Home > Uncategorized > Crying and Whining

Crying and Whining

As usual, liberals can’t go an entire day without screaming about the tea party.

Its easy to see why, after all, it’s easier to ignore reality than it is to face the fact that the republican party rose from the ashes over the last two years and their own democratic party put a gun to it’s own head and pulled the trigger.

But than whining after losing elections is nothing new for anyone, in particular liberals.

When they lose the senate and possibly the presidency in 2012, liberals everywhere are likely to commit seppuku. For their safety and that of your carpets, please hide any and all sharp objects from liberals.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. 2011/04/28 at 16:44

    I’m pleased to see the Republican Party being equated with the Tea Party.

  2. 2011/04/28 at 19:43

    I wouldn’t say equated.

    The Republican Party has seen a resurgence due in part because of the Tea Party, yes, but they are not one in the same. As much as they complain about the dems they do an awful lot of complaining about the repubs too, so they clearly are not the same thing.

  3. 2011/04/29 at 02:40

    What difference is there? One group embraces being labelled while the other doesn’t? The Tea Party has so far only focused on social issues while chirping and offering no realistic economic solutions. Sounds exactly like the Republicans. The only place where they’ve really managed to differ is in the fact that the Republicans have proposed Medicare and Medicaid cuts and most Tea Partiers actually like those government programs.

  4. 2011/04/29 at 13:36

    Given the wide range of people that consider themselves tea partiers, you’re still wrong.

    By all means don’t stop the ceaseless complaining about the newly elected changing things to their liking. I know democrats do no such thing.

  5. 2011/04/29 at 22:32

    70% of Tea Parties do not favor cuts to those evil socialist programs.

    My complaint isn’t that they’re changing things. It’s that they’ve been pretending to be all about the economy when clearly that isn’t true. I would think your sense of libertarianism would be offended giving the nearly sole focus on social issues thus far.

  6. 2011/04/30 at 13:17

    I think the problem with this analysis is that it uses one set of facts (fact actually) to come to a completely unsupported set of conclusions.

    There is no logic in the claim that because a certain number of people claiming to associate with the tea party responded in a certain poll that they didn’t want cuts to Medicare that therefore the tea party is ‘only focused on social issues’ . It ignores the fact that in the same poll they also happened to be against raising the federal debt, or that the country was generally going in the worng direction.

    It also ignores what the tea party actually says about taxes, and spending, and Obamacare, none of which were on the poll.

    The other problem is that it is a simle answer to a simple question. For example we don’t know what the response would have been had the question been, ‘Should Medicare remain on it’s current course until it is bankrupt?’ or ‘Should Congress enact reforms to save Medicare in accordance with the Ryan plan?’

    So quite simply the poll doesn’t in any way support the notion that the Tea Party is only focused on social issues, or that it opposes any change to Medicare.

  7. 2011/05/01 at 00:11

    My sense of libertarianism isn’t offended by things others do. Like I keep saying, I don’t think many of the actual tea partiers consider themselves as such because of social issues, regardless of what those they elected do. I think the reason they were elected was because of how they talked the talk with regard to fiscal issues and the fact that many are also socially conservative is merely a side effect.

    I could be wrong, but i don’t think so. I haven’t heard much in the way of social issues talked about at the 3 rallies I investigated.

    Some of them are of course socially conservative and are really pleased. Many, don’t care as long as they get tough on the budget, something which some are failing at.

  8. 2011/05/01 at 00:41

    Once again, you are not smart or honest enough to compete here, Jack. At no point did I use the 70% figure to support my contention that Teabaggers are about social issues. We can see that they care more about that realm than the economy just by looking at what they keep doing with Planned Parenthood, abortion rights, attacking unions even though after the unions make the economic concessions, gun laws, their reframing of the foundations of the country, and defunding of public radio. Come on. This was all laid out in the link from Nate’s post (plus we both know you read my blog constantly, anyway).

    What the 70% figure did was show a contrast between Republicans and Teabaggers. It’s about the only contrast that really exists, and it’s an interesting one. It goes to the oft-made claim that Teabagger libertarianism is just a cover for obvious greed. They mostly only care about the parts of the economy that affect their own wallets.

    But you would know all this if you just followed the discussion. Or if you were honest.

  9. 2011/05/01 at 07:42

    Well on one hand you are claiming that the Republicans in Congress are at odds with the Tea Party by ‘cutting’ Medicare, and then on the other hand you are claiming they are acting consistently with the Tea Party by pushing for cuts in PP, etc. even though there is no evidence those are primary concerns of the Tea Party.

    And somehow the Tea Party is simultaneously greedy and yet against cuts to the very programs that supposedly make the Democrats charitable.

    No one could follow this sort of discussion because its nonsensical and self-contradictory

  10. 2011/05/02 at 12:37

    The Tea Party and the Republicans are largely one in the same, yes. The desire to cut Planned Parenthood fills an ideological agenda against abortion. That’s why we keep seeing major Tea Party supporters and those elected for being considered Tea Party candidates pushing these sort of bills.

    And yes, the Tea Party is usurping libertarianism for the sake of their own wallets. That’s why they want to keep alive certain expensive programs but nothing others. It does them no good to keep programs for the impoverished afloat since they are overwhelmingly middle class. But to keep programs like Medicare alive does serve a purpose since many middle class people do end up using it.

    Weird, though, that Nate was able to keep up and you weren’t. But then, Nate isn’t fundamentally dishonest or stupid.

  11. 2011/05/02 at 16:16

    So let’s see if we have your theory straight (and hey, I think Nate is smart too, so maybe he can explain it to me).

    The Tea Partiers aren’t really libertarians at all, they are middle-class social conservatives, who hate the poor, NPR, and women and want to be rich so they support the Republicans because they also hate the poor and NPR and women, but oppose their reforming of Medicare because it goes too far and will keep Tea Partiers from being rich. And the Republicans, who are largely one and the same as the Tea Partiers, want to cut Medicare, not because they have any interest in the fixing the budget, but because they hate the poor so much that they are willing to alienate their almost-the-same Tea Party constituency in order to stick it to the poor.

    Nate, where am I off here, being the dumb, dishonest person that I am?

  12. 2011/05/02 at 18:20

    That’s pretty much the liberal line, Jack.

    I still maintain that what I have seen at rallies is that the tea partiers themselves don’t really care about social issues and that movement on those issues is due to the people elected, not the express wishes of tea partiers.

  13. 2011/05/02 at 19:10

    Actually, yes. Now watch as the Republicans back off their terrible plan to cut Medicare, you dishonest chunk of fat.

  14. 2011/05/02 at 19:30

    Love you too, Mikey.

    The Ryan plan already passed the Republican controlled House. It’s in the Democrat’s hands now.

  15. 2011/05/02 at 19:44

    How would you fix it Michael? It’s not actually a cut, its a change to a subsidy instead of government administered coverage. It’s simply expected to cost less.

  16. 2011/05/03 at 00:22

    I would try something like this

  17. 2011/05/07 at 05:16

    Gee, look at this, Chunk o’Fat – the Republicans are changing their tune: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_debt_budget

  18. 2011/05/07 at 05:19

    They should. Like I keep saying, they haven’t the fortitude, nor the political capital in reality.

  19. 2011/05/07 at 05:26

    Now I’m even harder pressed to find a difference between the Republicans and Teabaggers.

  20. 2011/05/07 at 05:41

    Maybe you shouldn’t spend so much time worrying about either one, Michael.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: