Tea Party > a fake grassroots movement for...

people who are too clueless to use the urban dictionary



Did you like this post? Vote Up or Down.

Smoking grassroots

Scumby's picture

I liked how Rachel went from Paul Krugman's assertion that Dick Armey and Fox News are behind it to saying that Ron Paul's grassroots supporters are behind it.  Can't have it both ways.  Which is it? 

Maddow is Sean Hannity viewed in a mirror.  Equally irritating in opposite ways.  I can't bear to watch either for more than 30 seconds.

Paul Krugman, btw, was today advocating Keynes' wacky "bury dollars in coal mines" idea for "saving" the economy.


Scumby: Not just wrong, but wrong squared

Coaster's picture

1.  Rachel Maddow said the rallies had a Ron Paul Flavor, but also stated that Ron Paul supporters were generally disavowing them.  She pointed out that these rallies were being organized and supported for the most part by the usual gang or right-wing billionaires. 

B.  Paul Krugman was specifically advocating spending the entire stimulus package money, not by burying it to be dug up, but by adding addition projects when those already planned came in under budget.  Yeah, man, that does sound totally wacky. 

No need to thank me:  Happy to help. 

Olbermann and Maddow have a far far easier time mocking O'LieLie and Hannity than the reverse because Hannity and O'LieLie are far more prone to play fast and loose with the facts. I refer you to the following illustration which can be viewed five days/week: Countdown.  Or watch Hannity go on and on and on and on about Obama saying "America has shown arrogance" leaving out the last part of the quote.  Here is the quote in its entirety:

"Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive but in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognising the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad."

 A half a truth is still a lie, Scumby.  The way the right wing bloggers have taken this quote out of context and run with it like a recovered fumble on a clear field must be truly embarrassing for you and the rest of the conservatives who actually bother to read news generated on places other than NewsMax and Faux. But in case you hadn't come across the whole quote yet, don't take my word for it. Go here.


Scumby's picture

1. The assertion that Dick Armey or whoever is behind it all has no supporting evidence and is being used to dismiss popular discontent same way that Bushies used to blame all protest on ACORN.  And then she pulls out of her vagina an assertion that Ron Paul supporters were not supportive.  Since when?

B. You don't seem to understand the Keynesian economics flavor that Krugman actually supports and is the driving policy principle.  He really does believe that printing currency and spending it via government projects magically creates wealth.  Ergo it's bad that a government contract comes in cheaper than expected because it doesn't waste money and cause inflation fast enough.  The coal mine allegory illustrates how committed Keynes was to this insanity that you can spend crazily without regard to costs in the long run.

C. Who cares that Hannity distorts at the same rate that Maddow does?  That was my point.

This is also being distorted as a protest against government in general as opposed to the looting of the Treasury by Wall Street banksters, which is what Rick Santelli's original rant was about.  To top it off we have Paul "Weaselboy" Begala's CNN op-ed today:


Give me a fucking break, that's got to be the first time Begala's ever resorted to wrapping himself in the flag like the scoundrel he is.  No, he supports handing over taxpayers to be raped by Goldman Sachs.

We have deflation in prices not inflation

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Here is the story from the Associated Press:




— So much for fears that flooding the economy with money to fight the financial crisis would ignite inflation. The recession is keeping a tight lid on both prices and wages.


Consumer prices have fallen over the past year at the fastest clip in more than a half-century, including an unexpected drop in March. Economists see little sign that inflation will be a problem anytime soon.


Consumer prices dropped 0.1 percent for March, the Labor Department said. Over the past 12 months, consumer prices have dropped 0.4 percent — the first 12-month decline since 1955.


Economists seem to think the United States has entered a period of sustained low inflation. The trillions of dollars committed by the government to stop the financial crisis will probably prevent broad price declines, economists say.


Some economists said prices may keep declining slightly this year — though not enough to trigger a dangerous bout of deflation.


"The risk of deflation has been put at bay," said Sal Guatieri, an economist at BMO Capital Markets. "We don't expect a widespread, sustained drop in prices over the next couple of years."


Economists worry about any widespread and prolonged decline in prices. Deflation drags down wages, clobbers home prices and leads people and businesses to hold off on buying things so they can wait for lower prices.




{;-) Dan in Miami

Hijacked your thread?

Rajah's picture

That was Dan from Cincinnati or was it Miami?

Scumby buy a clue! The fact that Fox News is supporting and promoting this so called "movement" should tell you something.

Maddow is nothing like Hannity. If you'll notice on her show when she has guests she actually let's them talk. Hannity and his pal O'Reilly talk over anything their guests are trying to say. That's one of the reasons I can't stand to watch their shows. Chris Matthews does the same thing. Geez, if Larry King can master the art of the interview why can't they?

Larry King the master?

Scumby's picture

He must have a full-time bakery staff to fulfill all of the creampuff questions he serves up.  That's the least dangerous interview show in America.  Charlie Rose would have been a better choice.

Maddow rarely has any guests on that don't agree with her extreme partisan cheerleading, and when she does, she spends the whole time making faces at them, just like Hannity. I don't know how she can keep that crooked smirk going for 60 minutes every show.

The biases of the networks are immaterial to whether or not public protests are newsworthy. During the election cycle Obama rallies were massively covered by MSNBC and CNN, and largely ignored by Republican organ Fox News' 24-hr Palin coverage, and then they were dismissed as an "ACORN-organized" conspiracy.  Now you had rallies all over the country on April 15, and Fox News is covering it, while the Democratic organs try to demonize, marginalize, and ignore them.

I am a Karl Hess disciple for the record.

The only thing you need to know about Larry King

FearlessFreep's picture

He promoted an upcoming show with this line: "Ronald Reagan's 85th birthday!  Join the celebration!"


What I meant by mentioning Larry King

Rajah's picture

Is that if a bonehead like Larry King can master  the apparently difficult task of asking a question and then patiently waiting and listening to the answer then why can't geniouses like Hannity and O'Reilly?

Crooked smurk?!?! Then's fighting words!

The smirk works for her. Ooooooh yeah.

Coaster's picture

Tonight, just after the Rachel Maddow Show, I said to Mrs. Coaster, "Do ya think you could smirk just a little bit once in a while?"

Well she might, Coaster

Rajah's picture

If she ever hears anything funny

Caveman Economist Says: Ook!

Scumby's picture

Ook, asset bubble burst.  Purchasing power of dollar increasing.  Must print more dollars to stop this!  Printing money has no consequences.  Ook!  Ook!

Since Rajah hijacked my other thread, I'll post it here...

TMundo's picture

...Hijacked by posts about Chia Obama...

Here's what I posted, with a few updates concerning the tea parties:

     Everyone's up in arms over all the money being spent in the new package.  What people fail to address, is the fact that prior to Obama, Bush was spending just as much money, on a war with a country we didn't need to go to war with.  Where that money is going to come from is another story, because it was the first war we've ever had, where taxes did not go up.  Now the debt has gone up, but you won't pay for that debt during the Bush administration, no, no.

     Now there is no choice, another person has to come in and take the reigns and finish what Bush started, and fix his mistakes.  And some of that, Iraq and Afganistan for example, will take some more money.  Picture, if you will, that Bush is still president.  What do you think he'd do with Iraq and Afganistan?  Not spend money?  What would McCain do if he was president?  Not spend money on Iraq and Afganistan?

     Yes, it's going to take more money, but the difference is its money to make things better, not money to make things worse.  Bush spent money to make things worse when he started a second war before he was done with the first war he started.  If you've got a problem with Obama and his spending pakage, then where were you when the banks got bailed out? Bush was president then.  What do you suppose Bush would do about the economy if he was president now?  What do you think McCain would do?

Where were these tea party protestors when Bush was president?  Bush didn't use higher taxes to pay for the war, but someone else, at some point, is going to have to.  The debt cannot just sit there.  Bush must be blamed for any tax that occurs to pay for debt caused by the war.  It doesn't matter if he's not president anymore.  He started the war, if he was not willing to tax to pay for it then, someone else will have to now or later.  But whoever is president when that happens shouldn't be blamed for Bush's mistake.

Watch what you say about my woman!

Rajah's picture

Rachel, our love was written in the stars!

You will be mine!

All mine!

TMundo for president!

HS's picture

Good analysis of the facts, my friend.  Considering how fucked up Bush & Co. made everything, I for one wouldn't want Obama's job for all the whiskey in Ireland.


The short answer to "where

Scumby's picture

The short answer to "where were they?" is they opposed Bush, supported Ron Paul, and then they supported Obama until it turned out he was Bush II only with even more outrageous spending.  Obama's spending just as much on the war as Bush did and immediately after the election ceased all talk about winding it down.

Exit strategies

FearlessFreep's picture

I hear liberals calling for figuring out an "exit strategy" for Iraq and/or Afghanistan. Here's one exit strategy:  Just exit. (If you have a better strategy, now's the time to tell it.)


Misdirected Anger

Rajah's picture

This one wants to stick a knife in Obama's eye

Rajah's picture

Here's prime example of what I'm talking about...

Rajah's picture

Bill O'Reilly has Barney Frank as his guest. Now I have to assume Bill and Barney don't agree on most issues. I have to assume cause I can't hear a fricking thing Barney is saying because Bill won't shut the fuck up even for a moment! Barney Frank is hard enough to understand without Bill O'Reilly talking over everything he says.


Scumby's picture

I got no argument with you on O'Reilly or Chris Matthews.  I just have no interest in boorish behavior being some kind of partisan monopoly.

By the way, is this "nut shot" advertisement for this Combat Arms game another sign of impending Idiocracy?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.