You Can Blame The Tea Party For The Current Inept State Of Our Federal Government

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I say again: why waste time on you?

Perhaps because I'm right and you are wrong. And I can educate you misguided Republican Tea Party members?

LOL...I know, that's funny. Republicans can't be educated.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

No, I'm pointing out the stupidity of the left that wants to blame the Tea Party for somehow being inept AND shrinking government. If they've managed to shrink it, as they wanted, then they aren't inept. However, nothing about the government has shrunk at all. The whole thread is without any foundation. I'm not sure the Tea Party has even existed for about 12 years. But, it gives liberals something to whine about and sow fear over.

They are inept in the WAY that they want shrink government. The Republican Tea Party simply doesn't understand why government is important and they don't want to know. According to these idiots, spending for HHS, CDC, FDA, FEMA, and other critical government organization and services is "wasteful spending". Hence, why we can't respond to national emergencies any better than a third world country anymore.

They are ****ing dangerous, incompetent idiots, all of them. Hopefully, the Republican Tea Party is permanently eradicated from our government in November.

 

[Termn8or]

Oh, I see. Words of wisdom from someone who still thinks Kerry should be president.:lol:

Except that even liberal historians decades ago admitted that Reagan's economic policies were a huge and obvious success; that the US once again became the manufacturing giant of the world.

How can you possibly be decades late in learning that?

Poverty remained about the same during Reagan's presidency and increased significantly during the presidencies of both Bush 41 and Bush 43.

Poverty decreased significantly during Clinton's presidency and also decreased during Obama's presidency. Since Obama inherited such an economic disaster from Bush 43, it's impressive that poverty actually decreased under Obama.

How much did poverty rise under Reagan? - Econlib

So, yeah, that crumbling building that you showed is mostly the Republicans' fault. I'm sorry to shatter your sorry misguided Trump cultist worldview. Well, not really.

The leftist NY Review of Books? You're kidding, right?

Please don't waste my time with liberal bulls***. It is undeniable that Reagan created a huge economic boom. How the heck does poverty rise during a period like that?:lol:

Toward the end of the Reagan presidency, even his bitterest liberal opponents admitted his success. Full issues of liberal Time, liberal Newsweek the liberal New Republic all had issues with cover stories on Reagan's undeniable success. And the hate-Reagan TV networks followed, too.

I was around that that time and bought copies of each magazine. I laughed at their obvious discomfort at having to admit they reported years of utter hooey.

The issue is resolved. You lost.

Get over it.

Consult a credible source on Economics that actually gets things right.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

The leftist NY Review of Books? You're kidding, right?

Please don't waste my time with liberal bulls***. It is undeniable that Reagan created a huge economic boom. How the heck does poverty rise during a period like that?:lol:

Toward the end of the Reagan presidency, even his bitterest liberal opponents admitted his success. Full issues of liberal Time, liberal Newsweek the liberal New Republic all had issues with cover stories on Reagan's undeniable success. And the hate-Reagan TV networks followed, too.

I was around that that time and bought copies of each magazine. I laughed at their obvious discomfort at having to admit they reported years of utter hooey.

The issue is resolved. You lost.

Get over it.

Consult a credible source on Economics that actually gets things right.

The poverty levels in the article are official government statistics. You can find them anywhere, Trump cultist. Lame rebuttal, as always.

Every time there is a Repug President, the poverty level increases. You people simply suck **** at managing the economy and everything else pertaining to government, for that matter.

Therefore, I explained your idiotic crumbling building photo to you. Happy to oblige. Next time, superimpose "This is the result of bull**** Repug Trickle Down Economics" on the side of the building. Then you won't need my help anymore.

Happy to educate you and show you the error of your ways. Better luck next time.

 

[Termn8or]

The leftist NY Review of Books? You're kidding, right?

Please don't waste my time with liberal bulls***. It is undeniable that Reagan created a huge economic boom. How the heck does poverty rise during a period like that?:lol:

Toward the end of the Reagan presidency, even his bitterest liberal opponents admitted his success. Full issues of liberal Time, liberal Newsweek the liberal New Republic all had issues with cover stories on Reagan's undeniable success. And the hate-Reagan TV networks followed, too.

I was around that that time and bought copies of each magazine. I laughed at their obvious discomfort at having to admit they reported years of utter hooey.

The issue is resolved. You lost.

Get over it.

Consult a credible source on Economics that actually gets things right.

The poverty levels in the article are official government statistics. You can find them anywhere, Trump cultist. Lame rebuttal, as always.

Every time there is a Repug President, the poverty level increases. You people simply suck **** at managing the economy and everything else pertaining to government, for that matter.

Therefore, I explained your idiotic crumbling building photo to you. Happy to oblige. Next time, superimpose "This is the result of bull**** Repug Trickle Down Economics" on the side of the building. Then you won't need my help anymore.

Happy to educate you and show you the error of your ways. Better luck next time.

Blah, blah, blah, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and obviously don't care.

Anyone who thinks Reagan's policies failed is ignorant beyond words.

End of story.

 

[Termn8or]

You people simply suck **** at managing the economy and everything else pertaining to government, for that matter.

Therefore, I explained your idiotic crumbling building photo to you. Happy to oblige. Next time, superimpose "This is the result of bull**** Repug Trickle Down Economics" on the side of the building. Then you won't need my help anymore.

Happy to educate you and show you the error of your ways. Better luck next time.

Hey Mr. Economics Expert.

According to Obama's first economic adviser, what is the best way to permanently stimulate economic growth?

How many Nobel Prize winners in Economics are explicit or implicit Supply Siders, and what are their names?

What Reagan skeptic Harvard professor examined Reagan's tax cuts and was completely won over?

Run, Forrest, run!

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Blah, blah, blah, you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about and obviously don't care.

Anyone who thinks Reagan's policies failed is ignorant beyond words.

End of story.

Reagan wasn't the topic, Trump cultist. Your stupid ass picture was.

I correctly pointed out how poverty levels increase under Repug Presidents and poverty levels decrease under Democratic Presidents. And you've got NOTHING.

Thank you for conceding defeat. You might be wiser than I thought.

 

[Integrityrespec]

The Tea Party wanted to destroy the Federal Government when they came along back in 2010 and they were successful. We are now essentially a Third World country in the way we run our government. The Federal Government's total ineptness in dealing with COVID-19 is a perfect example. As Dana Milbank describes:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story-ans

Laying blame on the Tea Party because they have differing ideas about how much power the Federal government should pocess. What about the Governor's of states who keep saying they have he power to make decisions within their state and then you plainly see NY Governor Cuomo pass up opportunities to stock up supplies prior to the pandemic. But that's the Tea Party's fault. It's always somebody other than the democrats in charge.

 

[marke]

The Republican Party, with your misguided trickle-down Reaganomics bull****, massive tax cuts for the rich, and corporate welfare.

That's who.

Democrats don't believe in low taxes, for anyone. That is because, in spite of their confusion about whether the US has unlimited access to cash, somehow they realize real bills must be paid by the government with real money taken from massive amounts of real taxation.

 

[OscarLevant]

The Tea Party wanted to destroy the Federal Government when they came along back in 2010 and they were successful. We are now essentially a Third World country in the way we run our government. The Federal Government's total ineptness in dealing with COVID-19 is a perfect example. As Dana Milbank describes:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story-ans

Your argument is sound, but I would go back farther than that. Reagan, with his libertarian economist, "Milton Friedman", brought neoliberalism ( trickle down 'supply side' economics ) to fore. In this spirit, he repealed the fairness doctrine, which as a doctrine that specified that TV news programs had to give equal time to both parties. If someone on the left was on TV for 5 minutes, they had to give someone on the right a chance to rebut for 5 minutes, etc. Repealing this doctrine, inspired by neoliberal ideas from Milton Friedman, the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics, allowed the right to take over AM radio, because now they didn't have to have any one challenging their point of view, so it was 'hate - the -left' for years, 24/7 then came cable, Fox news, then the birth of the Tea party and now Trump. It's called 'neoliberalism', a doctrine that says anything the gov can do, they think private can do better, which is why they are trying to privatize the post office, social security, etc. Neoliberalism has done more to destroy America than any other concept. The term is hardly ever used, but look it up on Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the left. It's alt - right territory now, and it's morphed into right wing nationalist populism.

 

[charliebrown]

The Tea Party wanted to destroy the Federal Government when they came along back in 2010 and they were successful. We are now essentially a Third World country in the way we run our government. The Federal Government's total ineptness in dealing with COVID-19 is a perfect example. As Dana Milbank describes:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...=hp_no-name_opinion-card-d:homepage/story-ans

Sorry, 2005 and 2009 are dates in you post, Tea party did not effect our government until 2010. Is there something wrong here?

 

[OscarLevant]

Please show where anyone in the "Tea Party" stated, inferred or implied they wanted to "destroy the Federal Government".

I'll wait.

It's a rhetorical 'destroy', don't take it literally, but think of Bannon's "deconstructing the administrative state" and the OP quoted Norhquist, and his quote is essentially what it means.

 

[OscarLevant]

The words were "destroy the Federal Government".

Paywall prevents me from finding in in the article.

Can you quote it?

I'm not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

- Grover Norquist

There is a concept called 'rhetorical phrase'. Don't have a conniption. No one is recommending bombs. It's similar to when Carville said of Berniecrats "they want to hail the revolution" he didn't mean it literally, it's a rhetorical statement.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Your argument is sound, but I would go back farther than that. Reagan, with his libertarian economist, "Milton Friedman", brought neoliberalism ( trickle down 'supply side' economics ) to fore. In this spirit, he repealed the fairness doctrine, which as a doctrine that specified that TV news programs had to give equal time to both parties. If someone on the left was on TV for 5 minutes, they had to give someone on the right a chance to rebut for 5 minutes, etc. Repealing this doctrine, inspired by neoliberal ideas from Milton Friedman, the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics, allowed the right to take over AM radio, because now they didn't have to have any one challenging their point of view, so it was 'hate - the -left' for years, 24/7 then came cable, Fox news, then the birth of the Tea party and now Trump. It's called 'neoliberalism', a doctrine that says anything the gov can do, they think private can do better, which is why they are trying to privatize the post office, social security, etc. Neoliberalism has done more to destroy America than any other concept. The term is hardly ever used, but look it up on Wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the left. It's alt - right territory now, and it's morphed into right wing nationalist populism.

Quite true. Repeal of the fairness doctrine is a major reason why Trump survived impeachment. If Fox News was around in the 1970s, Nixon would not have had anything to worry about. The rise of right-wing media propaganda has been destructive to our democracy.

 

[aociswundumho]

A patently ridiculous, vapid counter-argument. Here’s why: The Green Party NEVER claimed to be communist.

Doesn't matter what they call themselves. Just because the Nazis called themselves socialists doesn't mean they were, but if you look at their platform and what they actually did, anyone can see that there were, in fact, socialists.

The Green Party may not call themselves communists, but if you look at their platform, it's hard to see how their vision of society would end up any other way. To produce and distribute goods and services you have two choices: the government or the market. The Green Party demands an enormous amount of government intervention into the economy. While they may claim to support some level of private enterprise, their entire platform is extremely hostile to capitalism and markets - in other words, the very things that have made the US so wealthy.

On the other hand, YOU are foolishly claiming that Nazism and communism were one and the same.

In the post you responded to, I wrote: "Fascists, commies, and greens are all different, but not "significantly". They're all socialists, they're all collectivists, and they're all left-wing."

Again, a patently absurd argument, since Hitler hated communism and attacked the Soviet Union in 1940 because he hated communism.

No, Hitler did not hate communism, he hated Marxism. Hitler studied the names of the Bolsheviks and determined that most of them were Jews, as was Marx. In case you don't remember, Hitler didn't like Jews very much.

Hitler hated the USSR because of WW1.

If Nazism and communism were the same, then there was no reason for a “Beefsteak Nazi” to ever exist. After all -- they were one and the same, in your idiotic opinion.

Again, I didn't claim they were "one in the same", and I made that clear in the very post you responded to. Marxism is "international", while Hitler and Mussolini were staunch nationalists.

 

[eohrnberger]

As I already showed you, 72% of Repugs are racists. Sad, but true.

No, what you showed me was a poll result, and who knows whom they selected for that poll nor how they phrased the poll question to get that result.

From you citation:

Seventy-two percent of registered Republican voters still doubt President Obama’s citizenship

I don't see how having 'doubt President Obama’s citizenship' equates to racist. That's a conclusion that you inject, probably one to support your own confirmation bias.

Sadly for you, you have no comparable poll that shows that a majority of Democrats are bigots and racists. Therefore, your misguided, irrelevant deflections are truly pathetic.

Who are the real American patriots?
Who are the real racists?

These two questions will play a big role in the 2020 election.

The left is desperate to turn any traditional patriotic appeal into an act of racism. The left is desperate to smear Republicans and moderate Democrats as racists.

This past week, between Sunday and Tuesday, CNN and MSNBC reportedly used the word "racist" more than 1,100 times.

Part of this desperation is in the left's inability to debate the facts and their hope that strong smears can shame their opponents out of broaching the argument.

Part of this desperation is in the left's growing realization that President Donald Trump and the Republicans are beginning to attract minority support in a serious way.

The 2018 election was a watershed in the shift of minority voters toward Republicans.
Democrats Are the Real Racists—and Minority Americans Are Taking Note | Opinion

You might also ask yourself why the political left continues with "the soft bigotry of low expectations", that minorities are incapable of succeeding in life without the left's government giveaway programs. Considering "The 2018 election was a watershed in the shift of minority voters toward Republicans" importing the next government dependent voting block, in the form of unrestricted immigration and lax border security, now that minorities have shifted to more conservative, is cynical politics at it's absolute worst (typical of Democrat politics in general).

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

No, what you showed me was a poll result, and who knows whom they selected for that poll nor how they phrased the poll question to get that result.

From you citation:


I don't see how having 'doubt President Obama’s citizenship' equates to racist. That's a conclusion that you inject, probably one to support your own confirmation bias.





You might also ask yourself why the political left continues with "the soft bigotry of low expectations", that minorities are incapable of succeeding in life without the left's government giveaway programs. Considering "The 2018 election was a watershed in the shift of minority voters toward Republicans" importing the next government dependent voting block, in the form of unrestricted immigration and lax border security, now that minorities have shifted to more conservative, is cynical politics at it's absolute worst (typical of Democrat politics in general).

I don't see how having 'doubt President Obama’s citizenship' equates to racist. That's a conclusion that you inject, probably one to support your own confirmation bias.

Of course you don't understand. Hence, why you are a Tea Party supporter.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Doesn't matter what they call themselves. Just because the Nazis called themselves socialists doesn't mean they were, but if you look at their platform and what they actually did, anyone can see that there were, in fact, socialists.

The Green Party may not call themselves communists, but if you look at their platform, it's hard to see how their vision of society would end up any other way. To produce and distribute goods and services you have two choices: the government or the market. The Green Party demands an enormous amount of government intervention into the economy. While they may claim to support some level of private enterprise, their entire platform is extremely hostile to capitalism and markets - in other words, the very things that have made the US so wealthy.



In the post you responded to, I wrote: "Fascists, commies, and greens are all different, but not "significantly". They're all socialists, they're all collectivists, and they're all left-wing."



No, Hitler did not hate communism, he hated Marxism. Hitler studied the names of the Bolsheviks and determined that most of them were Jews, as was Marx. In case you don't remember, Hitler didn't like Jews very much.

Hitler hated the USSR because of WW1.



Again, I didn't claim they were "one in the same", and I made that clear in the very post you responded to. Marxism is "international", while Hitler and Mussolini were staunch nationalists.

Your own stupid source stated that these "Beefsteak Nazis" kept their communist sympathies and affiliations a secret. If Nazis and communists were one and the same, then there would be no reason for them to keep this a secret. Checkmate.

And it doesn't matter why Hitler hated communism. The fact is he hated communism. So you lose this debate every time.

 

[eohrnberger]

Of course you don't understand. Hence, why you are a Tea Party supporter.

Joke is on you. While, yes, there are some planks in the Tea Party platform that resonate with me, I am not, by far, what you'd call a Tea Party supporter.

So asking a legitimate question is equal to racist and bigot in your mind. My, how small your mind must be. :shrug:

 

[Termn8or]

The Tea Party wanted to destroy the Federal Government when they came along back in 2010 and they were successful. We are now essentially a Third World country in the way we run our government. The Federal Government's total ineptness in dealing with COVID-19 is a perfect example. As Dana Milbank describes:

Your claim about the Tea Party has to be the stupidest opinion I've seen in years.:lol:

And why would anyone believe a single word Milbank writes?

 

[Termn8or]

Your own stupid source stated that these "Beefsteak Nazis" kept their communist sympathies and affiliations a secret. If Nazis and communists were one and the same, then there would be no reason for them to keep this a secret. Checkmate.

And it doesn't matter why Hitler hated communism. The fact is he hated communism. So you lose this debate every time.

Leftists often hate each other, because they are hate-filled people.

And yes, Hitler was leftist. What do the words "National Socialist Party" mean?

And who in the US at the time expressed the most support for early Fascism? The liberal-left.

 

[Termn8or]

Quite true. Repeal of the fairness doctrine is a major reason why Trump survived impeachment. If Fox News was around in the 1970s, Nixon would not have had anything to worry about. The rise of right-wing media propaganda has been destructive to our democracy.

Yeah, isn't it just a shame that people other than the liberal-left have a chance to express their opinions?

You're advocating literal censorship of everyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Leftists often hate each other, because they are hate-filled people.

And yes, Hitler was leftist. What do the words "National Socialist Party" mean?

And who in the US at the time expressed the most support for early Fascism? The liberal-left.

Names mean absolutely nothing. Only people with the intellectual sophistication of an 8 year old think that way.

The official name of North Korea -- Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Is North Korea a democracy? Checkmate, I rest my case.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Yeah, isn't it just a shame that people other than the liberal-left have a chance to express their opinions?

You're advocating literal censorship of everyone who disagrees with you.

Nope. Not when 90% of the crap on talk radio nowadays is right-wing Repug horse****.

Repal of the Fairness Doctrine is the reason why this hate-filled poison dominates talk radio. Right wing radio never allows opposing point of views. When was the last time Rush Limbaugh had a liberal on his show?

This is why the vast majority of Repugs are hopelessly ****ing stupid and believe in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and the Deep State.

 

[Termn8or]

Leftists often hate each other, because they are hate-filled people.

And yes, Hitler was leftist. What do the words "National Socialist Party" mean?

And who in the US at the time expressed the most support for early Fascism? The liberal-left.

Names mean absolutely nothing. Only people with the intellectual sophistication of an 8 year old think that way.

The official name of North Korea -- Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Is North Korea a democracy? Checkmate, I rest my case.

Blah, blah, blah.

What do the following words mean?

Who in the US at the time expressed the most support for early Fascism? The liberal-left.

Because their political agenda and philosophy had a great deal in common.