The New American Tea Party

[travelinman67]

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

Yet I was correct.

Maybe I knew something you didn't...(hint...she's incompetent. The economy has been teetering perilously for the past decade, and all it would take is some swashbuckling, sword slashing, no'er do well reformer like Pelosi to come leaping on the deck proclaiming reckless, sweeping, reconstruction, with nary a clue as to how the economy worked, to push the dollar overboard. She did it with a glimmer and a grin. She's the Queen of Nincompoops on Capitol Hill...and the Dems can deny it for the rest of their existence, but in the end, the history will not be re-written.).

[JoltinJoe]

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

Why do you see this as a conk/donk issue?

Our national debt is now about $11,000,000,000,000.00 (that's $11 trillion). About half of that was run during the administration of George W. Bush. In other words, a conk, as you call it, is largely responsible for the bloated and unconscionable size of our national debt.

And how about the Bush Administration's handling of the Troubled Asset Recovery Program fund. They say the money is going to be used to purchase "toxic assets" off the books of the banks, and then instead $350 billion is simply given to banks with no accountability, no transparency, and without even telling the public which bank got what.

As a taxpayer (and one who pays ALOT), I am deeply troubled and do not approve of how that $350 billion was given away. That was MY money, and YOUR money. If the federal government is going to give away my money like that, it makes me wonder why I should send it to the government in the first place?

BTW, your portion of that national debt is about $36,000. You are a family of four, correct? So you guys are on the hook for about $144,000. Can you just turn a blind eye to this? Hey, it's one thing to run a deficit; but this is just getting way out of control.

And the way the national debt is calculated isn't really honest, because it does not include future accrured liabilities like social security which of course is suppoed to be paid from the social security (cough, cough) trust fund.

Don't be a lapdog. Send the teabag.

[Cap'n Cat]

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

Why do you see this as a conk/donk issue?

Our national debt is now about $11,000,000,000,000.00 (that's $11 trillion). About half of that was run during the administration of George W. Bush. In other words, a conk, as you call it, is largely responsible for the bloated and unconscionable size of our national debt.

And how about the Bush Administration's handling of the Troubled Asset Recovery Program fund. They say the money is going to be used to purchase "toxic assets" off the books of the banks, and then instead $350 billion is simply given to banks with no accountability, no transparency, and without even telling the public which bank got what.

As a taxpayer (and one who pays ALOT), I am deeply troubled and do not approve of how that $350 billion was given away. That was MY money, and YOUR money. If the federal government is going to give away my money like that, it makes me wonder why I should send it to the government in the first place?

BTW, your portion of that national debt is about $36,000. You are a family of four, correct? So you guys are on the hook for about $144,000. Can you just turn a blind eye to this? Hey, it's one thing to run a deficit; but this is just getting way out of control.

And the way the national debt is calculated isn't really honest, because it does not include future accrured liabilities like social security which of course is suppoed to be paid from the social security (cough, cough) trust fund.

Don't be a lapdog. Send the teabag.

Joe,
Why don't you run for office and change sh*t if it's so bad?

Bitch and moan, bitch and moan, bitch and moan. You're like Gil Dobie with half a brain.

[JoltinJoe]

Why do you see this as a conk/donk issue?

Our national debt is now about $11,000,000,000,000.00 (that's $11 trillion). About half of that was run during the administration of George W. Bush. In other words, a conk, as you call it, is largely responsible for the bloated and unconscionable size of our national debt.

And how about the Bush Administration's handling of the Troubled Asset Recovery Program fund. They say the money is going to be used to purchase "toxic assets" off the books of the banks, and then instead $350 billion is simply given to banks with no accountability, no transparency, and without even telling the public which bank got what.

As a taxpayer (and one who pays ALOT), I am deeply troubled and do not approve of how that $350 billion was given away. That was MY money, and YOUR money. If the federal government is going to give away my money like that, it makes me wonder why I should send it to the government in the first place?

BTW, your portion of that national debt is about $36,000. You are a family of four, correct? So you guys are on the hook for about $144,000. Can you just turn a blind eye to this? Hey, it's one thing to run a deficit; but this is just getting way out of control.

And the way the national debt is calculated isn't really honest, because it does not include future accrured liabilities like social security which of course is suppoed to be paid from the social security (cough, cough) trust fund.

Don't be a lapdog. Send the teabag.

Joe,
Why don't you run for office and change sh*t if it's so bad?

Bitch and moan, bitch and moan, bitch and moan. You're like Gil Dobie with half a brain.

Would you vote for me? And I need your endorsement. Do I have it?

(You do agree, don't you?)

[Purple For Life]

IT IS JUST AN URBAN LEGEND.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/teaparty.asp

FFS, I WISH PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT SNOPES BEFORE POSTING OR FORWARDING EVERY PIECE OF TRIPE ON THE INTERNET.

Now sending teabags in protest of DOMA, that's another story...

[JoltinJoe]

IT IS JUST AN URBAN LEGEND.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/teaparty.asp

FFS, I WISH PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT SNOPES BEFORE POSTING OR FORWARDING EVERY PIECE OF TRIPE ON THE INTERNET.

Now sending teabags in protest of DOMA, that's another story...

Or maybe people should actually read snopes links before they post them ...

[Gil Dobie]

Joe,
Why don't you run for office and change sh*t if it's so bad?

Bitch and moan, bitch and moan, bitch and moan. You're like Gil Dobie with half a brain.

You can have your own show on MSNBC.

[Purple For Life]

IT IS JUST AN URBAN LEGEND.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/teaparty.asp

FFS, I WISH PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT SNOPES BEFORE POSTING OR FORWARDING EVERY PIECE OF TRIPE ON THE INTERNET.

Now sending teabags in protest of DOMA, that's another story...

Or maybe people should actually read snopes links before they post them ...

Hey asswipe, I did. It says that it's a stupid idea to send teabags. Just send the wrapper if you are going to do something.

Or if you are going to DO something, do something more than just passively mailing something someplace where it will just get thrown away. That's the ticket!v

[JoltinJoe]

Or maybe people should actually read snopes links before they post them ...

Hey asswipe, I did. It says that it's a stupid idea to send teabags. Just send the wrapper if you are going to do something.

Or if you are going to DO something, do something more than just passively mailing something someplace where it will just get thrown away. That's the ticket!v

You did read it? For someone in graduate school, you sure have limited reading comprehension skills. You originally said it was an "URBAN LEGEND," not that it was a dumb idea. Obviously you didn't read it.

Of course, everyone is free to choose whether or not to participate in symbolic protests, so such actions do not have much in the way of verifiable "true" or "false" aspects -- the only issue is how effective the chosen form of protest is likely to be.

Anyway, I don't expect you to participate or approve of people who actually earn their money protesting how the federal government wastes it. It must be nice living off the backs of others.

Don't worry, I can afford to send a whole teabag, not just the wrapper. That's because I have ajob.

[Purple For Life]

Hey asswipe, I did. It says that it's a stupid idea to send teabags. Just send the wrapper if you are going to do something.

Or if you are going to DO something, do something more than just passively mailing something someplace where it will just get thrown away. That's the ticket!v

You did read it? For someone in graduate school, you sure have limited reading comprehension skills. You originally said it was an "URBAN LEGEND," not that it was a dumb idea. Obviously you didn't read it.

Of course, everyone is free to choose whether or not to participate in symbolic protests, so such actions do not have much in the way of verifiable "true" or "false" aspects -- the only issue is how effective the chosen form of protest is likely to be.

Anyway, I don't expect you to participate or approve of people who actually earn their money protesting how the federal government wastes it. It must be nice living off the backs of others.

Don't worry, I can afford to send a whole teabag, not just the wrapper. That's because I have ajob.

How exactly am I living off the backs of others? I'm taking out loans that have to be paid back...no skin of your damn nose. And as for a job, I have one, assmunch. Perhaps it's YOU that has the reading comprehension problem. Or else your nose is just so far up Rush Limbaugh's ass you can't see for shit.

You're just bitter. STFU and get over it already. And welcome to my ignore list, douchebag. Rot in hell.

[dbackjon]

Class....



Class......



CLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!










thank you

[Gil Dobie]

[youtube][/youtube]

[dbackjon]

Damn the You Tube blocking.

[JoltinJoe]

You did read it? For someone in graduate school, you sure have limited reading comprehension skills. You originally said it was an "URBAN LEGEND," not that it was a dumb idea. Obviously you didn't read it.

Of course, everyone is free to choose whether or not to participate in symbolic protests, so such actions do not have much in the way of verifiable "true" or "false" aspects -- the only issue is how effective the chosen form of protest is likely to be.

Anyway, I don't expect you to participate or approve of people who actually earn their money protesting how the federal government wastes it. It must be nice living off the backs of others.

Don't worry, I can afford to send a whole teabag, not just the wrapper. That's because I have ajob.

How exactly am I living off the backs of others? I'm taking out loans that have to be paid back...no skin of your damn nose. And as for a job, I have one, assmunch. Perhaps it's YOU that has the reading comprehension problem. Or else your nose is just so far up Rush Limbaugh's ass you can't see for shit.

You're just bitter. STFU and get over it already. And welcome to my ignore list, douchebag. Rot in hell.

This is, unintentionally, one of the funniest posts ever.

Just note all this could be avoided if a resident "graduate student" actually could read with some measure of comprehension.

[houndawg]

You did read it? For someone in graduate school, you sure have limited reading comprehension skills. You originally said it was an "URBAN LEGEND," not that it was a dumb idea. Obviously you didn't read it.

Of course, everyone is free to choose whether or not to participate in symbolic protests, so such actions do not have much in the way of verifiable "true" or "false" aspects -- the only issue is how effective the chosen form of protest is likely to be.

Anyway, I don't expect you to participate or approve of people who actually earn their money protesting how the federal government wastes it. It must be nice living off the backs of others.

Don't worry, I can afford to send a whole teabag, not just the wrapper. That's because I have ajob.

How exactly am I living off the backs of others? I'm taking out loans that have to be paid back...no skin of your damn nose. And as for a job, I have one, assmunch. Perhaps it's YOU that has the reading comprehension problem. Or else your nose is just so far up Rush Limbaugh's ass you can't see for shit.

You're just bitter. STFU and get over it already. And welcome to my ignore list, douchebag. Rot in hell.

Assmunch

Joe, you gonna sit still for that?

[Purple For Life]

How exactly am I living off the backs of others? I'm taking out loans that have to be paid back...no skin of your damn nose. And as for a job, I have one, assmunch. Perhaps it's YOU that has the reading comprehension problem. Or else your nose is just so far up Rush Limbaugh's ass you can't see for shit.

You're just bitter. STFU and get over it already. And welcome to my ignore list, douchebag. Rot in hell.

Assmunch

Joe, you gonna sit still for that?

He can't sit after letting Rush and Hannity give it to him on a nightly basis.

OH SNAP!

[travelinman67]

Assmunch

Joe, you gonna sit still for that?

He can't sit after letting Rush and Hannity give it to him on a nightly basis.

OH SNAP!

"Self Snapping. Penalty, 5 Posts."



PFL??????

You can't snap YOURSELF.

Go ahead an check it in the "Roberts Rules of Snapping".

[Grizalltheway]

Gotta side with the T-man on this one. That's just as bad as high five-ing yourself, if not worse.

[JoltinJoe]

PFL is as symptom of why this country is where it is today.

If you complain about an $11 trillion national debt, or a current federal budget deficit of $1.3 trillion, or a federal stimulus package larded with earmarks, then you must be some "bitter" Hannity and Rush fan. No need to listen to anyone complaining about the national debt.

As most of you know, I'm a Democrat and I rarely if ever listen to Hannity or Limbaugh.

But the size of our deficit, the obscene taxes paid by the most productive Americans, and our federal government's inability to deliver a budget that stays within the government's means, are not a "donk" or "conk" issues. These are issues which should concern any American with children, or under the age of 30.

Our children will inherit a debtor nation with a lower standard of living if we don't change things now. What kind of parents would make their kids pay the parents' bills?

I supported TARP -- until it was transformed by the Bush Administration into a direct handout to banks, rather than an asset recovery program as originally intended. Are you telling me the head of the Federal Reserve can unilaterally determine to make handouts directly to banks after Congress passed a bill believing that the funds would be used to acquire "toxic assets" off the books of the banks?

I supported the President's stimulus plan, even though it entailed additional spending, because I thought it was necessary under these dire economic circumstances. But then the stimulus bill gets burdened with earmark after earmark, and the President says he'll sign it because it's the best bill he can get?

At least the President seems to understand the gravity of the situation, and he has committed to trimming the current budget deficit in half by the end of his first term. Good luck. But we need to start running surpluses, like we did in the last years of the Clinton Administration.

I resent what the beaucrats in Washington are doing to my children's future. If my teabag is the only one sent, so be it, but I'm sending it. Maybe I'll send a bag of Chinese tea, because if we keep this us, our kids will all be speaking Chinese, and we'll be a subservient state to the Chinese government, which will have conquered us economically, not militarily.

[houndawg]

PFL is as sympton of why this country is where it is today.

If you complain about an $11 trillion national debt, or a current federal budget deficit of $1.3 trillion, or a federal stimulus package larded with earmarks, then you must be some "bitter" Hannity and Rush fan. No need to listen to anyone complaining about the national debt.

As most of you know, I'm a Democrat and I rarely if ever listen to Hannity or Limbaugh.

But the size of our deficit, the obscene taxes paid by the most productive Americans, and our federal government's inability to deliver a budget that stays within the government's means, are not a "donk" or "conk" issues. These are issues which should concern any American with children, or under the age of 30.

Our children will inherit a debtor nation with a lower standard of living if we don't change things now. What kind of parents would make their kids pay the parents' bills?

I supported TARP -- until it was transformed by the Bush Administration into a direct handout to banks, rather than an asset recovery program as originally intended. Are you telling me the head of the Federal Reserve can unilaterally determine to make handouts directly to banks after Congress passed a bill believing that the funds would be used to acquire "toxic assets" off the books of the banks?

I supported the President's stimulus plan, even though it entailed additional spending, because I thought it was necessary under these dire economic circumstances. But then the stimulus bill gets burdened with earmark after earmark, and the President says he'll sign it because it's the best bill he can get?

At least the President seems to understand the gravity of the situation, and he has committed to trimming the current budget deficit in half by the end of his first term. Good luck. But we need to start running surpluses, like we did in the last years of the Clinton Administration.

I resent what the beaucrats in Washington are doing to my children's future. If my teabag is the only one sent, so be it, but I'm sending it. Maybe I'll send a bag of Chinese tea, because if we keep this us, our kids will all be speaking Chinese, and we'll be a subservient state to the Chinese government, which will have conquered us economically, not militarily.

Clinton didn't get a budget surplus overnight, Joe, and the Chinese have already whupped us economically.

Can someone please explain earmarks? My understanding is that they apply to funds already appropriated so that Senator x says where they will be spent rather than the bureaucrat in charge of whichever agency. If the earmark is removed, the agency's budget doesn't get lower, the money that was directed towards whatever the Senator wanted is now the agency's to spend as they seee fit. (Hell of a choice.) Anyone?

[Col Hogan]

Dawg, I sat down with the budget people I work with to get you an answer about earmarks (also known as Congressional adds), and the answer is, earmarks or Congressional adds, add to the budget...if they are cut, the budget is cut...

Now, here's how it works...and I must add, this is from a DOD prospective only...

Each Department (Air Force, Army, etc) put together what is known as a Program Objective Memorandum (POM)...its their requested budget. Its got justification for each line item...that gets submitted to the SECDEF who makes cuts or adds, based on overall defense guidance, and creates the Presidential Budget (PB)...

The process is classified until the PB is released by the President to Congress...then the fun begins...

Hearings galore...and jockeying by various members of Congress to get earmarks...some do simply direct where money in the PB should be spent...but most add money...and programs...that the SECDEF or Departments never requested...

[houndawg]

Dawg, I sat down with the budget people I work with to get you an answer about earmarks (also known as Congressional adds), and the answer is, earmarks or Congressional adds, add to the budget...if they are cut, the budget is cut...

Now, here's how it works...and I must add, this is from a DOD prospective only...

Each Department (Air Force, Army, etc) put together what is known as a Program Objective Memorandum (POM)...its their requested budget. Its got justification for each line item...that gets submitted to the SECDEF who makes cuts or adds, based on overall defense guidance, and creates the Presidential Budget (PB)...

The process is classified until the PB is released by the President to Congress...then the fun begins...

Hearings galore...and jockeying by various members of Congress to get earmarks...some do simply direct where money in the PB should be spent...but most add money...and programs...that the SECDEF or Departments never requested...

Thanks, Colonel. So the prez's number is just a starting point, rather than the size of the pie to be sliced?

Sounds like the Prez has no choice but sign off on the earmarks or Congress doesn't pass the budget. In that circumstance, I think that getting this years earmarks down to 7.7 billion from the peak of 19 billion in '05 is actually a pretty good job, yes?

[Col Hogan]

Dawg, I sat down with the budget people I work with to get you an answer about earmarks (also known as Congressional adds), and the answer is, earmarks or Congressional adds, add to the budget...if they are cut, the budget is cut...

Now, here's how it works...and I must add, this is from a DOD prospective only...

Each Department (Air Force, Army, etc) put together what is known as a Program Objective Memorandum (POM)...its their requested budget. Its got justification for each line item...that gets submitted to the SECDEF who makes cuts or adds, based on overall defense guidance, and creates the Presidential Budget (PB)...

The process is classified until the PB is released by the President to Congress...then the fun begins...

Hearings galore...and jockeying by various members of Congress to get earmarks...some do simply direct where money in the PB should be spent...but most add money...and programs...that the SECDEF or Departments never requested...

Thanks, Colonel. So the prez's number is just a starting point, rather than the size of the pie to be sliced?

Sounds like the Prez has no choice but sign off on the earmarks or Congress doesn't pass the budget. In that circumstance, I think that getting this years earmarks down to 7.7 billion from the peak of 19 billion in '05 is actually a pretty good job, yes?

Yes on the PB being the starting point...

And if you consider a drop of $11.3B to only $7.7B in unneeded crap good...I guess...

This is the reason I wish the President could have a line-item veto...I know, it's been ruled unconstitutional and I totally support the Constitution...this is one change I'd like to make if I could...

[Wedgebuster]

Notice how the omission of one word makes everybody miss the point?

[houndawg]

Thanks, Colonel. So the prez's number is just a starting point, rather than the size of the pie to be sliced?

Sounds like the Prez has no choice but sign off on the earmarks or Congress doesn't pass the budget. In that circumstance, I think that getting this years earmarks down to 7.7 billion from the peak of 19 billion in '05 is actually a pretty good job, yes?

Yes on the PB being the starting point...

And if you consider a drop of $11.3B to only $7.7B in unneeded crap good...I guess...

This is the reason I wish the President could have a line-item veto...I know, it's been ruled unconstitutional and I totally support the Constitution...this is one change I'd like to make if I could...

Sounds like the prez has no choice but to take what he can get. Ixnay on the line-item veto though. Way too much power in the executive branch, regardless of who's manning it.