Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

TEA Party Is Fighting For Our Freedoms

July 9, 2013

To The Reader’s Forum: We’re looking at the political cartoon on today’s opinion page. It depicts various groups that were supposedly “targeted” by the TEA Party and similar organizations....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jul-14-13 2:26 PM

Monkey and irony....joined at the lip.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-14-13 1:30 AM

irony- All you have to do is look at the last 20 years and compare which party had control of Congress and chart it with the Labor Workforce Participation Rate. You will quite easily see that with the brief time following 9-11-01 being the exception, the trend line of unemployment goes down when Republicans control Congress and the trend line shows increasing unemployment when the Dems control Congress. Not to be forgotten when Bush was President and creating millions of new jobs, Democrats cried loud and long about how the jobs paid less than when Clinton was President. For the benefit of all of the gullible sheep who can't think for themselves, Republicans should be making the same claim about Obama's jobs and also mention that a great many are part-time jobs. Unfortunately, they don't resort to juvenile antics like Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Wouldn't be too much of a stretch to conclude that many of the uninformed are so enthralled with the current crop of Dems running this country.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-13-13 11:25 AM

You really love to hear yourself talk, don't you.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-13-13 9:13 AM

And for your last trick, Obama made no promise about 6%.

What is interesting, when Mittens Romney was running he made a promise to cut it to 6% in 4 years. A much more manageable promise but as exhibited, presidents always make promises that they can't keep. Every president has. Nothing new. You can hold the weight of the world on it but basic historical research would bring you back to Earth. That's asking quite a bit though.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-13-13 9:10 AM

"What was the average GDP under GWB, what is the average under Obama?"

Fools are easy to fool when it comes to economics. I could take out $35k in debt and get a pretty sports car; drive it by your house and you'd think I have it all figured out. Little do you know I pay $425 a month plus interest; you think I have it all paid off. Easy to fool.

Can we get some education in here? All these armchair economists who can barely tie their shoes.

"what happened to "cutting the deficit in half" Obama promised during his first term?"

In 2013, according to the CBO the deficit decreased 32% in the first half of the year. Over the past 5 years since Bush rammed up the deficit, Obama has steadied it and pulled it down. Although I wouldn't attribute it totally to Obama, you mannequins love to do the same, so I guess I'll follow suit and say Obama has done it all.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-13-13 9:03 AM

Ill entertain the questions, although it won't matter to the fools in the theater.

"how much was GWB's stimulus, how much was Barry's?"

Irrelevant. The first one to do it was GWB. They were in the works before and as Obama entered his presidency.

"What was the unemployment rate the last four years of GWB's term?"

Irrelevant. There was a housing bubble created; it burst. That's like going ga-ga over the efficiency of a bomb before it explodes and burns your house down.

"What has it been stuck at for Barry's term?"

When Obama began, it had spiked 2% in the previous six months. In fact, under Bush the unemployment rate went up 3.4% over his second term. Obama entered with a 7.8% unemployment, it is now 7.6%.

"Where are all those "shovel ready jobs" he promised?"

Depends on what your definition of "shovel-ready" is. I'm sure with your logic, it's any job that doesn't exist, whereas you ignore the ones that have be

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-13-13 8:56 AM

I do also appreciate that after I explained basic economics with you your mouth shot off a dozen questions which completely ignored it. I guess that whole "worst recession since Great Depression" hasn't dawned on you yet. McDonald's is recession-proof though, maybe all those patties you flip give you a misguided sense of how time has passed.

1 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-13-13 8:54 AM

"You just can't admit that this is King Obama's economy."

Unemployment is down, stock market is up to record highs. Manufacturing is moving forward.

I would suggest instead of making your laughable biases clear, you should do some research.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-12-13 10:48 AM

Doggie, we agree on 4 of the 5 points. Term limits need to be created and PACs need to be removed. There should be a cler cap on spending for each office. But, then it gets complex. Is a corporation a person? They pay tax but do they get a say in fiscal policy?

Just a funny note, did you mean "defendants"? Crime pays, eh? I know, you mean dependants which can be any gender, biological offspring, adopted children, parents, etc.

A flat tax is not an answer as there is an issue of utility spending and regressive taxation. if you say it is a flat tax on income over $75,000, then I'm on board. What about other regressive taxes such as driver license fees and sales tax?

But, I do not see the TEA Party talking about these issues. Also, they want to wrap some changes with religious cloth. If the TEAers had your rhetoric, I'd be on board.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-12-13 8:25 AM

And Doggie, although I dislike Obama and he has significant failings as a leader, how is it that the TEA Partiers are making it better? You are right to be frustrated by the status quo. It is the same status quo under Bush and Clinton before him. So how to change it Doggie?

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 5:33 PM

I see one of the babies has been leaning on the abuse button again. Poor little things...wahhhwahhh

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 4:26 PM

"Do you actually want to compare the two?"

You don't understand how economics work (as if there was any doubt in that anyways). Each presidency doesn't start at zero. It either breathes on the former or dies on it - or somewhere in between. Needless to say, a predecessor has an effect. Despite what fools want to disregard.

I do appreciate the criticisms of Libertarians (and no, Tea Party Tards are not Libertarian but Neo-Cons), as they are the most consistent political position on the modern American spectrum.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 3:35 PM

There isn't s person writing for this comment section with enough raw wealth or income to favor the politics of the current right - TP or otherwise. It stuns me that thinking people can actively oppose their own best interest due entirely to false-flag propaganda.

Just a quick review of the last 50 years shows that the rise of the right correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the wealth and earning power of the 99%. OWS actually picked a good benchmark when they chose that.

Warren Buffet hit it right on the nose. There is a class war going on, and his class is winning. Here's a hint: none of you is in the same class with Warren Buffet. I'm certainly not. Why fight for the rights of the extremely rich to avoid taxation and any regulation of their acitivities. Unlike you or me, they have the power to hurt anyone or anything they wish. Doesn't that desrve a bit of oversight.

Here's another hint: they didn't get that kind of rich by being saints.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 8:37 AM

Both Occupy and the Tea Party are chock full of misguided idealists who resort to reality whenever convenient.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 8:36 AM

"Where is the substance to back up your arbitrary statements?"

Unless you were friends with G.W., Jefferson, and Madison and you lived in 1776, it is your version. Since we know you don't know a spit about the history anyways.

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 8:33 AM

Too bad Bush ignited the first stimuluses, ooops...

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 6:03 AM

I've seen some really faulty versions of the various TEA Party origins. They didn't come about because Obama got elected. They came about to protest the fact that Obama was elected with just over 50% of the vote but was running the country as though he got 100% of the vote. The Stimulus and Obamacare were written in back rooms behind locked doors with lobbyists and special interests. There was nothing even close to resembling the historically normal legislative process. They were expansive and poorly written bills passed into laws in the middle of the night. THAT is what the TEA Party movement was and is all about.

6 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-11-13 1:39 AM

Snowy, I was not providing anything that needed argument and sources. Anything from Wikipedia to journals on political philosophy will back up what I've written. You and your cohort are so entrenched in your dogma that there is nothing from any source that can be sited that you would accept as valid. If you look at the trends of your comments, any time someone addresses the shortcomings of the TEAers you call it opinion and then shout them down. For a person who professes to be a scholar, I've never seen any willingness to address your epistemological position. Last, you really want to clean the typos up especially in the 'pledge' on your STTPP website. Bit embarrassing that but I understand your demographic rarely cares if there are errors in such seminal documents.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 10:11 PM

Em, our local TEA Party has absolutely no funding from plutocrats!

When you say, The TEA party isn't fighting "for the Constitution." They're fighting for *their version* of the Constitution. BIG difference there," your just giving your opinion. Where is the substance to back up your arbitrary statements?

6 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 10:08 PM

Henryh when you say, "However, the Occupy Movement tend to be anarchists where the TEA Party tends to create a rigid authoritarian regime," that's just an opinion with no substance. "The OM have few or no rules and but a couple demands which are to remove the current "unfair" system which is not free and open," then what werwe ocmmunists and socialists doing there? . "Ironically, you'd expect the TEA Party to join this but the TEA Party does not want anarchy but simply the removal of transfer payments to some parts of society while further expanding the military-industrial complex," that is your opinion. Where is the proof? .

I personally have more respect for "OM as they have been transparent and clear they want wholesale change. TEA Party wants its cake and to eat it too." Just more opinion with nothing to back it up.

5 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 4:31 PM

The TEA party isn't fighting "for the Constitution." They're fighting for *their version* of the Constitution. BIG difference there.

8 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 4:29 PM

"According to Emelye, Howard, HentryH and Monkeyboy, ANYONE that disagrees with Obama is a racist."

I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying about me, Seadog.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 4:26 PM

The TEA party supports Republican candidates and policies, almost 100% as far as I can tell. The Republican/Conservative parties in NY have fought against marriage equality for LGBT people and against nondiscrimination law based on gender identity. This impacts a good many New Yorkers in very tangible ways.

The same goes for national politics. TEA Party Republicans all subscribe to the Republican platform which has anti-gay planks.

The very fact that Rev McGinnis is active in the local TEA party is proof that they and the anti-LGBT are in bed with one another.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 4:19 PM

There is a LOT of evidence pointing to plutocratic funding of the TEA party:

"Tea Party Funding Koch Brothers Emerge From Anonymity" ht tp://ww m/opinion/blogs/Peter-Fenn/2011/02/02/tea-party-funding-koch-brothers-emerge-from-anonymity

"The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party" ht tp://ww m/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html?_r=0

Who's Raising Money For Tea Party Movement? ht tp://ww w.npr.or g/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123859296

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jul-10-13 3:53 PM

Doggie, any time anyone asks you to think and consider your opinion, you respond in such an immature manner generally calling names or deflecting a reasonable challenge. Looking back, I do not see any place where you have systematically articulated your position and defended it. You simply tear down by quoting some small part calling that part fallacious and ignoring the main part of the discourse. I so want for you to be a learned person who can clearly articulate their position. Maybe, if you were able to do that, I might hold a modicum of respect for you.

7 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 66 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web