted it would happen the moment I learned that Pelosi had been selected as Speaker.

No thanks necessary, dawg.

Just a free service I provide: "Tman's omniscient visionary economic predictions".

T-man, the collapse was a long time coming. Your hatred of Pelosi has rendered you unable to connect to reality

travelinman67 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
If the Democrats can do what they want, why aren't they? Seems like they'd be looking to get even for what they got during the last eight years of miserable failure. (Yes T'man, we know the D's controlled congress for a whole two years of that looting spree).

Actually, dawg, if you look at what triggered the collapse, the precipitous decline of the dollar and collapse of housing values, that began in early 2006, when the Dems took control of Congress.

Oh, and btw, I predicted it would happen the moment I learned that Pelosi had been selected as Speaker.

No thanks necessary, dawg.

Just a free service I provide: "Tman's omniscient visionary economic predictions".

Lord.

Hardly, it's simple RushGurgitation and inane blamestorming of Democrats. The housing market went to shit right after the elections in November of '06, right?

No work or thought required to RushGurgitate. Your buddy and his bloodthirsty cowboy capitalist cocksucker cronies who laughed at regulators own the whole thing.



"Bad Conk. BAD! Hating women with power
can be cured with therapy."

dbackjon wrote:Yawn...


Need to check out the "roots" of this "party"

My guess is that Scaife is behind it.

WTF's up with you and Richard Scaife?

Recently, everything Conk that's posted you chirp it's a Scaife conspiracy.

And btw, at least do some homework first...yesterday you implied Politico was a Scaife shill. They're not. Don't believe me? Check your beloved CAP, er, I meant CMD managed SourceWatch...

The owner, Robert Albritton, comes from multi generation communications lineage, his company Albritton Communications is an "affiliate" of the ABC/Disney network, and the subsidiary, Politico, is affiliated with CBS. Politico's top two personnel, Chief Editor Harris and Exec. Editor VandeHei are came to the Politico from the Washington Post where their positions were Political Editor and National Political reporter...hardly a "portfolio" for a "conservative" organization.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Politico

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ns_Company

The only reason you and the DU crowd throw mud at Politico is due to their favorable coverage of anti-gay Romney during the election cycle, and their refusal to follow the "DU/CAP" censorship of truth edict.

You need to take a breath, stand back, and look at the legacy being built for the Democratic Party/Progressive Movement.

Limbaugh's an embarassment to true conservatives, and in the same vein, this DU/CAP, "deny/lie/sneak/censor/character assasination" M.O. is a disgusting insult to the legacy of every honest Democratic leader who labored to build the party's reputation as "the working man's voice" in Washington.

Yet you defend them with knee-jerk consistency?

Jon, I've said this before. You are not defined by your sexuality. Yes, there needs to be corrections to the laws to ensure the rights of LGBT's throughout the U.S. But there REALLY ARE bigger fish to fry in the scope of Constitutional issues facing Americans. Those issues WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED if our elected officials are allowed to constrictively, arbitrarily, narrow the parameters of the scope of this debate, which has become the course of the current and past two administrations.
How is it that you haven't cried out about Obama's use of Signing Statements yesterday to "nullify" portions of the Omnibus bill, just a few days after he publicly denounces Signing Statements, orders a review of Bush's use of signing statements, and orders a blanket rescission of all of Bush's Signing Statements?

Here's the March 9th statement by Obama...
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi ... tatements/
Obama reins in signing statements

Spoiler: show

Rebuking his predecessor for the second time yesterday, President Obama declared that he will not use signing statements to disregard parts of laws because he disagrees on policy grounds, but only when he strongly believes provisions are unconstitutional.

In a presidential memo, Obama also ordered his top executive branch officials to seek advice from Attorney General Eric Holder about whether to enforce the hundreds of statements proffered by President George W. Bush. Critics contend Bush used such statements to expand his power, particularly on national security, by ignoring the intent or certain provisions of bills properly passed by Congress.

"There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the president will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements," wrote Obama, who also overturned Bush's restrictions yesterday on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

"I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities," the president pledged.

Obama also promised to "take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable" to let Congress know of his constitutional concerns about bills before they pass. He also said he would clearly lay out his constitutional objection in any signing statements he does issue; Bush was criticized for issuing signing statements with vague reasons, often asserting his powers as commander in chief.

A series of stories in the Globe in 2006 pointed out that Bush - often with little if any public notice - issued signing statements far more often than other presidents and used them to disobey more than 750 bills approved by Congress.

They emerged as an issue after he used such statements to suggest he could bypass a law on harsh interrogations of terrorism detainees and a law requiring the FBI to tell Congress how it was using expanded police powers under the Patriot Act.

Bush issued them on a wide range of issues including affirmative action, immigration, whistle-blower protections, and safeguards against political interference in scientific research. The statements are official documents, recorded in the Federal Register, in which the president lays out his legal interpretation of a bill for the federal bureaucracy to follow. (The Globe stories won a 2007 Pulitzer Prize, journalism's highest honor, for Charlie Savage. Now with The New York Times, Savage first reported Obama's memo on the newspaper's website yesterday.)

During the presidential campaign, Obama blasted Bush for how he used signing statements but reserved the right to issue them himself, in a more restrained way. Republican presidential John McCain said he would not use them at all.

And his usage of them yesterday to nullify portions of the Omnibus Bill...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/us/po ... .html?_r=1
Obama Says He Can Ignore Some Parts of Spending Bill

Spoiler: show

By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: March 11, 2009
WASHINGTON — President Obama on Wednesday issued his first signing statement, reserving a right to bypass dozens of provisions in a $410 billion government spending bill even as he signed it into law.

In the statement — directions to executive-branch officials about how to carry out the legislation — Mr. Obama instructed them to view most of the disputed provisions as merely advisory and nonbinding, saying they were unconstitutional intrusions on his own powers.

Mr. Obama’s instructions followed by two days his order to government officials that they not rely on any of President George W. Bush’s provision-bypassing signing statements without first consulting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. In that order, Mr. Obama said he would continue the practice of issuing signing statements, though “with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well founded.”

One of the budget bill’s provisions that Mr. Obama said he could circumvent concerns United Nations peacekeeping missions. It says money may not be spent on any such mission if it entails putting United States troops under a foreign commander, unless Mr. Obama’s military advisers so recommend.

“This provision,” Mr. Obama wrote, “raises constitutional concerns by constraining my choice of particular persons to perform specific command functions in military missions, by conditioning the exercise of my authority as commander in chief on the recommendations of subordinates within the military chain of command, and by constraining my diplomatic negotiating authority.”

He also raised concerns about a section that establishes whistle-blower protections for federal employees who give information to Congress.

“I do not interpret this provision,” he wrote, “to detract from my authority to direct the heads of executive departments to supervise, control and correct employees’ communications with the Congress in cases where such communications would be unlawful or would reveal information that is properly privileged or otherwise confidential.”

In addition, the president singled out four areas of the bill that direct negotiations with other countries on certain matters, and three that issue directions about what agencies should include in budget requests.

But a majority of the challenged provisions are those allowing money to be reallocated to a different program only with the approval of a Congressional committee. Mr. Obama called the provisions “impermissible forms of legislative aggrandizement” and declared that while executive-branch officials would notify lawmakers of any reallocation, “spending decisions shall not be treated as dependent on the approval of Congressional committees.”

David M. Golove, a law professor at New York University who specializes in executive powers, said the prerogatives invoked by Mr. Obama were relatively uncontroversial. Still, Mr. Golove said he was surprised by the scope and detail of the objections.

“It reflects an executive branch that wishes to demonstrate publicly a commitment to upholding all of the president’s claimed constitutional prerogatives,” he said, “even when the intrusions are trivial or just a matter of infelicitous wording.”

Jeezus, Jon! Who in the hell determines what is "privileged" or "confidential"? The department head? Obama? Just like he did a few weeks ago when he required all the employees at the Pentagon who participated in Budget discussions to sign a Confidentiality Agreement preventing them from discussing budget matters with anyone outside the Pentagon? Holy Fv(k, Jon! Imagine if Bush (sounds more like a Cheney stunt) had tried to pull off something like this! What's to prevent a blanket agreement that prevents ALL employees from talking about any work-related content with non-department employees?

'Tween you and me. I hope to hell someone challenges this VERY SOON, otherwise, so long as this statement remains in effect, it will have a chilling effect on all potential Federal employees who are aware of government misconduct, but have been "muzzled" by the President.

I realize, consistency in ethos hasn't been one of the Dem's trademark qualities, but I just don't know how to convey the trust breaching relevance of not merely a tacit dismissal of constitutional inconsistencies, but an apparent overt orchestration of Democratic sympathizing NGO's and media to manipulate public opinion with the intent of distracting the public's attention AWAY from the Dem leader's conscious acts of constitutional malfeasance.

You can keep parroting the "But Bush..." line for the rest of your life...

...or you can stand up straight and announce your intent to "Do things the right way".

It is your ethos that ultimately defines you in the end.