PDA

View Full Version : Tea Bag Terror



scumonkey
April 14th, 2009, 11:06 PM
Tea Bag Terror: Protests Causing Scares, Evacuations At Congressional Offices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/14/tea-bag-terror-protests-c_n_186596.html)
April 14, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Nico Pitney (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/nico-pitney)
A recent email to hundreds of thousands of conservatives exhorted them to "Send a Tea Bag to Washington, D.C. for $1." Other activists have organized local efforts to mail tea bags to the offices of their members of Congress.
It's all part of the anti-Obama, anti-tax "tea party" movement, backed aggressively (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/the-corporate-lobbyists-b_b_186367.html) by corporate-funded "astroturf" organizations like FreedomWorks (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/lobbyists-planning-teaparties/). But now one of their symbolic protests is drawing attention for the wrong reasons.
Local reports indicate that the practice of mailing actual tea bags to legislators has repeatedly raised security concerns, and sometimes forced the evacuation of congressional offices in anthrax-like scares.
Brian Sperry, a spokesman for the U.S. Postal Service, told the Salt Lake (Utah) Tribune that tea bags in the mail "cause us some concern (http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_12100982). ... They could pose a problem if the tea bag is mailed in a regular envelope instead of a padded bag."
The Chicago Tribune reports (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-talk-tea-partyapr14,0,7631345.story):
In Boulder, Colo., the district office of U.S. Rep. Jared Polis recently called for help after a lumpy white envelope with no return address arrived in the mail. The Boulder County Hazardous Materials Response Team found a tea bag and a note reading "We the People, 1773."
Earlier this month in Manchester, N.H., a hazmat team descended on the office of U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter after employees opened an envelope marked "tax protest" and found a bunch of tea leaves.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ad.pngAnd two days later, the office of Rep. George Radanovich in Modesto, Calif., was evacuated "after an intern in the mailroom came upon a suspicious package (http://www.modbee.com/featured/story/654520.html) that was later found to contain tea." A haz-mat team and the FBI were were called in.
About 20 people from the building, including those in the congressman's office and two mortgage firms, were evacuated as a precaution.
Modesto Fire Battalion Chief Rich Sasser said the envelope held a granular substance. It did not have a return address.
About 3 p.m., the Stanislaus County Hazardous Materials Response Team went into the office. Sasser said their monitors showed there was nothing dangerous, so the hazmat team double-bagged the sealed envelope and turned it over to the FBI.
"We can't control who mails what to wherever," Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a Capitol Police spokeswoman, told the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.morningsun.net/news/x1579127448/Tea-Party-location-irks-veterans). "At all times, [United States Capitol Police] will investigate and take the appropriate police action in response to any calls to us for any suspicious items that congressional staff might be concerned about."

scumonkey
April 14th, 2009, 11:13 PM
Teabags....These people are such a nuisance!
get over it - you lost!

Tea bagging...And where have I head that before...;):D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F26vC_1_8xw&feature=player_embedded

stache
April 15th, 2009, 02:54 AM
The tea bag is the boring part of a double feature - :p

Ninjahedge
April 15th, 2009, 09:00 AM
It's from a bunch of people that really do not understand the full context of a historical event and take it out of that context in order to apply select content to whatever they feel fits.

Very sad.

Ninjahedge
April 15th, 2009, 09:02 AM
A second thought just hit me.

Why don't we research and see who is asking for these cuts? If this is coming primarily from the "Red states" it would be pretty easy to just say "ok, less taxes for you" and the, at the same time, simply remove federal funding from them.

Most of these states receive more than they get anyway! It's those damn liberal hippie states like NY and Cali that are providing all the cash, so I say:

"Fine! No taxes for you. Now give me my money back!"

BrooklynRider
April 15th, 2009, 12:22 PM
It's all part of the State Sovreignty Movement.

lofter1
April 15th, 2009, 12:51 PM
One of the tea baggers "Must Have" talking points:

No law suits against Mortgage Companies!

Wonder who is behind that action (http://www.eyesonobama.com/blog/content/id_51395/title_Tea-Bag-Parties-Corporate-Astroturfing-to-Derail-the-Movement-for-Change/)?

Doesn't sound tlike grass roots to me.

Folks can so esily be used as tools when others tap into their mis-directed anger.

Fabrizio
April 15th, 2009, 02:33 PM
This is the most H I L A R I O U S footage... I beg you all to watch. It is the funniest, most embarrasing thing... my favorite clip since the crazy bag-lady at the McCain speech. Scroll down to the second video:

A report from the trenches:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/million-tea-bag-protest-i_n_187243.html

ZippyTheChimp
April 15th, 2009, 02:55 PM
According to reports, the truck filled with teabags pulled up to Lafayette Park, but didn't have a permit, and so they were loaded back on to the truck and driven off to an undisclosed location
The Teabags enter the Witness Protection Program.


What was that sticking out of the bottom of that woman's jacket - a flag shirt?

MidtownGuy
April 15th, 2009, 08:02 PM
Toooo funny, this whole thing.:D

ZippyTheChimp
April 15th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Don't Let That Teabag Smack You in The Face! (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/04/dont_let_that_teabag_smack_you_in_the_face.php)

Advice from FreedomWorks:
DON'T BE DUPED! The term "teabagging" has strong sexual connotations. Be wary of anyone with a camera asking you if you are a "teabagger" or if you enjoy "teabagging" or similar leading questions - they are trying to make a fool of you.

scumonkey
April 15th, 2009, 09:01 PM
they are trying to make a fool of you.Too late! No help needed!!

NYatKNIGHT
April 16th, 2009, 11:54 AM
Exactly, they're doing just fine. Yet I'm still amazed that not one of those people knew what teabagging meant.

Where were these people with all of Bush's spending and use of tax money for the bailout? Why are they protesting Obama and not Republicans, the ones who got us into this predicament?

And their taxes haven't gone up.

They don't know what they're protesting, if you could call it that.

What a joke, I love it.

Ninjahedge
April 16th, 2009, 12:11 PM
They want to make sure Plumber Joe gets what he deserves....if he actually ever earns that much.....




I love it when people scream about rhetoricals before they actually see how many it would really effect.

I don't think we should punish people for earning more, but until we establish a flat tax that does not have more rabbit holes than the English Countryside, how can you get, flat out, 90% of the taxes for the US by the very people who earn 90% of the money?

ItstheBeat
April 16th, 2009, 03:54 PM
Do these tea party retards know what they're protesting? .. the tax rates of George W Bush!!! (since Obama's tax plan which CUTS taxes for 95% of Americans doesn't go into effect until 2010. And those in the highest tax bracket will still be paying less taxes than under their sacred Reagan.)

Where were the tea parties over the past 8 years when spending was out of control and the deficit exploded? This is just a bunch of angry old white people who resist change and are being riled up by nut jobs. I'm resisting the ignorant, ideologues who never give any real solutions.

Most of those people when asked have a laundry list of things they don't like (none of which has anything to do with the Boston tea party). Just a bunch of angry (ignorant, racist, small minded) people with no good ideas who just want to dissent because they didn't get their way in the last election. Typical of republicans.

If they see another way of climbing out of this recession then by all means. But I'm pretty sure that the republicans idea of more tax cuts for the wealthy and a government spending freeze isn't going to do the trick.

Thankfully we have a new Democratic majority in this country of progressive thinkers. I trust the Obama administration with knowing how to spend our tax dollars for the good of ALL in this country. Taxes are a fact of life. They help to pay for things that everyone depends on daily. They talk of fiscal responsibility.. again I ask, where was it the last 8 years when the so called fiscal conservatives ran the show?
You can't just pretend we elected Obama and found ourselves in this place.

These people can't just rewrite the not so distant past.

lofter1
April 16th, 2009, 04:53 PM
Neo-Puritans acting as Puritans do.

Three Chord Monty
April 16th, 2009, 05:14 PM
http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i185/mindgonehaywire/IMG_1526-2.jpg

If there was a point to be made in all of this, it was obviously drowned out by the attention paid to the easily-spotted fringe kooks. I went by City Hall Park a bit after 7 pm last night & saw stuff like this, generally tamer than some of the signs seen elsewhere, but still...you have a gripe about taxes? My respectful suggestion is that this is not a great platform for airing it.

lofter1
April 16th, 2009, 05:49 PM
Seems folks aren't judging this tea-bag gang (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html) with an open mind.

Maybe they're just concerned citizens looking out for what's best for the Country?

Then again, maybe not (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201156f2cd323970c-popup) ...

Three Chord Monty
April 16th, 2009, 07:19 PM
Glad to see Sullivan picked up on that. I saw that sign yesterday on the news somewhere & it was easily the most vile thing I saw in any of the coverage.

This site is not exactly centrist, and even they're dismayed by this garbage.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33333_At_Glenn_Beck_Tea_Party-_Burn_the_Books!/

Jasonik
April 16th, 2009, 11:29 PM
Just a bunch of sour-grapes (anti-democrat), corporate-puppet (anti-socialist), white-supremacist (anti-Obama), anti-semititic (anti-FED), selfish (anti-conficatory), tax-cheats (anti warfare/welfare state).

These (evil) people make me sick.

lofter1
April 16th, 2009, 11:46 PM
Last week Obama was a Socialist. This week he's a Fascist.

The guy gets around.

ZippyTheChimp
April 17th, 2009, 12:59 AM
At what sort of places were these Tea Parties held?

scumonkey
April 17th, 2009, 02:09 AM
Click on Lofters "Tea-Bag Gang" link above
or here to fulfill all your tea bagging needs!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-parties

scumonkey
April 17th, 2009, 02:21 AM
My favorite tea bag party picture so far! :D
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb276/scumonkey/teabagging.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_OWjKTP--OTI/SeYk919zcAI/AAAAAAAAE2M/ww_EstzbrUU/s1600-h/DSC_1233.jpg

stache
April 17th, 2009, 07:08 AM
Ok, that is REALLY sick. :(

Jasonik
April 17th, 2009, 08:18 AM
These dangerous people need to be monitored by the government! (http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w91.html)

Lofter, "Socialism and fascism are each forms of statism, forms of government in which the government is given complete or extensive control over the lives of its citizens." (http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/OBJECTIVISM/socfasc.html)

lofter1
April 17th, 2009, 10:18 AM
They are ^ in theory, but the structure of each is entirely opposite in both practice and ideology.

I forgot to mention that last year Obama was an islamist.

Seems a new term -- Obamist -- should be coined to cover the Trinity of Sins for which the man is supposedly responsible.

lofter1
April 17th, 2009, 10:21 AM
btw: I agree that those in opposition to the oppositionists need to examine their tactics, lest they become they same rabid folks who yell STFU at anyone who dissents (for the past eight years we had enough of that from those in lock step with the power clique).

Ninjahedge
April 17th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Seems folks aren't judging this tea-bag gang (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html) with an open mind.

Maybe they're just concerned citizens looking out for what's best for the Country?

Then again, maybe not (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201156f2cd323970c-popup) ...


Loft, something does not look right about the Ovens pic... If you look at the right hand side, one of the letters seems to go off the page that looks like the print sheet.

I think this was Photoshopped.

There is one in there, with a white sign with bright pink letters and two yellow signs behind it, that was DEFINITELY photoshopped.

The thing is, were these just "cleaned up" or were they completely fabricated?

ZippyTheChimp
April 17th, 2009, 11:23 AM
Loft, something does not look right about the Ovens pic... If you look at the right hand side, one of the letters seems to go off the page that looks like the print sheet.Examined it in PS. Pixels are consistent throughout the image. What you're seeing isn't the border of the paper; it's the inside edge of the tape.


There is one in there, with a white sign with bright pink letters and two yellow signs behind it, that was DEFINITELY photoshopped.If you mean the one with bright RED letters, this one was obviously PSed, but the altered message is


Freeloading Illegals are raping US taxpayers.

Pretty tepid.

lofter1
April 17th, 2009, 11:52 AM
There are multiple photos of the guy with the Obama's Ovens sign.

Who is doing the PS? Maybe some rabid left-wingers surgically re-imaging the tea-baggers to make them appear outrageous? Given the current situation that would seem to be an unnecessary bit of work.

ZippyTheChimp
April 17th, 2009, 12:21 PM
At what sort of places were these Tea Parties held?


Click on Lofters "Tea-Bag Gang" link above
or here to fulfill all your tea bagging needs!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/tea-partiesI see lots of trees.

Down with taxes!

Down with parks?

lofter1
April 17th, 2009, 12:32 PM
And while we're at it:

Down with roads, sewers, electrical grids, food inspections nad anything else paid for by taxes (except he military?).

Let the People do it on their own.

We did it before that way (didn't we?) when we were Free.

We can do it again.

Yes We Can!

NYatKNIGHT
April 17th, 2009, 02:24 PM
Except, up with the government getting involved in our reproductive choices, and by all means keep the family from choosing whether or not to unplug mom from the life support machine.

Jasonik
April 18th, 2009, 05:41 PM
“Let’s be very honest about what this is about,” Garofalo began [on MSNBC's Countdown]. “It’s not about bashing Democrats. It’s not about taxes. … This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. It is nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks and there is no way around that.”

“I didn’t know there were so many racists left,” she continued. “The Republican-hyphen-conservative movement has now crystallized into the white power movement. … The Republican Party now depends upon immigrant-bashing and hating the black guy in the White House.”

[source] (http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/17/garofalo-tea-parties-are-racism-straight-up/#-)

*****

An example of racism masquerading as criticism (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/presidential-address/1081312/) of Obama's (fascist?) central planning tendencies.

Jasonik
April 20th, 2009, 10:42 AM
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds . . . [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our mis-managers to account to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers . . . . And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another] till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automotons of misery . . . . And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

--July 12, 1816 letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval

Ninjahedge
April 20th, 2009, 11:22 AM
And we all know Tommy was right in all his ideas and decisions?

Jasonik
April 20th, 2009, 11:56 AM
The Truths Behind the Tea Parties

April 19, 2009 | by Steve Chapman (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/19/the_truths_behind_the_tea_parties_96054.html)

The banking collapse and the economic meltdown have prompted many Americans to turn to the federal government as indispensable savior, telling Congress and the president: We hope you can fix it; we want you to do whatever is necessary to fix it; and we don't care what it costs.

That was not the sentiment in evidence at the tea party protests held on Tax Day.

There, the message was one of great skepticism about the efficacy of the government's remedies and great apprehension about the expense (along with some of the extremist lunacy that accompanies any mass movement). The scale of the federal response to the crises has come as a frightening surprise to many Americans, who suspect the cure will be worse, and less transitory, than the disease.

Since last September, a federal budget that was already growing steadily suddenly accelerated out of control. The ride began in the winter of 2008, when Congress and President Bush agreed on a fiscal stimulus package of $170 billion in tax rebates and incentives. It picked up speed in the fall, when the Treasury spent $85 billion to take over insurance giant AIG and Congress approved $700 billion to rescue failing financial institutions.

By the time Barack Obama took office in January, projected federal outlays for this year had soared by nearly $1 trillion over last year, and the budget deficit had nearly quadrupled. But was that enough? Not nearly. Obama saw Bush and raised him, immediately pushing through another fiscal stimulus program with a price tag of $787 billion.

Fiscal hawks thought the budget was out of control before. Now they look back on the pre-2008 profligacy as a golden age of budgetary restraint.

The amount of money involved in all this would be staggering to anyone not benumbed by the incessant torrent of bad news. But judging from the tea party protests, the numbness is not universal. No matter what the state of the economy, some Americans are still capable of being shocked to see trillions of federal dollars pouring out like water rushing over a broken dam. And like many reputable economists, they suspect most of it will be wasted.

The invocations of the Boston Tea Party -- on April 15, no less -- suggested that the protests stemmed from anger about taxes under Obama. But Obama has not actually increased income taxes -- only the federal tax on tobacco, which the majority of people don't pay. His tax plan calls for cutting income taxes for most Americans, and not raising them on the rest until 2011.

So why did people rally across the country when they should have been planning how to spend their tax refunds? Because their true dismay is about the mushrooming of federal outlays, which the demonstrators regard as a future tax increase in the making. Which, of course, it is.

The problem is not just the spending supposedly needed for the current economic emergency. Obama claims that he will cut the deficit in half, to $533 billion, by the end of his first term. Two problems: 1) The Congressional Budget Office says the more likely number is $672 billion, and 2) that is 46 percent more than the deficit in 2008. Worse yet, the CBO says the deficit will then resume its upward trajectory, reaching $1 trillion by 2018 and nearly doubling the national debt over the next decade.

The realism about expenditures is the encouraging thing about the protests. It's easy to convince people that the government should take less of their money. It's harder to persuade them that the government should provide them less in the way of benefits and services. Yet the teabaggers took the view that whatever Washington plans to provide, they don't want -- not at this price, anyway.

The country has gotten into a painful fiscal predicament because both parties have let us believe we can have more and more goodies from Washington at no additional cost. The recent explosion of federal spending has succeeded in one way: It has exposed that assumption for the fiction it was.

Like Bernie Madoff's investors, we now face the bleak truth that the comfortable future we expected is gone. Everything the federal government is doing will be forcibly extracted from our future earnings. The tea party protesters see that and are angry. Can the rest of the country be far behind?

schapman@tribune.com

Copyright 2009, Creators Syndicate Inc.

ZippyTheChimp
April 20th, 2009, 01:07 PM
The tea party protesters see that and are angry. Can the rest of the country be far behind?Is that really what the protesters see, or what Chapman thinks they should see?

Why are like 99% of the people who see these truths white?

Why didn't these people see these truths a few years ago; have we reached some mathematical threshold that makes these truths self evident?


Sometimes things are just the way they look.

Ninjahedge
April 20th, 2009, 02:28 PM
But was that enough? Not nearly. Obama saw Bush and raised him....

Must be a Liberal Republican.

Actually saw something wrong in what Bush was doing, and still had to say what Obama was doing is worse.

Jasonik
April 20th, 2009, 03:40 PM
Sometimes things are just the way they look.

Yep, like the Duke lacrosse "rapists" and the O.J. verdict.


Why are like 99% of the people who see these truths white?
Did you check Chapman's skin color before you judged his opinions?


...the message was one of great skepticism about the efficacy of the government's remedies and great apprehension about the expense (along with some of the extremist lunacy that accompanies any mass movement).

Total apologist for racism I guess.


Why didn't these people see these truths a few years ago... [emphasis added]

Many have expressed this very dismay -- not about white people as you apparently have -- but about so called conservatives and other "limited government" types.

A few examples:

The Tea Parties: We’ve Seen It All Before by Ryan McMaken (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken129.html)

Are You Kidding Me? by Don Cooper (http://www.lewrockwell.com/cooper/cooper14.html)

RACIST PROVOCATEUR EXPOSED AT SAN ANTONIO TEA PARTY By Harold Gray (http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Racist-Provocateur-Exposed-at-San-Antonio-Tea-Party.html)


In Knoxville and in other sites, participants in the movement were quick to note that the tea parties were not aimed at one president more than another. Co-organizer Wendy Stephens of Kingsport provided a good answer for the tea party as a nonpartisan event: "It doesn't mean we weren't upset when Bush was in office," she said "We've just reached a breaking point."
knoxnews.com (http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/apr/19/tea-party-an-expression-of-discontent/)


"This is a nonparty thing," Resseguie said Wednesday. "This is an American thing. We have to stop tax-money waste and abuse."

"As a father and a nontraditional college student, I think government spending is ridiculous," Lake said. "Politicians across the board don't listen to the people."

Lake said when he talked to people about the $1.7 trillion national budget deficit, he found a lot of people were uneducated.
...

"I love the idea of having people gather and discuss things," Maiurano said. "It shows people are interested in government, and it's good to see people show their interest because if people got more involved, we would see change.

"This protest is about excess spending," Maiurano continued. "And this mess we are in didn't happen overnight.

They are doing the right thing by trying to find solutions. It's nice to see people making government aware that they are aware."
thedailystar.com (http://www.thedailystar.com/archivesearch/local_story_106041523.html)

Ninjahedge
April 21st, 2009, 08:57 AM
The check has come to the table and no-one wants to pay.

Problem is, the restaurant does not need any more dishwashers, even though half of them have quit and left the country!

Jasonik
April 22nd, 2009, 05:32 PM
Tea and Sympathy
April 18, 2009
Roderick T. Long (http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/77809.html)

Whichever party is out of power always begins to emphasise its libertarian-sounding side in order to divert anti-government sentiment toward support of that party rather than toward genuine radical opposition to the entire establishment.

By the same token, the party that’s in power employs alarmist rhetoric about the other side’s supposed anti-government radicalism in order to drum up support for its own policies.

Thus events like the Tea Parties serve the interests of both parties; people with libertarian leanings get diverted into supporting one half of the bipartisan duopoly, the antistate message getting diluted by mixture with (in this case) right-wing statist crap about war and immigration and the Kulturkampf. Those turned off by this creepy right-wing stew get diverted into supporting the other half of the bipartisan duopoly, with any libertarian sentiments likewise getting diluted into (in this case) left-wing statist crap about gun control and the need to impose regulation on some imaginary laissez-faire economy. And so the whole power structure ends up being reinforced.

I saw this game under Clinton, I saw (almost) everyone switch teams under Bush, and now they’re all switching back again. And so we get Republican pundits and politicians suddenly howling about Obama’s fascism when they’ve never supported anything but fascism in their entire lives; and on the other side we get Democrats ridiculing the very sorts of concerns about oppression and civil liberties violations that they pretended to take seriously under Dubya’s reign.

Is it worth libertarians’ and/or anarchists’ while to participate in such events? Sure; because while the voices at the podium tend to be statist apparatchiks, the crowds will tend to be a mixture of statist yahoos and genuinely libertarian-leaning folks, and outreach to the latter is always worth a try – in Kierkegaard’s words (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/kierkegaard/untruth/files/untruth.html), “to split up the crowd, or to talk to it, not to form a crowd, but so that one or another individual might go home from the assembly and become a single individual.” But of course the organisers of such events are on the lookout for us and always do their best to try to narrow the boundaries of discussion.

ZippyTheChimp
April 22nd, 2009, 06:03 PM
Did you check Chapman's skin color before you judged his opinions?Why is that important?


Many have expressed this very dismay -- not about white people as you apparently haveAbout "white people" or just those that can't accept a colored guy in the White House. Or a Muslim in the White House. Or a foreigner in the White House. Or maybe all of that rolled into one Antichrist in the White House.

That's the way I saw this protest. The culture-wars repackaged - been there, done that.

lofter1
April 1st, 2010, 03:03 PM
America today :cool: ...

Teabonics (http://www.flickr.com/photos/pargon/sets/72157623594187379/)

Ninjahedge
April 1st, 2010, 03:12 PM
Too funny.

The "Arrogant" scooter owner is a hoot.

ZippyTheChimp
April 1st, 2010, 03:41 PM
Wonder what the guy in the 4th photo thinks of the Farm Subsidy.

ablarc
April 1st, 2010, 08:24 PM
Amazing.

It's the Ignoracrocity.

OmegaNYC
April 1st, 2010, 09:51 PM
This has to be a joke or photoshopped. I simply refuse to believe that there are people that DUMB. Well, at least I can hope.

lofter1
October 3rd, 2010, 08:11 PM
Donald Duck Meets Glenn Beck in Right Wing Radio Duck

From rebelliouspixels (http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuwNU0jsk0

This transformative remix work constitutes a fair-use of any copyrighted
material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law.

"Right Wing Radio Duck" by Jonathan McIntosh is licensed
under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 License -
permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Jonathan McIntosh
http://www.rebelliouspixels.com
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

lofter1
January 23rd, 2011, 12:34 PM
Tea Party Activist Takes Over New Hampshire G.O.P.

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/us/politics/23hampshire.html?ref=politics)
By ABBY GOODNOUGH
January 22, 2011

DERRY, N.H. — A fight to lead the New Hampshire Republican Party through next year’s presidential race ended Saturday with an upset victory by a conservative candidate backed by members of the Tea Party and other grass-roots groups.

The candidate, Jack Kimball, a relative newcomer to party politics who ran for governor last year as a fiscal and social conservative, beat Juliana Bergeron, who leads the Cheshire County Republicans and was supported by former Gov. John H. Sununu, the outgoing party chairman.

The race was watched as a sign of how much influence Tea Party groups will exert here in the lead-up to New Hampshire’s presidential primary, the first in the nation, tentatively scheduled for Feb. 14, 2012. Mr. Kimball wasted no time in saying, minutes after his election, that he wanted the state’s Republican primary voters to choose a “good, strong conservative” candidate.

At least one potential presidential candidate hustled to congratulate Mr. Kimball. Before speaking with reporters, he took a cellphone call from former Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, who is scheduled to be here on Monday for a book-signing.

Andrew Hemingway, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire, said Mr. Kimball’s win was evidence that the Tea Party and similar groups were pushing the state’s Republican Party to the right. Mr. Hemingway’s group helped a large number of conservatives, including many with Tea Party support, win election to the state legislature in the fall.

“I don’t think it’s fair to say that New Hampshire is a moderate state, and I think this proves it,” Mr. Hemingway said. “There are new people voting, and they have a conservative outlook.”

Others said that the vote was not a sure sign of a changing Republican electorate. Republican primary voters here chose John McCain in 2008, and Barack Obama won the state decisively in the general election, with help from its many independents. In a presidential straw poll conducted at the party meeting by ABC News and WMUR-TV, Mr. Pawlenty received 8 percent of the vote.

In backing Ms. Bergeron for Republican leader, Mr. Sununu seemed to be sending the message that Mr. Kimball, a self-described “warrior” who has said he would not tolerate deviation from the party platform, would threaten party unity at a crucial time. In a strongly worded speech to state committee members before the vote, Mr. Sununu said that he was worried about divisions within the party and warned that its leaders must not alienate more moderate members, independents — who make up about 40 percent of the state’s voters — or even Democrats.

“We don’t want to be seen as a party that’s a sliver of a party,” he said. “We want to be seen as a party that welcomes all views.”

Mr. Sununu also urged the roughly 425 members in attendance not to alienate any Republican presidential candidates leading into the 2012 primary, saying it was imperative for New Hampshire to provide a “comfortable environment” for all.

“We have a responsibility because every four years the world watches as we are the most significant component in selecting a president of the United States,” he said. “The worst thing for the New Hampshire first-in-the-nation primary is for people to feel this is not a place they want to participate.”

This month, Mr. Kimball alarmed some Republicans here when he said the new chairman should let presidential candidates know that New Hampshire Republicans want their party to “get back to its conservative values and stay there.” Traditionally, the state party chairman remains diligently neutral in presidential primaries, serving more as a good-will ambassador.

Mr. Kimball won the support of several powerful Republicans, including the new speaker of the state’s House of Representatives, William O’Brien, and its majority leader, D. J. Bettencourt. After his victory, which came in a 222-to-199 vote, Mr. Kimball told reporters that he would not take sides in the primary.

“It’s the folks that are going to make those determinations,” Mr. Kimball said. “It is the state G.O.P. chair’s responsibility to remain neutral and to make sure that there is an even playing field for all candidates.”

Addressing committee members, Mr. Kimball promised to build on Mr. Sununu’s successes and keep the party unified.

“I feel I can be that bridge for the new activists and the old,” he said. “I am a Republican — a conservative Republican who happens to have come out of the Tea Parties, but you will find the Reagan values in this guy.”

He also vowed to fight to ensure New Hampshire’s primary remained the first in the nation, a point of pride that was challenged in 2008 and almost surely will be again next year.

In the straw poll, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, who has not curried Tea Party support, won with 36 percent of the vote, followed by Representative Ron Paul of Texas with 11 percent. Mr. Pawlenty was next with his 8 percent, and Sarah Palin received 7 percent. More than a dozen other potential candidates won smaller percentages.

© 2011 The New York Times Company

lofter1
February 5th, 2011, 10:52 AM
Meanwhile, way out west where the cry for freedom echoes across the arid expanse ...

Arizona Bill Would Let State Nullify Federal Laws At Will

TALKING POINTS MEMO (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/arizona_bill_would_let_state_nullify_federal_laws_ at_will.php?ref=fpblg)
Eric Lach
February 4, 2011

Republican lawmakers in Arizona -- including State Senate President Russell Pearce (R), who sponsored the state's controversial immigration law -- have introduced a bill that sets up a way for the state to ignore federal laws it doesn't like.

The bill, SB1433 (http://azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1433&Session_Id=102&image.x=0&image.y=0) [TEXT (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/50leg/1r/bills/sb1433p.htm)], would establish a 12 person legislative committee that could "recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the United States Constitution." The committee would be made up of six members of the State House and six members of the State Senate, with no more than four from each chamber coming from a single party. After the committee made a recommendation, the state legislature would then have 60 days to vote on whether to nullify the federal law.

But that's not all, the bill would also allow the committee to review "all existing federal statutes, mandates and Executive orders for the purpose of determining their constitutionality."

Written into the bill itself is a section that basically tells Congress to butt out:



This act serves as a notice and demand to the Congress and the federal government to cease and desist all activities outside the scope of their constitutionally designated powers.
Nullification is something of a throwback idea. It was debated during the country's first few decades, and invoked by Southern segregationists during the Civil Rights Era. It also clearly goes against the language of the Constitution:



This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Speaker Pro Tempore of House Steve Montenegro (R) and President Pro Tempore of the Senate Sylvia Allen (R) are also sponsoring the Arizona bill.

(h/t The Arizona Republic (http://azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=sb1433&Session_Id=102&image.x=0&image.y=0))

© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.

ablarc
February 5th, 2011, 11:38 AM
Whose side is Donald Duck not on: the Wall Street Fat Cats or the Communists who support them? When did they get into bed together?

Ninjahedge
February 7th, 2011, 07:59 AM
I say let AZ do this.

I also say, stop funding AZ. They think they know best? Let them try for it on their own.

Amazing how so many of these sattes that feew that the government is telling them what to doo too much are also the ones receiving the most aid.

lofter1
February 20th, 2011, 01:16 PM
The G.O.P.’s Post-Tucson Traumatic Stress Disorder

NY TIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/20/opinion/20rich.html?ref=opinion)
By FRANK RICH
February 19, 2011

SIX weeks after that horrific day in Tucson, America has half-forgotten its violent debate over the power of violent speech to incite violence. It’s Gabrielle Giffords’s own power of speech that rightly concerns us now. But all those arguments over political language did leave a discernible legacy. In the aftermath of President Obama’s Tucson sermon, civility has had a mini-restoration in Washington. And some of the most combative national figures in our politics have been losing altitude ever since, much as they did after Bill Clinton’s oratorical response to the inferno of Oklahoma City.

Glenn Beck’s ratings at Fox News continued their steady decline, falling to an all-time low last month. He has lost 39 percent of his viewers in a year and 48 percent of the prime 25-to-54 age demographic. His strenuous recent efforts to portray the Egyptian revolution as an apocalyptic leftist-jihadist conspiracy have inspired more laughs than adherents.

Sarah Palin’s tailspin is also pronounced. It can be seen in polls, certainly: the ABC News-Washington Post survey found that 30 percent of Americans approved of her response to the Tucson massacre and 46 percent did not. (Obama’s numbers in the same poll were 78 percent favorable, 12 percent negative.) But equally telling was the fate of a Palin speech scheduled for May at a so-called Patriots & Warriors Gala in Glendale, Colo.

Tickets to see Palin, announced at $185 on Jan. 16, eight days after Tucson, were slashed to half-price in early February. Then the speech was canceled altogether, with the organizers blaming “safety concerns resulting from an onslaught of negative feedback.” But when The Denver Post sought out the Glendale police chief, he reported there had been no threats or other causes for alarm. The real “negative feedback” may have been anemic ticket sales, particularly if they were to cover Palin’s standard $100,000 fee.

What may at long last be dawning on some Republican grandees is that a provocateur who puts her political adversaries in the cross hairs and then instructs her acolytes to “RELOAD” frightens most voters.

Even the Rupert Murdoch empire shows signs of opting for retreat over reload. Its newest right-wing book imprint had set its splashy debut for Jan. 18, with the rollout of a screed, “Death by Liberalism,” arguing that “more Americans have been killed by well-meaning liberal policies than by all the wars of the last century combined.” But that publication date was 10 days after Tucson, and clearly someone had second thoughts. You’ll look in vain for the usual hype, or mere mentions, of “Death by Liberalism” in other Murdoch media outlets (or anywhere else). Even more unexpectedly, Murdoch’s flagship newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, ran an op-ed essay last week by the reliably conservative Michael Medved trashing over-the-top Obama critiques from Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Dinesh D’Souza as “paranoid” and “destructive to the conservative cause” — the cause defined as winning national elections.

If the next step in this declension is less face time for Palin on Fox News, then we’ll have proof that pigs can fly. But a larger question remains. If the right puts its rabid Obama hatred on the down-low, what will — or can — conservatism stand for instead? The only apparent agendas are repealing “Obamacare” and slashing federal spending as long as the cuts are quarantined to the small percentage of the budget covering discretionary safety-net programs, education and Big Bird.

This shortfall of substance was showcased by last weekend’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, a premier Republican rite that doubles as a cattle call for potential presidential candidates. Palin didn’t appear — CPAC, as the event is known, doesn’t pay — and neither did her fellow Fox News personality Mike Huckabee. But all the others were there, including that great white hope of un-Palin Republicans, Mitt Romney. What they said — and didn’t say — from the CPAC podium not only shows a political opposition running on empty but also dramatizes the remarkable leadership opportunity their fecklessness has handed to the incumbent president in post-shellacking Washington.

As it happened, CPAC overlapped with the extraordinary onrush of history in the Middle East. But the Egyptian uprising, supposedly a prime example of the freedom agenda championed by George W. Bush, was rarely, and then only minimally, mentioned by the parade of would-be presidents. Indeed, with the exception of Ron Paul — who would let the Egyptians fend for themselves and cut off all foreign aid — the most detailed discussions of Egypt came from Ann Coulter and Rick Santorum.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator who lost his 2006 re-election bid by a landslide of 17 percentage points, believes he can be president despite being best known for having likened homosexuality to “man on dog” sex. Even less conversant in foreign affairs than canine coitus, he attacked Obama for deserting Hosni Mubarak, questioning the message it sent to America’s “friends.” But no one (with the odd exception of George Will) takes Santorum’s presidential ambitions seriously. Romney, on the other hand, is the closest thing the G.O.P. has to a front-runner, and he is even more hollow than Santorum. Indeed, his appearance at CPAC on the morning of Friday, Feb. 11, was entirely consistent with his public image as an otherworldly visitor from an Aqua Velva commercial circa 1985.

That Friday was the day after Mubarak’s bizarre speech vowing to keep his hold on power. At 9:45 a.m. that morning, as a rapt world waited for his next move, CNN reported that there would soon be a new statement from Mubarak — whose abdication was confirmed around 11 a.m. But when Romney took the stage in Washington at 10:35, he made not a single allusion of any kind to Egypt — even as he lambasted Obama for not having a foreign policy. His snarky, cowardly address also tiptoed around “Obamacare” lest it remind Tea Partiers of Massachusetts’s “Romneycare.” He was nearly as out of touch with reality as Mubarak the night before.

There was one serious speech at CPAC — an economic colloquy delivered that night by Mitch Daniels, the Indiana governor much beloved by what remains of mainstream conservative punditry. But Daniels was quickly thrashed: Limbaugh attacked him for his mild suggestion that the G.O.P. welcome voters who are not ideological purists, and CPAC attendees awarded him with only 4 percent of the vote in their straw poll. (The winners were Paul, with 30 percent, and Romney, with 23 percent.) Indeed, Daniels couldn’t even compete with the surprise CPAC appearance of Donald Trump, a sometime Democrat whose own substance-free Obama-bashing oration drew an overflow crowd. Apparently few at CPAC could imagine that Trump might be using them to drum up publicity for his own ratings-challenged television show, “Celebrity Apprentice,” which returns in just two weeks — or that he had contributed $50,000 to the Chicago mayoral campaign of no less an Obama ally than Rahm Emanuel.

THE G.O.P. has already reached its praying-for-a-miracle phase — hoping some neo-Reagan will emerge to usurp the tired field. Trump! Thune! T-Paw! Christie! Jeb Bush! Soon it’ll be time for another Fred Thompson or Rudy groundswell. But hardly had CPAC folded its tent than a new Public Policy Polling survey revealed where the Republican base’s heart truly remains — despite the new civility and the temporary moratorium on the term “job-killing.” The poll found that 51 percent of G.O.P. primary voters don’t believe that the president was born in America and that only 28 percent do. (For another 21 percent, the jury is still out, as it presumably is on evolution as well.)

The party leadership is no less cowed by that majority today than it was pre-Tucson. That’s why John Boehner, appearing on “Meet the Press” last weekend, stonewalled David Gregory’s repeated queries asking him to close the door on the “birther” nonsense. (“It’s not my job to tell the American people what to think,” Boehner said.) The power of the G.O.P.’s hard-core base may also yet deliver a Palin comeback no matter what the rest of the country thinks of her. In the CNN poll nearly two weeks after Tucson, Republicans still gave her a 70 percent favorable approval rating, just behind Huckabee (72 percent) and ahead of Romney (64 percent).

An opposition this adrift from reality — whether about Obama’s birth certificate, history unfolding in the Middle East or the consequences of a federal or state government shutdown — is a paper tiger. It’s a golden chance for the president to seize the moment. What we don’t know is if he sees it that way. As we’ve learned from his track record both in the 2008 campaign and in the White House, he sometimes coasts at these junctures or lapses into a pro forma bipartisanship that amounts, for all practical purposes, to inertia.

Obama’s outspokenness about the labor battle in Wisconsin offers a glimmer of hope that he might lead the fight for what many Americans, not just Democrats, care about — from job creation to an energy plan to an attack on the deficit that brackets the high-end Bush-era tax cuts with serious Medicare/Medicaid reform and further strengthening of the health care law. Will he do so? The answer to that question is at least as mysterious as the identity of whatever candidate the desperate G.O.P. finds to run against him.

© 2011 The New York Times Company

Ninjahedge
February 21st, 2011, 10:49 AM
Death to Big Bird.

That commie lovin socialistic liberalistic feathered Terrorist does not deserve federal funding!

Nickelodeon should be the model for our youth!

All hail to Justin Bieber and GoGurt!

lofter1
April 7th, 2011, 05:07 PM
Donald Trump's support surges in New Hampshire

NY POST (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/donald_trump_support_surges_in_new_9ZkjmDaaoyLzjjJ 8rGqEdO)
April 5, 2011

Donald Trump's suddenly surging presidential chances got another boost Tuesday with the release of a poll that measured the business magnate as the second-most-popular choice for Republican primary voters in the crucial early voting state of New Hampshire.

Trump picked up the support of 21 percent of state primary voters, behind only 27 percent for Mitt Romney, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts, according to the survey from Democratic-leaning firm Public Policy Polling (PPP).

"He has more support than even we thought," PPP assistant director Dustin Ingalls said ...

... Trump, like virtually all of the potential nominees beside former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, has not officially confirmed that he will run, he has stepped up his public criticism of President Barack Obama -- including questioning his birth certificate -- and given interviews to many media outlets ...

Copyright 2011 NYP Holdings, Inc.

***

Tea Baggers Going Deep ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

Ninjahedge
April 8th, 2011, 08:23 AM
I really hope he runs.

He is one of those guys that is VERY easy to get people to hate if you really needed to.

BBMW
April 8th, 2011, 10:57 AM
While I don't think the Donald could manage his way out of a paper bag, I do believe he is a VERY good salesman. It's his primary talent.

While I really don't give him a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning the presidency, he could make himself a factor.

lofter1
April 8th, 2011, 12:32 PM
Carl Paladino, Round 2.

BBMW
April 8th, 2011, 01:32 PM
Trump at least has a sense of humor. His "candidacy" could actually provide a significant entertainment factor.

futurecity
April 8th, 2011, 03:02 PM
What could Trump as president mean for NYC? I think it would be good news for development fans.

Ninjahedge
April 8th, 2011, 03:03 PM
If you have seen his developments, then it would NOT be good news for development "fans"....

(ICK!)

BBMW
April 8th, 2011, 05:28 PM
Maybe he'd reskin the White House in bronze glass?

lofter1
April 8th, 2011, 10:55 PM
Donald's House ...

http://images.worthpoint.com/wp2/universal/091009/thumbnail/48309.jpg

infoshare
April 24th, 2011, 06:33 PM
"It's earlier than you think…."

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/04/problem-with-tea-party.html

scumonkey
April 27th, 2011, 05:06 PM
Obama releases birth certificate: Will that stop birthers?


President Obama releases birth certificate Wednesday morning – the long-form version for which birthers have been clamoring. But it hasn't quieted them.




http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0427-hardcore-birther/10024918-1-eng-US/0427-hardcore-birther_full_380.jpg (http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0427-hardcore-birther/10024918-1-eng-US/0427-hardcore-birther_full_600.jpg)

Dentist and lawyer Orly Taitz, seen here in her San Clemente office in this 2009 file photo, is suing President Obama,

claiming the president was born in Kenya. Wednesday morning, Obama releases birth certificate – but Ms. Taitz still questions the president's right to hold the office.
Paul Bersebach/Orange County Register/MCT/File
By Linda Feldmann (http://www.csmonitor.com/About/Contact/Staff-Writers/Linda-Feldmann), Staff writer / April 27, 2011
Washington Now that President Obama has released his long-form birth certificate (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0427/Obama-birth-certificate-released-Donald-Trump-claims-credit), the birthers can all rest easy that the president of the United States is in fact a “natural born citizen” and thus qualified for his job. Right?
Wrong. Basically, they’re still not completely convinced.
The questions keep coming. Like this: “Why did Obama spend millions of dollars to keep this document secret?” writes Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation, on his group’s website.
Or this: “I’m sure someone will investigate this BC and prove it to be a fraud, like what they have tried to pass off in the past,” writes Worried Grammie on the Tea Party Nation site.
IN PICTURES: Places where President Obama has lived (http://www.csmonitor.com/CSM-Photo-Galleries/Lists/Places-where-President-Obama-has-lived)

Orly Taitz, an original champion of birtherism (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2009/0803/birther-leader-orly-taitz-implodes-on-msnbc), told New York Magazine after Wednesday’s big “reveal” that she’s willing to let the birth certificate issue go. Really?! Well, sort of. She called the newly released long-form document “a step in the right direction.”

Then Ms. Taitz elaborates: “As long as the experts are saying, ‘Yes, this is a genuine document that was created at the time [of Obama's birth],’ I would say that that would put this issue to rest.”

But wait, there’s more. Turns out when she says “this issue” she’s referring to place of birth, not eligibility to be president. According to New York Magazine, Taitz still questions whether Mr. Obama is a "natural-born citizen," as required by the Constitution – despite his Hawaiian birth and American mother – because his father was a British subject.

"Nobody knows, because the courts never took it upon themselves to provide a determination on this issue," Taitz says.

Another theory floating around is that Obama lost his citizenship, because he was adopted by his mother’s second husband, an Indonesian named Lolo Soetoro, and then moved to Indonesia. There is no evidence that Obama was legally adopted by Mr. Soetoro, now deceased, but we do know that Obama lived in Indonesia with his mother and Soetoro for a few years as a child. Though living abroad does not necessarily mean losing one’s citizenship.

As for the $2 million in legal fees spent fighting the birthers in court, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin have wondered the same thing. On Wednesday, however, when Mr. Trump held a press conference (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0427/Birth-certificate-released-Did-Donald-Trump-just-school-President-Obama) to gloat about Obama’s document release, he did not bring up legal fees.

Why not? Perhaps because various news outlets have shot down the $2 million assertion. According to an article in the newspaper Roll Call last month, Obama has spent about $2.8 million on all post-election legal fees, not just fighting “eligibility” lawsuits.

Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan told the paper: "The campaign has incurred ordinary legal expenses related to the wind-down of its operations and other legal services which all campaigns incur and which are proportional to the unprecedented size of this campaign."

Mr. Sevugan said some legal fees were used to defend the campaign against "unmeritorious" suits, including one challenging Obama’s citizenship.

But, as Trump has suggested in recent days, there are so many areas ripe for questioning about Obama’s past, starting with his college records. Trump is now asking how Obama got into such prestigious schools as Columbia University and Harvard Law School, telling the Associated Press, “I heard he was a terrible student, terrible.”

Gaye Haehnel, writing on the Tea Party Nation website, takes the questions much further, and lists 23 areas ripe for inquiry, including his parents’ marriage license; his high school, college, and law school records; even his Illinois state Senate schedule.

As for college, one piece of “evidence” that Obama had been born aboard was that he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles, where he began his college career, as a “foreign student.” Now the Obama skeptics want all the schools the president ever attended to throw open the books and show us everything they’ve got.

In his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama did acknowledge that he wasn’t always the best of students. But here’s a fact: Obama graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude in 1991 and was elected by his peers to be president of the Harvard Law Review, the first African-American to be so honored.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0427/Obama-releases-birth-certificate-Will-that-stop-birthers

ZippyTheChimp
April 27th, 2011, 05:32 PM
On a related note, I'm suing my dentist.

lofter1
April 27th, 2011, 06:49 PM
A whole boat load of lunatics ...




Gaye Haehnel, writing on the Tea Party Nation website, takes the questions much further, and lists 23 areas ripe for inquiry, including his parents’ marriage license ...


So if BO's mom and dad weren't married then how would that effect the baby's USA citizenship?

Born here. Born American.

These folks are OCD on this issue.

stache
April 27th, 2011, 08:30 PM
They have nothing else to mewl about.

scumonkey
April 27th, 2011, 10:33 PM
Top 20 Crazy Tea Party Reactions To Obama’s Birth Certificate

Culture Buzz (http://www.buzzfeed.com/category/Culture) All of these are real reactions from real people.
http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/user_images/web03/2010/9/16/15/mjs538-23818-1284664253-36.jpg (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538) Matt Stopera (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538) posted about 9 hours ago





1.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13979-1303922971-17.jpg
2.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13961-1303921286-11.jpg
3.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13976-1303921306-5.jpg
4.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13965-1303921317-8.jpg
5.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13970-1303921364-5.jpg
http://ws-ec.buzzfeed.com/static/campaign_images/web05/2011/4/27/20/size-6-khloe-kardashian-believes-people-who-call--26216-1303951816-26.jpg (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2011/04/25/size_6_khloe_kardashian_believes_peopl)
'Size 6' Khloe Kardashian Believes People Who Call Her Fat (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2011/04/25/size_6_khloe_kardashian_believes_peopl)

Reality TV star Khloe Kardashian faces constant battles over her size. She explained, "I always get comments on my weight...I am a size six, and in the normal world, that is not fat - but to Hollywood, sometimes being a six is way too big.
http://ws-ec.buzzfeed.com/static/user_images/web04/2009/10/8/14/starpulse-9828-1255025063-57.jpg (http://www.buzzfeed.com/starpulse) Surging On
Starpulse (http://www.buzzfeed.com/starpulse)



Partner
6.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/13/enhanced-buzz-18095-1303926679-0.jpg
7.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13975-1303921371-10.jpg
8.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13976-1303921393-6.jpg
9.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13962-1303921401-6.jpg
10.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13961-1303921422-13.jpg
11.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13969-1303921415-13.jpg
12.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13966-1303922018-10.jpg
13.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13978-1303922013-13.jpg
14.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13964-1303922023-9.jpg
15.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13972-1303922029-6.jpg
16.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13970-1303922036-6.jpg
17.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13979-1303922044-14.jpg
18.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13962-1303922058-8.jpg
19. ????????

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13965-1303922498-11.jpg
20.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2011/4/27/12/enhanced-buzz-13968-1303922504-9.jpg

lofter1
April 27th, 2011, 11:16 PM
w...o...w

need a long shower after all that

ZippyTheChimp
April 28th, 2011, 08:43 AM
Wow, Cindy needs anger management. Too bad; her avatar looks like the very nice Betty White.

Ninjahedge
April 28th, 2011, 08:51 AM
Barack can't be prezident 'cuz he's BLACK.

Nobody is going to post that as a strait up argument, but that is what it is. I have yet to see even a token minority question his birth credentials. The only squawkers are as ethnic as Mayonaise (yes, there may be some diverse elements in there, but it has all been homoginized so completely all you get is wobbly white stuff).

What bugs me the most is that these guys complain about government spending, but are very quick to get it spent when it is something inconsequential that just bugs the hell out of them.

stache
April 28th, 2011, 09:24 AM
You'd think by now they would have adjusted to the idea of a black President.

Ninjahedge
April 28th, 2011, 01:10 PM
Nope.

They just do not admit it.

He's just "different". :rolleyes:

BBMW
May 2nd, 2011, 10:27 AM
Barak Obama is to the presidency what David Dinkins was to the NYC mayor's office. Just because they were the first black in the office doesn't mean they could do the job.

ZippyTheChimp
May 2nd, 2011, 10:43 AM
Tap dancing around the issue.

stache
May 2nd, 2011, 10:53 AM
Yup.

lofter1
May 2nd, 2011, 03:08 PM
and mis-spelled.

ZippyTheChimp
May 8th, 2011, 08:11 PM
I guess we can now call them after-birthers.



Poll: Number of ‘birthers’ plummets

By Jon Cohen

The number of Americans saying President Obama was born in another country has been sliced in half, according to a new Washington Post poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_05052011.html).

In interviews following the public release the president’s “long-form” birth certificate last week, fully 70 percent of Americans say Obama was born in Hawaii, a big bump-up from the 48 percent who said so a year ago. Even more say he was U.S.-born, or call that their best guess, for a total of 86 percent.

Overall, 10 percent of Americans say Obama was likely born abroad, down from 20 percent in an April 2010 Post-ABC poll. Almost all those who now say Obama was born in a foreign country say that it’s only their “suspicion;” just 1 percent claim “solid evidence” that the president was born elsewhere (9 percent said so last year).

The drop-off in the mistaken belief that Obama was not-U.S.-born has come most prominently among his sharpest critics. Today, 14 percent of Republicans say Obama was not born in the U.S., down from 31 percent in April of last year. Among the most conservative Republicans, the number of skeptics fell from 35 to 16 percent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/behind-the-numbers/StandingArt/who%20say%20Barack%20Obama%20was.jpg?uuid=IsOR5Hal EeC4lRVmkZro8Q

dougm
May 8th, 2011, 09:41 PM
Well, now this issue is up there with most other issues (i.e. any subject) that polls are conducted about in America. Unfortunately, 10% of Americans will be wrong about almost any issue, including if the sky is blue. Notice that 7% of Democrats are still saying he was born outside the U.S. I wonder what % of each group still think he is muslim?

NYatKNIGHT
May 11th, 2011, 04:37 PM
After-birthers! Good one Zip.

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2013, 12:03 PM
Orly Taitz is still at it. Now she claims that she can have Obama arrested in Connecticut.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/orly-taitz-connecticut_n_2541233.html

Taitz describes herself as a doctor, a lawyer, a real estate agent.

I think she lifted most of it from Hoagy Carmichael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Lawyer_Indian_Chief)

Ninjahedge
January 24th, 2013, 12:38 PM
Well it is a good thing she did not say Indian Chief or she would be in TROUBLE!

ZippyTheChimp
January 24th, 2013, 12:46 PM
If she doesn't calm down and get a grip, she could easily fall into a Squeaky Fromme. Then it's doctor, lawyer, inmate.

Ninjahedge
January 24th, 2013, 02:02 PM
Google -> Wiki -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynette_Fromme

"X" marks the spot.....

ZippyTheChimp
May 3rd, 2013, 08:26 PM
During a segment on The Daily Show, Jon Stewart revealed Donald Trump's birth name.

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-03-at-12.46.00-PM.png

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-03-at-12.47.44-PM.png

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-03-at-12.49.25-PM.png

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-03-at-12.49.32-PM.png

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-03-at-12.49.40-PM.png

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-03-at-12.49.49-PM.png

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-03-at-5.27.17-PM.png

I don't think Trump will sue Stewart. He recently dropped his orangutan suit (http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/04/donald-trump-drops-orangutan-lawsuit/) against Bill Maher

eddhead
May 3rd, 2013, 08:42 PM
I can't believe anyone takes this asshole seriously.

ZippyTheChimp
May 4th, 2013, 09:15 AM
It's so easy to troll Trump. He opens his mouth and creates a meme about himself.

Ninjahedge
May 6th, 2013, 11:12 AM
Incredible that he actually RESPONDED ON TWITTER!


REPEATEDLY!



FF-V-Nervestick.

Funny, he doesn't LOOK Drewish......