The reason for their attacks is of course the same reason they so strangely attacked Sarah Palin. They are terrified. In this case they are unable to stop the rising tide of legitimate dissent because of the amateurism of their new leader and his sycophants and their sad attempt to stop something they are unable to control. Something they created. They are terrified that in just 1 1/2 years they will be a minority power again. It's laughable now because there is nothing they can do about it. It's coming and they know it. So the shrillness starts. But it won't help you. In that time I predict that more liberal papers will fall silencing even more liberal voices. Liberal networks will be negligible. There is change coming. Can't you feel it? it definitely is not from mister hope changey,yet because of him and the liberal left. It's in its birth pangs now. Middle America is awakening from her slumber. A tsunami is begining to rise. Start running now you horses asses of the left because indeed change is coming. But it's not the change you dreamed of.

This change is going to steamroll both established parties next year. The GOP should be just as worried as the Dems. The time is ripe for a third party libertarian small government candidate. A sane version of Ross Perot needs to come forward.

Posted by Roy | April 16, 2009 3:14 PM

Agreed!

Everytime I read someone talking about third party I am convinced they are either totally nuts, so completely stupid they do not understand our system of government, or paid by george soros to post here.

Unfortunately, the only thing third parties are ever successful at is getting the other guy elected.

"Unable to defend the record level of spending, deficits and usurpation of private sector rights by Obama and his Congress the Left finds itself fully invested in the kook argument , which serves only as a diversion."

Sorry, but you're wrong. It's not that the left is unable to defend what they're doing, it is that they have learned that demonizing the opposition keeps them from having to defend their programs.

Why bother defending high taxes if you can end the argument by labeling your opponents as kooks? Or why bother defending open immigration if you can simply label your foes racists and xenophobes? Why bother defending bailouts when you can just paint opponents as responsible for the mess and in the pocket of Wall Street? (note: it doesn't matter if the charge is accurate, it isn't as if the MSM is going to challenge the liberals storyline, right?). And why go through the steps of defending incredible amounts of deficit spending when all it takes to win the P/R fight is to yell 'hypocrite' at anybody with an (R) next to their name?

That is why reporters seek out the fringe elements of the protests (and conversely, why they ignore the fringe elements when covering causes they agree with), it allows them to depict protesters as crazy, thus making the public less likely to identify with the cause.

Village Idiot.

We do understand the system of government and how it has been corrupted. That is why a third party is a logical choice to uproot the entrenched treachery occuring in D.C. as both parties are bought and paid for by special lobbying interests.

Unable to defend the record level of spending, deficits and usurpation of private sector rights by Obama and his Congress the Left finds itself fully invested in the kook argument...

?! I think most liberals would be happy to defend the Democratic leaders spending, starting with Clinton, who left a surplus for Bush. Why are you concerned about deficits all of a sudden? Why did you not object to tax cuts for everyone during massive war-time spending?

Has media coverage of the tea party been fair? I found this video today that shows how different news outlets are reporting the story. Its interesting to see the difference in perspectives:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/media_tea_party_brew/

Actually jp2, Clinton left no 'surplus'. That was just a numbers trick by abandoning GAAP even further. The "surplus" was never more than a projection if everything went perfect for ten years.

The reality was a bit different.

Ask an accountant sometime to show you what the US Government looks like using Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

But only if you don't plan on sleeping that night.

Surplus or no, Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Bush.

Of course the response to that will inevitably be "9/11 yeeeeeeargh!!!"... but at least it acknowledges that it's something worth responding to.

I think the Tea Party movement offends the left for the same reason that Palin, Steele, Justice Thomas etc offend them: They should be theirs, not the right's.

Proper women know that they owe everything to the left. Blacks should know they owe their rights and privileges to the democrats (ignore who founded the KKK and men like Sen. Byrd). And a protest should be the sole province of leftist activists.

It's like white gangster rappers, Christian Metal bands etc. The hard core enthusiasts just can't process it.

Oh, Hyper?
Where's my beer?

hyper - "Surplus or no, Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Bush."

Thanks in no small part due to the reps threatening to shut down the Gobment unless spending was cut, the balanced budget and welfare reform bills were passed.

But I highly doubt you'd ever acknowledge that reality.

And that says nothing about you spouting the now common line... but, but it was BUSH that started it!

Thanks parrot, does Polly wanna cracker?

Of course the response to that will inevitably be "9/11 yeeeeeeargh!!!"... but at least it acknowledges that it's something worth responding to.

Sort of like the left's hysteria acknowledges that the tea parties are something worth responding to.

hyper - "Surplus or no, Clinton was more fiscally responsible than Bush."

At the expense of the military which then had to be rebuilt and is still undermanned.

RM: if the American military is "undermanned", maybe your government should reprioritize its defence spending, which is already excessive and remained so under Clinton. (But no, Joe Lieberman wants his laser plane!) Also, maybe being "undermanned" might have something to do with the fact that American soldiers are currently stationed all over the f*cking planet. Bases in Germany? Really?

marc: yep, the Repubs under Clinton harangued him into passing a moderate budget. That was bipartisanship, of a sort. Now that Obama has a Democratic congress, the Republicans can be ignored like they deserve to be after the scorn heaped upon liberals by DeLay, Cheney, Bush, Hastert, et al. Victory for the liberals! Don't like it? Move back to Russia, American democracy hater. In the meantime, whilst packing your bags, you should think about not acting like such a big baby. It's unseemly for a ruggedly individualistic manly-man such as yourself.

SCSI: I've been trying to remember when I lost a bet to you for a beer (presumably that's what you're implying). I'll PayPal you five bucks if you like, assuming that owing you a beer isn't codespeak for some other comeuppance that I've incurred.

Oh, and SCSI: nobody deserves to be associated with someone as incoherent and stupid as Clarence Thomas. He has a problem with an over-abundance of rights, and wishes people would pay more attention to the "Bill of Responsibilities". Probably for the best that that retard doesn't say very much.

Another
Doltish
Hyperbolist
Outburst
Meaning
Its
Now
Essentially
Moot

hyper - "if the American military is "undermanned", maybe your government should reprioritize its defence spending, which is already excessive and remained so under Clinton."

The problem, and one I saw first hand, was the "prioritization" by Clinton was done on the wrong portions of the Def budget.

Example, many former jobs done by military were "farmed out" to civilian contractors.

In some cases that was good, Navy E-1's thru E-3's on many occasion didn't have to spend 6 months working in the ships galley and far away from the job they were in the Navy to do.

In other cases the Navy supply system was completely screwed-up. What used to take a fair amount of time to get critical supply parts to Japan, in one example and the one I have experience in, took months after portions of the system was farmed out.

The fact is I saw important parts like ships electric generators cut out of the side of one ship to be placed in one due to deploy to the Gulf. It was a despicable waste of money.

And BTW, Clinton's "prioritization" on outside contractors led directly to, wait for it... The Evil Hallibuton, they did much of the previously noted galley work

hyper - "marc: yep, the Repubs under Clinton harangued him into passing a moderate budget. That was bipartisanship, of a sort. Now that Obama has a Democratic congress, the Republicans can be ignored like they deserve to be after the scorn heaped upon liberals by DeLay, Cheney, Bush, Hastert, et al. Victory for the liberals!

That "of a sort" bipartisanship led to a balanced budget, something you unlikely to seen in the far distant future.

"Don't like it? Move back to Russia, American democracy hater.

Sorry, you're far behind the times I haven't lived in the states (but not russia asswipe) since 1994.

hyper - "In the meantime, whilst packing your bags, you should think about not acting like such a big baby. It's unseemly for a ruggedly individualistic manly-man such as yourself."

In the meantime you should think about how that FAT def budget has kept your gov and the EU's from having to spend as much for a defense and contributed to the nanny-state your so love with.

And PS screw you!

marc

Re your adolescent use of "asswipe" in comment #20.

Imagine where i found this quote?

"Along the same lines, any name calling of others in a comment thread will result in possible editing of said comment, one warning given to the offender and possible banning of the miscreants IP address."

Their also upset becuase the protests were peaceful and no arrests were made unlike what happened in SEATTLE when those hoologans protesting against the WTO rioted,vandalized and looted and there were hunddreds of arrests made of these crinimals

u dem - ref your quote.

In your best conjured up dreamland will I be banned before you.

But honestly when people like you and the simpleton hyperbolist wade in here and attempt to foist off the lamest of lefty talking points that are circa 2003, at best, then get smacked around for it you're left with pulling quotes that offer veiled by proxy threats of me being banned.

Or changing the subject of the entire conversations.

Or just tucking your tail between your feathered assses and fleeing the thread.

So you go ahead and have your little chuckle over the quote you pulled.

Then screw yourself.

marc

Hypocrisy come to mind? Hoisted on your own petard so to speak? Personally, I find you entertaining so I hope you aren't banned especially as I have no idea of those policies here.

marc is fun to argue with because you never feel inclined to apologize or feel bad if you snap at him, as you know he's going to do the exact same thing back at you.

marc: did you just suggest that American defence spending largesse contributes to the Canadian nanny state? Interesting...

Hyper, I challenged you the contents of your goverment subsidized beer fridge against my scotch cabinet to cite more examples of right wing violent nuts in America vs left. You failed.

And Marc has a point. If the US didn't spend as much as it does on defense for itself and NATO, Canada would have to pay more for its security.

hyper - "marc: did you just suggest that American defence spending largesse contributes to the Canadian nanny state? Interesting..."

I didn't suggest it, I said it loud and clear. Both Canada and the EU have been lavishing themselves under an American umbrella military spending. Less so for your country and one hell of a lot more for the EU.

But the end result is the same both areas have more cash to spend on social programs and other expenditures because the US of A carries the load both on the continent and as a member of NATO.

BTW, this is off-topic but is too good to pass up.

Guess who this quote is attributed to:

"Obama has a subtle mind, very clever and very charismatic, But he was elected two months ago and had never run a ministry. There are a certain number of things on which he has no position. And he is not always up to standard on decision-making and efficiency."

Gotta be a so called wingnut right?

Make sure you read the quotes related to the D-day anniversary.

They're classic wingnut.

Oh wait....!

u dem - "Hypocrisy come to mind? Hoisted on your own petard so to speak? Personally, I find you entertaining so I hope you aren't banned especially as I have no idea of those policies here."

Just how stupid are you?

The quote you pulled wasn't written by me.