Liberal actress says tea parties were racist

[MrsSmith]

Garofalo is an idiot.  She thinks that running her mouth will get her better "acting" jobs.   

[Peter3_1]

Actually, the fury about the Tea Tax was that the Brit. Gvt. SUBSIDIZED the Brit. Tea Company, and made it back on the COLONIAL's being taxed. What was much worse was the FACT that the Brit Tea WITH THE TAX was CHEAPER than the American Tea smuggled in!

The "Colonists", smugglers at heart, all of us, were outraged! This colonial "outlaw" culture was brought on by the Brit. laws requiring raw materials being required shipping to GB, and the REQUIREMENT that the Colonies purchase GB manufactured goods!

Add the document taxes, the failure of the Parliment to give even token representation in London, the appointment of the Bastard children of "Royalty" and 2nd, 3rd. and 4th Sons of Royalty (instead of just killing them as was customary) to be Govenors of the Colonies, where they saw themselves as entitled robber barons, left the Coloniasts PISSED! Then there were the westward expansion limitations, and on and on and on. War was nearly inevitable.

So , bet Garifalo doesn't have a clue.

[Lanie]

I don't agree with her at all.

However, I have to point out that many libs think it's odd that Bush spent a lot and there wasn't nearly as much screaming about it. I know you all did complain about it, and so did other conservatives. There was no "tea party" though. I do think Obama is spending a lot more, and that's what's behind a lot of it. If there is any bias going on for *some* protesters, I think it might be the idea of just wanting to blame Democrats more than Republicans on the spending subject. Even then, I can still see that Obama spends a lot more.

[formerlurker]

Well, she needs to be killed off on 24, a gruesome, painful death...or I will stop watching next season......I want RED meat! 

She is such a non-anything on this show.   She really has contributed nothing more than any of the extras.   

Where the hell is Chloe?!!!!!!   

My stomach starting churning when Jack's whiney-ass daughter came back.  I swear if Audrey makes an appearance I may have to turn the channel. 

I can't even talk about what they are doing to Tony. 

[Crazy Horse]

I don't agree with her at all.

However, I have to point out that many libs think it's odd that Bush spent a lot and there wasn't nearly as much screaming about it. I know you all did complain about it, and so did other conservatives. There was no "tea party" though. I do think Obama is spending a lot more, and that's what's behind a lot of it. If there is any bias going on for *some* protesters, I think it might be the idea of just wanting to blame Democrats more than Republicans on the spending subject. Even then, I can still see that Obama spends a lot more.

You seem to really be missing the point while getting some of the point.

Defense well below what it was last year, don't tell me the number is like $20 billion higher than last year cause it's really about $100 billion less.

$600+ billion in reserve for healthcare

Cap and trade that looks to add approx $3,000 to utilities for the middle class per year.

This $20 per paycheck being called a tax cut is bullshit, all it is is money that will ot be refunded or will be payed with 2009 tax returns, nothing more.

This is just some of why people said they had enough and came out to the TaxedEnoughAlready parties............had really nothing to do with taxes...........but the biggest difference to these parties and the ANSWER protest, well we went against their Socialism then and I guess we're going against theirs now.......just dfferent people

[MrsSmith]

I don't agree with her at all.

However, I have to point out that many libs think it's odd that Bush spent a lot and there wasn't nearly as much screaming about it. I know you all did complain about it, and so did other conservatives. There was no "tea party" though. I do think Obama is spending a lot more, and that's what's behind a lot of it. If there is any bias going on for *some* protesters, I think it might be the idea of just wanting to blame Democrats more than Republicans on the spending subject. Even then, I can still see that Obama spends a lot more.

I agree with Crazy Horse, and want to add that another huge difference is where the money will be spent.  I think we're all very relieved that Pres. O didn't just dump Iraq and Afghanistan completely, but he has made it quite clear that, instead of spending money on one of the Constitutional purposes of federal government, he plans to hugely increase our deficit in order to hugely increase unConstitutional spending. 

I seriously have no problem with my kids helping to pay for a war that defended our country against terrorism and made our name respected in ME countries again.  I have a huge, huge problem with my kids and grandkids paying for bankers who can't run banks, homeowners that have borrowed 200% of the value of their homes and then couldn't pay their loans, or car companies that can't manage to build better cars than Japan (and by helping them, helping the UAW, some of the biggest crooks in the country).

50 years ago, the federal government, though already deep into entitlement programs, spent 3 times as much money on defense as on all social spending combined.  Last year, even with all the screaming about the "trillions" spent on the war, the federal government spent 3 times as much money on social spending as on defense.  Pres O will only make this worse. 

Wars end.  Entitlement programs are forever and ever, and always more and more people. 

Just as we've seen them redefine "poverty" from the original "starving, without shelter, without clothing" to "can't afford healthy foods, inadequate food safety, inadequate shelter, not enough designer clothing, older car, only 2 TV's, dial-up internet, only 1 cell phone," every entitlement program MUST continue to redefine the group they assist because if they "don't use all the money, they lose it."  The only way to get budget increases is to always use all you have, and have a list of "unserved" people to justify an increase. 

Conservative spending = "get the job done and then quit spending."
Liberal spending = "we have to find ways to spend more on more people every year."

[Texacon]

^5 Mrs. Smith

KC

[Lanie]

I agree with Crazy Horse, and want to add that another huge difference is where the money will be spent.  I think we're all very relieved that Pres. O didn't just dump Iraq and Afghanistan completely, but he has made it quite clear that, instead of spending money on one of the Constitutional purposes of federal government, he plans to hugely increase our deficit in order to hugely increase unConstitutional spending. 

I seriously have no problem with my kids helping to pay for a war that defended our country against terrorism and made our name respected in ME countries again.  I have a huge, huge problem with my kids and grandkids paying for bankers who can't run banks, homeowners that have borrowed 200% of the value of their homes and then couldn't pay their loans, or car companies that can't manage to build better cars than Japan (and by helping them, helping the UAW, some of the biggest crooks in the country).

50 years ago, the federal government, though already deep into entitlement programs, spent 3 times as much money on defense as on all social spending combined.  Last year, even with all the screaming about the "trillions" spent on the war, the federal government spent 3 times as much money on social spending as on defense.  Pres O will only make this worse. 

Wars end.  Entitlement programs are forever and ever, and always more and more people. 

Just as we've seen them redefine "poverty" from the original "starving, without shelter, without clothing" to "can't afford healthy foods, inadequate food safety, inadequate shelter, not enough designer clothing, older car, only 2 TV's, dial-up internet, only 1 cell phone," every entitlement program MUST continue to redefine the group they assist because if they "don't use all the money, they lose it."  The only way to get budget increases is to always use all you have, and have a list of "unserved" people to justify an increase. 

Conservative spending = "get the job done and then quit spending."
Liberal spending = "we have to find ways to spend more on more people every year."

I don't really think that conservative politicians have any intentions to "quit spending", but I see your point. I do believe we should ensure that we have enough for our troops if we send them out to war. I don't know about these two wars though. Along with the differing opinions about whether it gave us respect, the truth is I think their governments are extremely immoral. Afghanistan has a law saying it's okay for a man to rape his wife. Iraqi government isn't that far behind them in morals. I think I read they want to put gays to death (I realize some don't agree with homosexuality, but putting them to death is insane). I understand that we're supposed to be there to stop terrorism, not to make their governments humane. I honestly can't stand that we're helping their governments stay in power though. I'm not going on protests like I used to because I have a life and stuff, but I don't like this in the slightest bit. I really hope this doesn't get me beaten the shit out of.

[Texacon]

I don't really think that conservative politicians have any intentions to "quit spending", but I see your point. I do believe we should ensure that we have enough for our troops if we send them out to war. I don't know about these two wars though. Along with the differing opinions about whether it gave us respect, the truth is I think their governments are extremely immoral. Afghanistan has a law saying it's okay for a man to rape his wife. Iraqi government isn't that far behind them in morals. I think I read they want to put gays to death (I realize some don't agree with homosexuality, but putting them to death is insane). I understand that we're supposed to be there to stop terrorism, not to make their governments humane. I honestly can't stand that we're helping their governments stay in power though. I'm not going on protests like I used to because I have a life and stuff, but I don't like this in the slightest bit. I really hope this doesn't get me beaten the shit out of.

^5 Lanie!  That made me laugh!

KC

[TheSarge]

Which policies?

All of them so far.

[dutch508]

I don't really think that conservative politicians have any intentions to "quit spending", but I see your point.
(If you think that the people are happy with spending, be it repub or dem, you are sadly mistaken.)

I do believe we should ensure that we have enough for our troops if we send them out to war. I don't know about these two wars though. Along with the differing opinions about whether it gave us respect, the truth is I think their governments are extremely immoral.
(Is it for us to tell them how to be, Lanie?)

Afghanistan has a law saying it's okay for a man to rape his wife.
(they dropped this law after pressure from human rights groups- lead by the US.)


Iraqi government isn't that far behind them in morals. I think I read they want to put gays to death (I realize some don't agree with homosexuality, but putting them to death is insane).
(That would be islamic law, BTW.)

I understand that we're supposed to be there to stop terrorism, not to make their governments humane. I honestly can't stand that we're helping their governments stay in power though.
(by staying in power, you mean ensure they have honest, free elections?)

I'm not going on protests like I used to because I have a life and stuff, but I don't like this in the slightest bit. I really hope this doesn't get me beaten the shit out of.

Nope. Debate is good. You have your opinions, and state them clearly. What's not to like?
(of course...you could try to sway us with naked photos...)

 

[MrsSmith]

I don't really think that conservative politicians have any intentions to "quit spending", but I see your point. I do believe we should ensure that we have enough for our troops if we send them out to war. I don't know about these two wars though. Along with the differing opinions about whether it gave us respect, the truth is I think their governments are extremely immoral. Afghanistan has a law saying it's okay for a man to rape his wife. Iraqi government isn't that far behind them in morals. I think I read they want to put gays to death (I realize some don't agree with homosexuality, but putting them to death is insane). I understand that we're supposed to be there to stop terrorism, not to make their governments humane. I honestly can't stand that we're helping their governments stay in power though. I'm not going on protests like I used to because I have a life and stuff, but I don't like this in the slightest bit. I really hope this doesn't get me beaten the shit out of.

I don't think we have many conservative politicians.

As for the 2 wars...I heard a retired military man on the radio the other day, he made a point about the locations of those wars...



Notice where Afghanistan and Iraq are located?  Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan were arguably the most dangerous countries in the ME when Bush took office.  Of course, there were others...but Afghanistan had to loose their terrorist training camps, and Iraq both supported and protected known terrorists.  AND they just happen to be on opposite sides of Iran, a very dangerous country, but one that Bush would have been unlikely to get Congressional approval to attack.  Taking a country on either side, especially as quickly as we took them, could well have been enough to scare Iran into line.  It worked with Syria and some other countries, after all.  It may have worked with Iran...if our news media hadn't immediately sided against the US and began to cover the news with every detail of bad news they could find, while completely ignoring all the good.  ( as an aside, when is the last time you saw a headline about the number of soldiers lost in the war.  that stopped dead after the election...)

Anyway, my point...there were multiple good reasons for Bush's decisions.

Now, as to the governments of the countries.  I do not agree with some of their laws, just as you don't.  However, in order for the US to write their laws, we would have to be the imperialist power the left keeps claiming.  As we all well know that the US did not go to war for oil or for imperialist gain, we obviously can't dictate their laws.  At most, we can influence them in a more Christian direction...but these are not Christian countries, you know.

[Celtic Rose]

I don't think we have many conservative politicians.

As for the 2 wars...I heard a retired military man on the radio the other day, he made a point about the locations of those wars...



Notice where Afghanistan and Iraq are located?  Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan were arguably the most dangerous countries in the ME when Bush took office.  Of course, there were others...but Afghanistan had to loose their terrorist training camps, and Iraq both supported and protected known terrorists.  AND they just happen to be on opposite sides of Iran, a very dangerous country, but one that Bush would have been unlikely to get Congressional approval to attack.  Taking a country on either side, especially as quickly as we took them, could well have been enough to scare Iran into line.  It worked with Syria and some other countries, after all.  It may have worked with Iran...if our news media hadn't immediately sided against the US and began to cover the news with every detail of bad news they could find, while completely ignoring all the good.  ( as an aside, when is the last time you saw a headline about the number of soldiers lost in the war.  that stopped dead after the election...)

Anyway, my point...there were multiple good reasons for Bush's decisions.

Now, as to the governments of the countries.  I do not agree with some of their laws, just as you don't.  However, in order for the US to write their laws, we would have to be the imperialist power the left keeps claiming.  As we all well know that the US did not go to war for oil or for imperialist gain, we obviously can't dictate their laws.  At most, we can influence them in a more Christian direction...but these are not Christian countries, you know.

My hope is that we will be able to influence both Iraq and Afghanistan to become freer (more free? You get the idea) countries.  Hopefully our presence there will bring at least some influence against the oppressive regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia.  If we pull out now, in all honesty where would that leave them.  I have yet to get a satisfactory response from a Lib.  Should we allow the Taliban and Al Qaeda to take control over the countries, or should we stay with them until they can stand strong on their own? 

There was a great episode of War Stories on Fox News last night that talked about how our Special Forces are currently training with the Iraqi special forces.  It looks like the Iraqi commander has no intention of allowing the terrorists to have control over their country, how can we do anything but lend our support?

[Lanie]

I don't think we have many conservative politicians.

As for the 2 wars...I heard a retired military man on the radio the other day, he made a point about the locations of those wars...



Notice where Afghanistan and Iraq are located?  Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan were arguably the most dangerous countries in the ME when Bush took office.  Of course, there were others...but Afghanistan had to loose their terrorist training camps, and Iraq both supported and protected known terrorists.  AND they just happen to be on opposite sides of Iran, a very dangerous country, but one that Bush would have been unlikely to get Congressional approval to attack.  Taking a country on either side, especially as quickly as we took them, could well have been enough to scare Iran into line.  It worked with Syria and some other countries, after all.  It may have worked with Iran...if our news media hadn't immediately sided against the US and began to cover the news with every detail of bad news they could find, while completely ignoring all the good.  ( as an aside, when is the last time you saw a headline about the number of soldiers lost in the war.  that stopped dead after the election...)

Anyway, my point...there were multiple good reasons for Bush's decisions.

Now, as to the governments of the countries.  I do not agree with some of their laws, just as you don't.  However, in order for the US to write their laws, we would have to be the imperialist power the left keeps claiming.  As we all well know that the US did not go to war for oil or for imperialist gain, we obviously can't dictate their laws.  At most, we can influence them in a more Christian direction...but these are not Christian countries, you know.

Good points made.

As for us not being imperialist, it's times like this I wish we were. No, I'm not throwing my anti-imperialist morals out the door. But stuff like that is tempting. Right to rape your wife. Ugh.

[Chris_]

My hope is that we will be able to influence both Iraq and Afghanistan to become freer (more free? You get the idea) countries.  Hopefully our presence there will bring at least some influence against the oppressive regimes in Iran and Saudi Arabia. 

Whatever positive balance we had in the "influence account" for that entire region, went right into the toilet the moment the mob (not the mafia, the "ignorant, unwashed masses") put The Rookie in the center seat.  And yet in a way, I'm glad that teh Obamessiah (pbuh) is in office; his rendering of America irrelevant on the world stage will be what sets the stage for the hell on Earth that must reign before The REAL Savior comes again.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't punch his teeth out the back of his throat, given 2 seconds of inattention by the US Secret Service and the opportunity of a lifetime; don't get silly now...