Tweet
Originally posted by Lazerjab
View Post
-
Think of how much more you could say if you didnt have to worry about knowing what you were talking about. -
My guess is that teabaggers, who are ultra conservative socially and fiscally, are supported by corporations and the ultra rich who also have an enormously powerful, well organized and well funded propaganda machine (fox news). Democrats tend to be more honest, whereas teabaggers will spout the latest internet meme they heard somewhere as if it's fact as long as it panders to their prejudices and phobias. The idolaters buying into this crap are just feeding off of the negative energy from their 'leaders', they're incurious and generally afraid of anything that disagrees with their views. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them. More than a few of the teabaggers got into office by running moderate campaigns only to unveil their true intentions once they seized power. When the economy is bad, people tend to blame those in power. That's how Obama got elected. When the problem was so bad that Obama could not or would not help it, people looked to the republicans, but that was not radical enough. So, they went further right and here we are.Originally posted by Lazerjab View PostComment
-
tell me, will you sleep good at night if you could know that big bad business is paying what you feel is its fair share of taxes? just yes or noOriginally posted by Nuurzhaelan View PostComment
-
No, I always get crap sleep. But I would feel better, yes.Originally posted by - v e t - View PostComment
-
Having an opposing view to your own, thats apparently widely shared makes one ******ed? Do you comprehend the weight of that statement?Originally posted by Nuurzhaelan View Post
Our entire lives we were taught its not smart to spend money we dont have, but you are calling those who want to apply this principal to our federal government ******ed? Thats... uh... ******ed...
Tea party didn't win, they didnt want any debt ceiling increase. It was decision rendered exactly the way the framers intended.Comment
-
the baggers also didn't get their balanced budget amendment.Comment
-
Yet the teabaggers complained that there is no provision for a balance budget amendment, which was unrealistic anyway. They really don't know what compromise is I guess.Comment
-
The balanced budget amendment would require that the federal government balance its budget in seven to eight years, that sounds reasonable to me.Originally posted by LoftyDog View Post
How, specifically, is that unrealistic? Because the career politicians in both parties who love to spend on their militarism and domestic entitlement programs make it politically impossible?Comment
-
the overarching goal is reasonable, but to bring that amendment at the last minute with all of those specifics into the debate was simply ridiculous. Remember, the bill didn't just say we have to do this, it also had guidelines to how. BB should have been taken up separately.Originally posted by vercingetorix3 View PostComment
-
A reasonable point.Originally posted by Easy-E View Post
Do you think there will be enough bipartisan momentum ever to get it passed, if not now? It's amazing to see how even with the new budget deal, the federal budget will never balance at current spending levels.
Was there anything specific that did you not like about the details of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution?Comment
Comment