"Liberal" congresswoman tells Tea Party to "go straight to hell"
 

Tea Party Group Slams Rep. Waters Over 'Straight To Hell' Outburst | FoxNews.com

This is an influential Democratic congresswoman, who essentially runs unopposed every 2 years. This, from the party that claims to be open-minded and inclusive?

Look at the vitriol, the hate, that comes from the left. The vice president calls the tea partiers terrorists. They make a commercial showing Paul Ryan pushing old ladies off a cliff, because he's courageous enough to admit that Medicare needs to be fixed.

Conservatives want to talk about the merits of ideas. Liberals preach hate, because God knows they can't talk about the validity of their platform, which can be summarized thusly..."gimme, gimme, gimme!"

If a conservative thinks homosexuals will go to hell, they are labeled hate-mongers. When Maxine Waters wants tea partiers to go to hell, she gets a pass.

Look at the people of influence in this party...one hate-filled, repugnant degenerate after another. And their ideas are laughable to a 10 year-old.

And here in CT, we lose to these people. I don't get it...

Here's the difference between the 2 parties...

In 2002 I believe, Trent Lott was the majority-leader of the Republican controlled Senate. At Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott mentioned that it was too bad Thurmond didn't get elected president (he ran as a segregationist). President Bush called Lott's comments despicable (remember, Lott was a Republican)...Lott immediately resigned as republican leader of the Senate.

THAT'S the difference. Maybe we need to split the country in 2.

Senator Thurmond was a mentor and close friend to my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& who was an air force pilot during the early forties to the mid-seventies. My uncle previous to pressurized cockpits had blown a hole in his sinus cavity down through the roof of his mouth during a dive in a plane. While he was on the mend and thinking of not continuing in the air force he met Thurmond at the Univ. of Tennessee where my uncle was pursuing a (admiralty) law degree, which he did get.
Thurmond pursuaded uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& to stay in the service which he did. My uncle was proud of his association with Thurmond.

That's a genuinely interesting story.

Thurmond was also a raicst whose views towards blacks were notarious even by the standards of the segregated South. His presidential candidacy was literally based on segregation.

these comments coming from a representative from a state with SOOOO much money yet its freaking bankrupt!
She thinks people preaching fiscal responsibility and small govt should go to hell, you cant make this up

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually what he said was "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

It was a pretty bad gaffe, although one I don't think he intended. Actually, I thought Trent Lott was a pretty good guy.

But that's the way politics work.

-spence

OK, Spence, I see. When Republicans say offensive things, you are all over it. When Democrats say offensive things, it's just "politics as usual".

Anyway, Obama's only theme during the campaign was "change". If all he could promise was "change", then he doesn't get to defend himself by saying that's "politics as usual".

WHen a Republican said something offensive, Bush called him on it, in public, saying that stuff had no place in public service. When Democrats do the same thing, Obama is silent. That is, when he's not the one doing it, which he does often (the Cambridge police acted stupidly, Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus, conservatives are holding the economy hostage, etc...).

I yearn for November 2012...

she's not alone

"Let us all remember who the real enemy is. The real enemy is the Tea Party -- the Tea Party holds the Congress hostage. They have one goal in mind, and that's to make President Obama a one-term president," Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) said at a Miami town hall with constituents.

Rep. Frederica Wilson blamed "racism" for the high black unemployment rate on MSNBC yesterday.

While my uncle #^&#^&#^&#^& was in law school in TN. during his hiatus from the air force while healing he started a flying school on campus there that #^&#^&#^&#^& said in 1995 still existed. I can't say my uncle believe in Thurmonds racist views. He never seemed bigoted to me. He was truly a very intelligent fellow.

I don't think there's parity between the two comments, it has nothing to do with party.

-spence

Both/all extremes got to go now.

Time for the Silent Majority to rise again.

Who votes for these idiots anyways? I think they need a good talking to.

Interesting... seems that the minority is not very silent and has way too much influence during the last year or so. Especially when one considers how delusional they are. Hopefully the majority, those in the middle of both parties, will actually stand up for sanity and stop these idiots from permanently destroying the country. The only 2 sane candidates on the right don't have a chance of making it out of the primaries and that is scary. Maybe that is the silent majority you are talking about?

So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

It all depends...candidates usually have one gear for the primary, shift to another to win the election and then yet another as President.

I think what concerns moderate voters right now is that the GOP field is playing so hard to the right would a Republican President from this group be able to lead from the middle? Huntsman certainly would, Romney probably would but the rest I'm not so sure about.

By my reckoning the "majority" wants to see more effective and responsible government, but they don't want a disruptive and radical change in vector...they want pragmatic action to reduce spending and the deficit, but not to destroy the EPA or Medicare for ideological purposes.

Reagan and Clinton were both good examples of having consistent beliefs to guide their actions, but a pragmatic approach to actually employ them. I think this made them more effective leaders.

Don't see much of this from the GOP right now.

-spence

[QUOTE=detbuch] So in your sane, safe and temperate opinion the Republican candidate will be scary. If he/she wins the presidency, will THE majority then be insane?

Again, see your three gears.

it's apparently three gears but a one way street :uhuh:

The tea Party will costs the republicans the next election. Repbus are looking for a moderate. Dont see to have one. Milt has healthcare in Mass hanging over his head and Perry comes across as a christian fanatic. I would take Bill Clinton back in a second.

Doesn't it?

I wasn't trying to defend or distract from Zimmy's name calling, rather just trying to articulate what some people may be thinking.

I'm not sure history will view the Obama Administration has "hard to the left".

He certainly hasn't been hard to the left on foreign policy, immigration or taxation. Take out the individual mandate in the health care bill and a lot of the key provisions have been supported or even proposed by Republicans in the last 20 years. He has nominated more liberal judges yes, but they don't seem like radicals. As for spending, Bush had no problem handing out stimulus dollars or bailing out private industry and he's not a lefty. Between Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama they all seem to have worked to increase the size of our debt.

So I'd disagree that Obama has been "hard to the left" at all. If he was the real liberals wouldn't be so mad at him right now :hihi:

That was the entire point, the political climate seems to reduce the chances a Republican candidate will shift. This probably would favor Obama in the general election.

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence

yup...that and unemploment rate over 9%, a stagnant economy, record debt, a heaping pile of failed promises and bankrupt plans and an approval rating in the 30's.... Barry is really sitting pretty :uhuh: Republicans shouldn't really even bother this time around....

Obama has a tough row to hoe, but then again so did Bush in 2004.

-spence

this is great...George Will today..."Questions for Repub. Candidates"

For Jon Huntsman: Your chief strategist, John Weaver, says the “simple reason” the GOP is “nowhere near being a national governing party” is that “no one wants to be around a bunch of cranks.” Do you share your employee’s disdain for the party? Although you say the country is “crying out” for a “sensible middle ground,” you have campaigned for three months on what you say is that ground and, according to the most recent Gallup poll, your support among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents is 1 percent. Are the other 99 percent cranks? Should the cranks be cranky when the Democratic National Committee distributes your attacks on Republicans under the headline “Don’t Take Our Word For It”?

[QUOTE=detbuch] this hit my funnybone--insanity "all depends"


The "majority" doesn't realize that independant regulatory agencies are unconstitutional. There is a great need, if we are to preserve this republic, to re-educate the masses as to where they actually derive their rights and what those rights are. We have, as the great "middle" become complacent to accept the power of the Federal Government, as if it were always so, and is perfectly Constitutional. There has been an intentional hoodwinking of this great public to believe and accept that. A re-awakening of individual responsibility and power as being the true central driving force of a free society would reveal that a shift of proper responsibility back to the States where it belongs will reduce the risk and uncertainty of an overreaching, all-powerful Central Government and leave the people a far greater diversity of ways to "fix" our problem.

[QUOTE=detbuch;884816]Posted by spence- That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.



Spence's view's make perfect sense as the views of someone from the "hard left".....big expansive central government, little regard for our Constitution, knows what's best for "the people" even if they resist....very troubling:uhuh:

There is such a diagnosis as temporary insanity :rotf2:

Pacifism.

Amnesty.

Not if it's seen to conflict with existing Federal law or Constitution.
You'd have to define "even higher" but the real lefties would like taxes to be really, really high. Much higher than Obama who is still lower than Reagan.

This is an economics question dependent on the situation. Taxes can't always be lowered or we have no revenue.

Depends if that's an attitude or description. Even most flat tax proposals by staunch conservatives spread the wealth.

I've never heard anyone say the Constitution is "lacking" unless you mean an activist attitude.

The republicans leading the conservative revival all cite Reagan as their model yet by many measures Reagan was acting like a lefty as well. Have we ever had a true conservative leader? Perhaps Ike?

Radicalism isn't a relative condition, it's quite tangible. See your post on insanity above :grins:
I don't think increasing the debt is a "liberal" condition as much as an "irresponsible" condition.

Both Carter and Reagan are responsible for large defense programs that created our first large federal debt. National Defense is Constitutional so was this action liberal or conservative? If taxes are raised to pay down debts incurred by Constitutionally mandated services in an effort to balance the budget is that a conservative or liberal action?

And the predictable response that...if the federal government stuck to within its Constitutional yada yada yada is a cop out answer. There are no mulligans, we have to solve problems with the situation as it exists right now.

I don't think there are that many "real liberals" out there. Certainly less than 20% of the population. Conservatives on the other hand get to enjoy much larger enrollment, which hides the reality that there are many sub-brands that at times really don't agree on much.

As I said above, because I think people are looking more for responsible government rather than a big ideological change.

Re-education? You're starting to sound like one of Thomas Sowell's "intellectuals" :uhuh:

I think the one positive element of the current debate is that people are more aware to the idea that the elected leaders don't act in a very responsible manner, with the growth trajectory of the Federal Debt the past few decades as the leading symptom.

I would agree that increased individual responsibility is most always a good thing. But I also think that given the consolidation of wealth in this nation the influence of industry on our governments behavior (at all levels) the individual is today somewhat limited on how free they really could be, even with less Federal interference. Before you could unwind your "unconstitutional" Federal obligations, you'd need to re-establish government by and for the people. While the Tea Party seems to think this is what they're after, I don't buy it, not at least with their current political leadership.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;884734

I don't think the majority regards government programs like the EPA or Medicare as unconstitutional problems that need to be fixed with the same zeal that you do.

Most people just want clean air and affordable health care. That these may be considered unconstitutional is less a consideration for the majority than is a shift in responsibility to States which could create uncertainty and risk.

-spence[/QUOTE]

If "Most people" just want clean air and affordable health care, what is the risk and uncertainty of shifting the responsibility back to the States WHERE IT CONSTITUTIONALLY BELONGS? Don't "Most people" live in those states? Do you not trust those "Most people" to decide in ways that suit them rather than being dictated to by a far off clique ruled by a slight majority of representatives who have different interests? Do you really believe it is better to force a "one size fits all" approach to a population of supposedly free and diverse people?

And if most people "just want clean air", shouldn't they look to themselves to stop polluting, rather than looking to nanny to tell them to stop, and how to stop? Is nanny really that wise and all knowing? Shouldn't "Most people" know more about their problem and how to solve it than a distant nanny? If most people want legislation that prevents a recalcitrant few from polluting, shouldn't they have the power to locally decide rather than distant nanny telling them?

And if "Most people" want affordable health care, shouldn't they be doing those things that promote good health? I take little stock in someone who wants affordable health care then eats crap, wastes away before a TV, remains ignorant of anything beyond his nose, including his responsibility in a free society to provide the means to afford his "health care." To have nanny trash our rights and responsibilities to provide for such oafs is benevolent dictatorship, not Constitutional governance. And if there is a small minority that must be cared for, it should not distort the rights of the rest of us, and, again, should be left Constitutionally to the States and their localities, to decide, in their various self governing ways.

Let "Most people" come as close to self-government as the Constitution provides, rather than being governed by a small clique that distorts that Constitution to further their power. The true "center" of our country is the Constitution. It is our core, our foundation, through which we are governed, that gives us the ultimate power of self-governance, which prevents a despotic center from denying us that power. If "Most people" don't know that, and if they prefer Nanny to adulthood and self-realization, if they prefer being told and ordered to making self-governing local decisions, than the Republic is lost, and the full-fledged era of depending on the benevolence and whims of Central power is here.

That you don't "buy it" is irrelevant. If you want to discourse on it, we might find some agreement.

Well put.
I believe that "Most People" are not ninnies
wanting to be taken care of by nannies.
Except for the east and west coast elites.

Most people are complacent and accept it as the status quo.

no dodge ball, no paper airplanes, etc..

How does the consolidation of wealth and the influence of industry on our governments behavior today limit how free individuals really could be? Wealth has always been "consolidated" and our government has always been influenced by "industry." So have all governments. Great wealth was consolidated in the hands of a few when the Constitution was written. The Revolution, to a great degree was financed by the manipulations and even by the personal fortune of one of the richest Americans at the time, Robert Morris. Many of the founders were quite wealthy. The life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness the Constitution garanteed to individuals was not anti-wealth consolidation. Property and the right to it was one of, if not the most important, reason for the Revolution. The right to have it and dispose of it as wished. The Constitution and the form of government therein attempted to garantee individuals the freedom to pursue that which they were capable of, and even that which they weren't. But it didn't garantee the outcome. You have the right to fail. But there was no obligation on other individuals to rescue you from your failure. It is obvious that most do not have the ability, nor the desire to be filthy rich.

And material wealth does not simply exist. It has to be created. There have been extremely wealthy and powerful corporations in the past. What's considered the first major corporation, the British East India Company, was wealthier than the British Government and ruled India for 100 years. The so-called Robber Barrons in our history had great concentrated wealth and power. They also expanded American wealth and power. Some modern governments (i.e. Marxist) have attemped to create wealth in the form of jobs, income, economies, but haven't been good at it. Maybe it's in the genes. Maybe there is DNA for busines and DNA for politics. Wealth creators distribute wealth in ways that allow individuals in our Constitutional system to empower themselves. Government's redistribution of that wealth seems to nurture more dependence than independence. Our government is wealthier and more powerful than any corporation or industry. It has more influence on business than business does on it. Our system requires virtue as much as industriousness, and the lack of virtue in our politics is not fostered by the Constitution. Rather the Constitution and its form of government is weakened by lack of virtue. The freedom the Constitution garantees to individuals does not garantee equal outcomes, nor equal wealth, nor does it deny great wealth, nor does great wealth of a few deny others the right to pursue that of which they are capable. Most of us, in the "spectrum" of possibilites, do not have the "genes" to accomplish great things on the extremes of the spectrum. There are a few that can. They also are garanteed the right of that pursuit. If we are virtuous, we need not fear the rich . . . or the government. Without virtue, the latter is the most dangerous.

If the obstacle to the government of, by, and for the people is the consolidation of wealth and its influence, what is most curious, is the fear of the Tea Party. What consolidation of wealth does the Tea Party have? It's motivation is the restoration of that Constitutional government of, by, and for the people. And it strives against loss of individual freedom imposed not only by the power of money, but especially that imposed by the power of government.