The American Spectator

Tim*| 4.15.10 @ 7:12AM

90 Percent Of Life Is Just Showing Up !

We Rally Today !

Tea Party Tax Day Rallies , Today , April 15th , Across America !

Walk The Talk !

crookedwren| 4.15.10 @ 9:11AM

Thanks, Tim -- My husband and I can't make it to this one -- because the economic devastation of our livelihood has made it necessary to go to new jobs, less lucrative jobs (aka minimum wage jobs).

We were there last year. And recently I was able to go to DC for the Code Red Rally.

Remember, today, folks, that the people who show up CAN show up. There are some of us who, a year ago, COULD show up, but now are no longer economically empowered to do so.

I want to thank those who do go and remind others that these who go represent more -- they also represent those unable to get there physically.

Tim*| 4.15.10 @ 10:01AM

No Problem crookedwren !
You're Walkin' The Talk With Us " .In Spirit ".
If ya wanna ,try : http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

They List Tea Parties Near Your Home !

Lot's of us have to work and will go To Local Tea Parties after work.

Jim Hunter| 4.15.10 @ 3:29PM

Joell,

Regarding point #2. I have put considerable time in researching colonial responses to the King of England and British Parliament during this time period in our history.

As best I can tell, the issue was not "no taxation without representation. " The issue was that the American colonies were Royal Crown colonies and belonged to the Kng of England. The British Parliament did not have the authority to appoint a dog-catcher over here, and the colonists knew it. I have personaly read 6-7 of the original 13 colonial charters and all "revenue" taxation was left up to the colonies themselves.

Ever wonder why Great Britain did not simply allow us to be represented in Parliament? I followed the procedure for representation in the House of Commons through 'Black's Law.' The number of representatives was based by county and 'factored' through a combination of population and relative wealth. The American colonies were filthy rich due to the British merchantile system. The British were staggering under a crushing war debt. I made a rough estimate based on their own legal rules and figured that if the colonies were allowed representation in the House of Commons, they would at least of had 'veto' power, and quite possibly would have controlled the entire House.

Since all revenue bills originated there, it is a 'plausable' reason the offer was never made.

Jim Hunter

Paul from SA| 4.15.10 @ 7:29PM

Very interesting. Thanks.

Richard Baker| 4.15.10 @ 8:31AM

The internet now serves the same purpose as did the Committees of Correspondence.

Ken (Old Texican)| 4.15.10 @ 9:24AM

We shall be there with bells on and some cool signs.

Heh, half the fun is reading all the signs and posters.
The TV can't pick up the funniest ones.

Today however is important. Today, we start in earnest filling the slots to nominate solid "restorers"
to the Republican party, primaries down through the ballot.
Also to recruit poll watchers.
We will have LOTS of video cameras to catch infiltrators.
Am Thinker had a good idea...surround a communist, (pardon the shorthand), point fingers, and yell "LIBERAL LIBERAL" TILL THE TV GETS IT ON TAPE!

Son Of Sam| 4.15.10 @ 11:52AM

MY DOG IS SMARTER THAN YOUR TELEPROMPTER

THE TAXCHEATS HAVE YOUR MONEY

HAIL TO THE THIEF

just thought I'd pass along some sign ideas. Have fun, brothers and sisters!

stand strong until freedom dawns
Son Of Sam

CopyKatnj| 4.15.10 @ 9:50AM

Great advise from this article.

Now it's off to the green, for the Morristown TEA Party, crossroads of the American Revolution .... again!

Drew| 4.15.10 @ 10:10AM

No taxation without representation was the cry of the original Boston Tea Party participants. A position that is eminently defensible on grounds of both democracy and basic fairness.

The strange thing about today's Tea Partiers is this: They aren't complaining about a lack of democratic representation. No - instead they are complaining because they don't like the results of the last election.

Which is much harder a position to defend on any grounds whatsoever.

Nobody likes paying taxes. Taxes are, however, the price we must pay to live in a civilized society. Looking for country without taxes? Look at Somalia. Thats what "no taxes" - and hence "no government" gets you.

A suggestion for today, April 15, as you get ready to mail in your tax forms to the dreaded IRS. Take a look at line 63 on your Form 1040: The "Making Work Pay" tax credit - which provides up to $400 for individuals and $800 for couples in direct tax reduction. (Disclaimer - the credit phases out at incomes over $75,000 for individuals, $150,000 for couples. If you don't qualify on those grounds: Congratulations on being such a productive citizen.)

As you begin to think about what you are going to do with that extra $400 or $800 - take a moment to think about which party, and which President, is responsible for this little piece of direct, tangible, tax relief: Hint: It sure as hell wasn't the Republicans.

What party would the "original" Tea Partiers support?

Ryan| 4.15.10 @ 10:57AM

Of course, the original stimulus checks were done during the GWB administration.

Don't go down this road - you don't win.

The problem though, is the checks are a tax CREDIT not a tax REDUCTION. They shouldn't have been paid in the first place. It should never have left my wallet.

Conservatives have continuously advocated for lower taxes for ALL Americans, not just handouts to buy votes.

It just proves that the Democrats have to run to the right - not left - because that's where the American people are.

Ray| 4.15.10 @ 11:26AM

Drew seems to have forgotten the Bush tax cuts that were implimented in 2001, 2002, 2003, ect.

You know like the Economic Growth and Tax Reform Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003, and so on.

According to Drew, only Obama and the Democrats have cut taxes, but, of course, he's wrong.

Drew| 4.15.10 @ 12:43PM

Quote: the checks are a tax CREDIT not a tax REDUCTION.

That is an example of a distinction without actually being a difference. If you wished to, as you say, keep the money in your wallet without wishing to wait to file your taxes, you most certainly could have accomplished this by making an adjustment to your withholding.

You are correct in your assertion that the Bush adminstration included a $300 per person tax rebate as part of the 2008 Economic Stimulus Act. That is, in large part, why a similar measure was included in Obama 2009 Stimulus. The difference, of course, is that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the Tea Party screamers see the 2009 Stimulus as the work of satan. It seems to hold President Obama (acting in 2009 - when the economy really was in dire straits) to a completely different standard than it did President Bush in early 2008 - when the full measure of how bad the recession was going to be was still unknown.

Let us also note that then-Senator Obama made it very clear during his campaign that targeted tax cuts to working and middle-class Americans would be a central pillar of his economic agenda. The electorate that voted him into office surely cannot complain that the tax cut portion of the Stimulus was any sort of surprise. The electorate most definitely had taxation in mind when they elected him to represent them.

Absent the obvious differences between the two Presidents (President Obama is a Democrat and an african-american) - I'm not sure I really see any substantive difference between the two - at least as far as the Tea Partiers economic cries are concerned.

Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 7:07PM

I hear the right-wing echo chamber again - but let's leave Bush out of this ... The truth is that the average family pays 4.4 % tax/year. Taxes are at the lowest level in 50 years ! Doesn't that mean anything to you? Aren't you happy to hear it?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index......mailView=1
Besides 50% of the taxes are paid by 10% of the people. Unless you're in that 10%, you don't get much of a tax cut, whether a Republican or Democratic Congress gives it to you.
The taxes you pay support the wonderful country we have .... why are all conservatives so greedy, when they know they aren't going to provide the things we need from the Government - do y'all think they will come from the Tooth Fairy? You have to pay to play baby, so if you don't like it move to Somalia and pay no tax - wouldn't that be heaven? You won't have any roads, no running water, no airports, no schools, no grocers, no cars, no air conditioning, no electricity, nothing - but you won't have to pay taxes.

Blackwatch| 4.15.10 @ 8:09PM

you are a great example of the evil that is done by men. you are seriously happy that 50% of the taxes are paid by 10% of the population?

YOUR GREED FOR OTHER PEOPLES WEALTH IS DISGUSTING. Don't blame conservatives for the destruction of our economy. Your lying big statist ways are comming to an end soon pal. You have run out of other people's money. Hope you enjoy Somalia, NY; Somalia, Illinois; Somalia, California. It's comming pal.

Rodman| 4.16.10 @ 4:05PM

What portion of the WEALTH is in the hands of that same 10%? Any idea? You guys always leave that part out when griping about the unfair taxes on the uber-rich.

The portion of the nation's wealth held by the top 10% has steadily increased since WWII. In 2004 there was more wealth in the hands of fewer people than at any time since 1774.

Compare income growth since 1979:
Top 1% of taxpayers: 256% increase.
Middle 1/5 of taxpayers: 21% increase.
Lowest 1/5 of taxpayers:  11% increase.

I guess that shows the folly of 'trickle-down' economics. The 'trickle' flows the other way, up!

Oh, and how ABOUT that greed for other people's wealth? The highest tax rate is currently 35% for all incomes over 372,950. There have been 5 years, total, since 1933 with a lower top-bracket tax rate than today's. FIVE YEARS.

For 54 years, beginning in 1932 it never dropped below 50%. Now try to explain the high percentage of tax paid by the top 1o% in any other way than admitting it's because the top 1% has A LOT more money than ever before.

Want to guess what the top bracket's tax rate was after WWII, as we entered the 'golden age' of our history?

The 'Greatest Generation' understood that Wars had to be paid for, not just sold and they paid for WWII and they paid for the GI Bill and they paid for the Interstate highway system, with taxes. For 12 years following WWII (1951-1963) the top tax rate was over 90%.

Yet somehow, no TEA parties.

Stop whining about the burden on the wealthy. They've never had it so good.

As if that's not enough - if the GOP manages to expoit all this faux Patriotism into a political majority we can look for Capital Gains taxes to drop again, or vanish.

Then the tax system will have fully reversed itself from the original intent, imposing ALL of the burden on working, wage-earners and NONE on the unearned income of the idle rich.

THAT, is what you and the other TEA partiers are unwittingly supporting. Of course when that happens Fox and the American Spectator won't be beating the drum for the TEA partiers anymore. Your reins will be pulled in another direction, the outrage and focus will be shifted elsewhere and the real tax injustice will be ignored.

Hope you enjoy that.

Spike| 4.15.10 @ 10:59AM

Drew,

"Don't like the results of the last election" Well, yeah. This is an easy position to defend. For those who opposed candidate Obama's ideology from the git-go, we still opposed his ideology, on ideological grounds. For those who were mislead, due to the misrepresentation (read: lies) regarding his position(s) on pertinent issues, they now have joined the opposition movement, and will help us defend our dissatisfaction with "the results" In November, we will begin to unwind the "results" and return the power to (hopefully) more Conservative representatives. America is a Center-Right country. We oppose the Far-Left lurch of the current administration. This is our right (established by the Founders referenced above).

Our Founders feared (immensely) the growth of the Federal Government, and its opposition to "self-governance" that they established. Their greatest fears are being realized.

Hopefully it is not too late.

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.” (Ben Franklin)

Franklin| 4.15.10 @ 7:18PM

The Founders didn't fear the growth of the Federal Government, they feared the power of government becoming too concentrated (Like the King) - but they gave us the ability to amend the Constitution to allow for the Republic to bend, but not break by Amending the Constitution, responding to the give and take between the Federal Government and the States, and between the 3 branches of Government. Remember, the Income tax y'all hate so much is an Amendment to the Constitution, ratified by 3/4 of the States and 2/3 of both Houses of Congress - the document you rightly point to as the law of the land. There is a very good reason the Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause - where laws emanating from the Federal level are supreme to all state laws - A strong central government was necessary to hold the union of diverse States together, by promulgating some laws that need to govern Interstate Commerce, and common functions for all States - Common Defense for example - like the new Healthcare Bill does.

WalkingHorse| 4.16.10 @ 11:11AM

Nice try, Franklin. You conveniently omit the fact that the Founders also sought to circumscribe the power of the Federal Government. See Article I, Section 8.

With respect to the 16th Amendment, its introduction rendered the Constitution internally inconsistent. The People cannot simultaneously be secure in "their persons, houses, papers, and effects," (Amendment IV) while subject to unlimited intrusion by the IRS, required to prove they are not guilty. Further, the various 'tax courts' cannot be rightly construed to be "an impartial jury", thus in conflict with Amendment VI.

The Founders were most explicit in saying that the vast majority of human action was outside the purview of the Federal Government. Most of what individuals do privately or in their business pursuits was never intended to be affected in any way by government action. To wit:

"In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws: its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any."
James Madison, Federalist No. 14, November 30, 1787.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution." James Madison, Federalist No. 39, January 1788.

We are not a democracy:

"Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." James Madison, Federalist No. 55, February 15, 1788.

"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." James Madison, Federalist No. 10, November 23, 1787.

Ray| 4.15.10 @ 11:06AM

You' ve got it wrong, Drew. The Tea Party members are not upset at paying taxes, just paying EXCESSIVE taxes, taxes that pay for federal programs that are redundant and, therefor, totally unnecessary. Why, in the name of all that is just, do we, year after year, keep paying taxes to the federal government to fund departments and programs, that already exist at the State level? You know like the Dept. of Education, a multi-billion dollar a year redundancy that isn't necessary at the federal level because each State already has a Dept. of Education, and has had such for the life of that State in question. It is this idiotic redundancy, an the excessive financial burden that redundancy places on each of us, that is what's being protested. Explain to all of us why paying twice for the same services, once to the State and once to the Federal Government (who has a much higher price tag for their redundant services), is such a great idea that should be continued?

MikeBee| 4.15.10 @ 11:09AM

What a flaming idiot! $400! When the Bush Tax Cuts are going to be allowed to expire this year, by the same administration. Then, additional taxes linked to the healthcare bill, will begin immediately. Future tax increases to come, necessary to cover all the reckless spending by a Democrat Congress. The increase in folks' taxes far exceeds your miniscule $400.

Eric Cartman| 4.15.10 @ 11:27AM

"What party would the "original" Tea Partiers support?"
Well, dumbass, to answer your question:
The party that didn't take money from one private citizen to give it to another. You're not this stupid, are you? Oh wait, you're an ahole Liberal - of course you are.

JP| 4.15.10 @ 4:48PM

I weary of the "taxes as price of civilization" arguement in the case of the crazy spending being done today. Saying that to American taxpayers is like counseling a rape victim that "sex is a beautiful and natural part of life."

Tom| 4.15.10 @ 8:04PM

Drew,
I doubt the original Tea Partiers would support either party.

"The strange thing about today's Tea Partiers is this: They aren't complaining about a lack of democratic representation. No - instead they are complaining because they don't like the results of the last election. "

I will not speak for all those who are protesting the Obama administration but I am not protesting the results of an election. When I protest I am protesting the extra-Constitutional laws passed by the Obama adminstration. And yes, before you ask, I protested such actions by previous Republican administrations. The commerce clause has been used for all sorts of federal interference in what should Constitutionally be states matters but this is the first time it has mandated the private purchase of a good or service. I find that worthy of protest.

Wesley Mouch| 4.15.10 @ 10:51AM

I want to know where you tea party guys were at from 2000-2008. I saw out of control spending & dangerous power grabs from the federal government & didn't hear a peep.

Ray| 4.15.10 @ 11:09AM

You must have been sleeping because I remember quite a few people complaining about the ever increasing federal tax burden we're forced to shoulder. Now it appears that they're complaining so loudly that it's even awaking you from your slumber.

Free Ohioan| 4.15.10 @ 11:15AM

That's your argument? So the fact that we have doubled or tripled down on that spending is no problem?! Perfect name by the way......a statist from the Administration that destroyed the country in Atlas Shrugged......

Wesley Mouch| 4.15.10 @ 11:29AM

It's not an argument. It's a question. I have been in a twist about deficit spending since the Reagan administration but nobody else seems to have given a rip until lately.

Ray| 4.15.10 @ 11:42AM

Since you seem to be awake now, perhaps you should look at this from 2001: http://www.tntaxrevolt.org/taxpics.htm

Ray| 4.15.10 @ 11:47AM

Sorry, that should read "2002." My Bad!

Blackwatch| 4.15.10 @ 7:36PM

perhaps its the 400% increase in the deficit in ONE year that has awakened the masses.
Bush 2008 deficit = $400 billion
The Kenyan 2009 deficit = $1600 billion

Marc Jeric| 4.16.10 @ 2:42AM

No Sir: poor Bush had to contend with the Democrat majority which after the 2006 elections became absolute. In less than 2 years that majority threw us into the present depression. Mortgages for "underserved minorities" as per Carter and Clinton, extorted through threats of fines and jail terms, produced some 600,000 impossible mortgages now under forclosure and the bankruptcy of Fannie May, Freddie Mac, and several big banks. ACORN thugs "sold" some 200,000 of those "mortgages".

Tim*| 4.15.10 @ 10:53AM

Foist ,You Don't Get To " Define " We ,Tea Party Rebels ,ObamaBoy Troll.

Next ,those " tax credits " didn't stimulate the economy and they ain't " tax cuts ".

Twee ! The Labor Department reported today that first-time requests for jobless benefits rose by 24,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the highest level since late February. Economists had predicted claims would fall.

It marked the second week that claims took an unexpected leap. In the prior week, claims rose by 18,000 to 460,000.

Tea Party Tax Day Rallies Across America Today !

You're Invited Too !

Zigsdigs| 4.15.10 @ 10:56AM

It is the SPENDING that distresses me. That a political agenda is the priority not the Country's well being.

Purpleguy| 4.15.10 @ 2:35PM

"The original tea partiers were able to accomplish what they did in no small measure because they were able to stay on top of the British and keep their own members in the know and on the same page" Excuse me, but they did not accomplish what they expected. It was the Revolutionary War that severed our ties to Britain and gave the colonists, now Americans, the representation they deserved and yearned for. You have representation now, what's all the fracas about? You temporarily did not get your way? The election's over, you lost, get over it.

Bob S| 4.15.10 @ 2:59PM

Hey, Smart Guy- You call when Congress and the Kenyan went against the will of 58% of the country "representation?" Put down the crack pipe.

Franklin | 4.15.10 @ 7:26PM

Yep, that is representation .. you wouldn't want to run the government by polls would you? The Democratic President and Democratic Congress followed their Principles - remember them? Y'all complained about Clinton paying too much attention to polls, and now polls are your argument? Talk about hypocrisy ... We have a Republic, Chuckie - you know what that is, right?

blackwatch| 4.15.10 @ 8:04PM

yes we know we have a republic. let's let the voters decide who votes for us and creates law on our behalf. not the federal courts making up law from whole cloth or convoluted intrepretations of various clauses. When a faction in congress uses the power of the press and the courts to create laws they can't pass then we have a corrupt government that needs to be flushed.

your elections have consequences argument rings hollow when you consider the "third branch" of government is out of control too.

so we will see what the results are in the only poll that matters--the November congresional races.

Purpleguy| 4.15.10 @ 9:00PM

Great, I'm so glad you understand civics. And, we the voters did decide who votes for us. You may not like the results, but that's your problem. You do realize that the 3rd branch of Government, the Supreme Court, you speak of, is more conservative then it has been in a long time, and, yes they are more activist than any Court since the Warren Court in the 1960's? Remember the 100 year long decision that Corporations do not have free speech as do individuals that this Court just reversed? In addition, you have a representative democracy here in the US. They represent us, but they aren't our proxies, voting the way the wind blows at the moment.. they are free to vote the way they think best. We invest in our elected officials the power to make laws for us, not by a majority opinion of their constituents. If you don't like that, then you don't like the US Constitution and the Republic it represents. Okay, school is over... please read more, or at least be skeptical of the commentary you hear on Fixed News and Rush LoudMouth ... at least to check the facts - it will be good for you.

JmsA| 4.15.10 @ 9:46PM

Why do you insist in sticking your ignorant snout into something you don't know anything about?

11/02/2010. That's the election we're thinking about; you're still caught up on something that happened two years ago. Get over it. You're simply boring.

JmsA| 4.15.10 @ 10:03PM

Oh, I see. Now we're hearkening back to the Constitution, and a republic to boot, and no longer a democracy or "majority law". Who'd thunk it? Make up your mind, will you? 11/02/2010

Tim*| 4.15.10 @ 2:54PM

Didn't ya get the memo ,Sport ?
It's called " Free Speech " and the year is 2010 and We Got Elections in 2010 !

Tea Party Rallies ,Today Across America !

You can come too ,Purple Cow !

Purpleguy| 4.15.10 @ 9:04PM

No thanks, I don't plan on supporting Corporatists that are just bellyaching that they have to pay their way, because they have more to pay with than most. The tea party crowd are mostly educated, well-to-do, white, older types that want to keep what they've got.

Tim*| 4.15.10 @ 9:27PM

Uh Oh ! Purple Cow says ," The tea party crowd are mostly educated, well-to-do, white, older types that want to keep what they've got. "

Aaaand , your problem with that would be what ?

Purpleguy| 4.16.10 @ 10:37PM

Nothing, except that taxes are lower now than any year but one in the last 50 years.... so what are they screaming about? I know, I know, hard to wrap your head around it, it shatters your woe-is-me victim of the big-bad-government taking my money whimpering ... Remember, “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” - Luke 18:25 .... Have a nice day!

chuck| 4.15.10 @ 9:48PM

And what exactly is wrong with wanting to keep what you have EARNED? You damned libs want to take what we've earned and give it to the lazy bastards who won't work.

Purpleguy| 4.16.10 @ 10:42PM

Actually, it's Conservatives and Liberals that want your money...they don't agree on how to spend it that's all. But that shatters your careful indoctrination that Liberal is bad, Conservative is good. Sorry to bust your right-wing nut-bubble (actually, I'm not sorry, it'll be good for you),but as long as you earn money, the government will be sucking off your teats. You can do nothing about it. Why don't you quit your job and then you won't have to worry about that ... because the Liberals and Conservatives will take care of you. “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” - Luke 18:25 .... Have a nice day!

JmsA| 4.15.10 @ 9:48PM

Purple parrot just bought into the latest poll (NYT and CBS) propaganda regarding the Tea Party. How predictable. 11/02/2010

Purpleguy| 4.16.10 @ 10:43PM

Aaaand, you take issue with what ? Old, white, men, educated?

JmsA| 4.18.10 @ 11:08PM

Purpleturd,

That's what self-deluded fools like you and those in the mainstream media such as the NYT/CBS think. 11/02/2010

JmsA| 4.15.10 @ 9:58PM

Hey purple parrot, jobless claims just went up, "unexpectedly", of course. Wait, wait, I get it, it's all Bush's fault. Oh, Yeah! That stimulus is working wonders, isn't it? 11/02/2010

Purpleguy| 4.16.10 @ 10:49PM

Yes, it is. If you knew anything, you would know that in any recession people give up looking for work after they have been unemployed for a long time. Since many have been unemployed since 2007, when your Boy was ignoring the recession and the people, there are many who have given up hope of finding a job... But, and here's the part that will shatter your little mind - when the economy improves (heard that? - improves), those that have stopped looking start thinking, "Hey, maybe I can get a job and start looking again, and join the crowd looking for a job". They are added into the pool, and jobless claims, not unemployment figures, rises.... Now seriously consider this, because it takes some thought beyond bumper sticker Frank Luntz polled messaging ... and then let me know if you get it finally - Have a nice day!

JmsA| 4.18.10 @ 1:04PM

Purpleturd,

Enough with the nonsensical meme that people give up looking for jobs. Obama promised 3.5 million jobs and to jump Start Job Creation. In fact, 2, 708, 600 jobs have been lost in his first year in office. The only growing job sector, including temporary Census workers, is the government, funded of course by the over burdened taxpayers. Obama promised his 787 billion stimulus would prevent unemployment rising above 8%; it is now 9.7%. I guess you’ll refer to this as talking points, too. Jobless claims continue to rise, by the latest count last week, to 488,000. This was, of course “unexpectedly”, according to the White House. Once again, nonsensical tripe easily discredited. You're so easy. Thanks. 11/02/2010

JayJay| 4.15.10 @ 5:41PM

Purp, if what you say is true and accurate about having representatives now, then the health care vote would have been completely different. There would have been no obvious vote along party lines and it would not have passed. A representative that does not represent his constituency is not truly a Representative.

Purpleguy| 4.15.10 @ 8:49PM

Oops, not necessarily true, young man. They are not your Proxy, that votes the way YOU want them to. I know it's one of those pesky facts that gets in the way of the right-wing echo chamber, but it is the truth. "The representatives form an independent ruling body (for an election period) charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives; that is, not necessarily always according to their wishes, but with enough authority to exercise swift and resolute initiative in the face of changing circumstances."

JayJay| 4.15.10 @ 11:47PM

Oops is right!!! First I am not a man and second it will depend on what you consider 'young' Stop with the echo chamber garbage too. Then what you say is that they are not representatives. I have a few both state and fed. and none have always voted 100% as I would like but only in one instance did I consider that a gross violation until now. If they have over 50% or even 50% of their constituency telling them NO on something then perhaps they need to rethink their position. When you can see pretty much complete party line vote then you know they are not even thinking in the first place and that is not representation of any sort. They need to go at the first possible opportunity.

Purpleguy| 4.16.10 @ 10:16PM

Oops, okay young lady - tell me where you get your news and commentary and then I'll stop the echo chamber - you know exactly what I mean. I on the other hand do listen to Rush and Fox to hear what you are hearing, but I have to admit I just laugh at Glenn Beck. That is how I source the echo chamber comment. I suppose you could add the Wall St Journal now that right-wing mogul Rupert Murdoch owns it. You're right that if over 50% of their constituents want something, a Congressman must consider that - but you aren't suggesting making laws based on polling data are you ? Really, are you? The complete party line vote is a laugh - that works both ways, honey - the Republicans voted a complete party line, but the Democrats did not... Hmmm, who could be voting their conscience and not for political reasons? I think it's great to have a debate on issues, and when I meet an unemotional Republican, I will gladly participate.

JmsA| 4.16.10 @ 12:05AM

Hey purpleparrot, I hear rumors that there is a strong possibility democrats in congress are planning not to vote on a budget resolution this year, something which has not happened since the implementation of the 1974 Budget Act. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that they do not want to publicize their out of control spending to the American people in an election year? Rather interesting, don't you think? Not even the Republicans did that, did they? Do you think it might have anything to do with the coming election (not the one you keep on harping on) later on this year? Oh, are you going to blame Bush for this, too? My, aren't things getting interesting!? 11/02/2010

Purpleguy| 4.16.10 @ 10:21PM

Wow ... now that's a first - "I hear rumors" and and "democrats are planning not to vote on a budget resolution this year" ... I know you right-wingers don't worry about facts, those pesky details that get in the way of your careful indoctrination, but debating something that hasn't happened yet is new ... can't argue a fact that hasn't happened yet, let alone rumors. Have a nice day.

JmsA| 4.18.10 @ 1:44PM

Gotcha, purpleturd! You're just too easy. This is from TheHill.com:
"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, (D-Md), on Tuesday confirmed what Democrats have been hinting at for weeks: A budget resolution in 2010 may not happen. Hoyer said it will be hard for Democrats to pass a resolution because of the inherent political pressure of an election year and the large projected deficit. “'We will see if we have the votes to do so,'” (Dont' democrats have an overwhelmingly majority in the House?.) Hoyer told reporters Tuesday at his weekly press conference. “'It’s difficult to pass budgets in election years because they reflect what the [fiscal] status is.'” Sarcasm alert for you, purpleturd: I wonder if that has anything do to with an expected [record] deficit of $1.85 trillion according to The Congressional Budget Office? I know, I know...it's all Bush's fault.

Here's a pesky, yet interesting fact: Bush expanded the Federal Budget by $700 billion through 2008. Obama's first budget is nearly one trillion dollars more. Bush was the first president to spend 3% of GDP on federal antipoverty programs (Doesn't that make you happy?). Of course, Obama has already eclipsed that by increasing spending by 20%, by adding one trillion dollars to it. The CBO expects this year’s deficit to hit $1.85 trillion, while the White House expects it to reach $1.75 trillion. What was your remark about about facts? Oh, Yes: "those pesky little details." See, as opposed to you, I'm not afraid to cite the truth. 11/02/2010

So much about the we care for the little people meme; the democrats, by definition leftists, only care about politics.

Thanks. That was fun, not to mention, factual. 11/02/2010

JayJay| 4.16.10 @ 12:45AM

Purp, guess that also means that when they come around to do their campaign speeches and tell the crowd that they have listened to the people and they want our vote to send them to DC to represent us that I would be correct in screaming You Lie!!!

Purpleguy| 4.16.10 @ 10:25PM

Knock your socks off, sweetie

JmsA| 4.19.10 @ 3:52PM

Profound purpleturd droppings, indeed.

JayJay| 4.16.10 @ 1:10AM

Purp, guess that also means that when they come around to do their campaign speeches and tell the crowd that they have listened to the people and they want our vote to send them to DC to represent us that I would be correct in screaming You Lie!!!

JayJay| 4.16.10 @ 1:11AM

Sorry about the double post.

JmsA| 4.16.10 @ 1:35AM

Hey, purpleparrot, check this out from Public Policy Polling: "Americans are now pretty evenly divided about whether they would rather have Barack Obama or George W. Bush in the White House. 48% prefer Obama while 46% say they would rather have the old President back." Now, whether this is some sort of totally out of whack outlier or polling aberration, who knows. Other recent polling, however, shows Congressman Ron Paul just trailing the One by one point, which is well within the margin of error. That cannot bode well for your side. Maybe that guy (Bush), who you obsessively keep bashing was not as bad as you claim him to have been; don't you think? Too bad you 2008 it's gone. Somehow I suspect that 2010 is not going to do it for you, don't you agree? Don't forget...11/02/2010.

Purpleguy| 4.17.10 @ 9:05PM

No one has forgotten about Herbert Hoover, the last President that drove us into the ditch, and we won't forget Georgie boy either. He is history now, and listed as one of our worst Presidents, ever. Facts are pesky little things, aren't they? One day you will be glad that little black boy grew up to be your President today. Oh, and the only poll that matters is on Election Day, 11/06/2012
Have a nice day!

JmsA| 4.19.10 @ 1:29AM

Purpleturd deigns to enlighten us all with his witty leftist propaganda nonsense--as usual.

No, I did not forget about Hoover, and in particular about his governing as a democrat; to wit: advocating and implementing goverment intervention under the rubric of "Economic Modernization." I didn't forget Jimmy Carter, either. Nor the 13.5% rate of inflation by the end of his pathetic and failed presidency in early 1981, or the thereafter resulting recession, particularly acute from 7/81 to 11/82. Such not undone until well into the second half of Ronald Reagan's first presidential term, per the same's economic policies, particularly tax cuts, I also remember the Iran Hostage crisis, the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, and the attempts by the communist sandinistas to take over Nicaragua during Carter's one and only presidential term. By any standard, Mr. Carter ranks as one of worst presidents ever; after all, Bush removed a vicious tyrant from power and in the process freed 25 million Iraquis, protected us from further terrorist attacks, managed to grow the economy for 55 straight months after 911, and tried despite being accosted by a hostile democrat congress, the press, and other assorted traitors, etc.--to liberate untold millions of Afghanis. That's a lot more than can be said about Jimmy Carter.

Spaking of polls, I guess you haven't you heard, Bush, though done and gone, is only a couple of points in approval behind the one, as is Ron Paul, a congressman. Now, honestly, how do suppose that truly reflects on the One's job performance?

Now, since you've brought race into it, as you and those of your ilk are incessantly wont to do when lacking truly substantive arguments to make, I have to ask you this: Is Barack Obama truly black? I ask because his mother, may she rest in peace, is white. I don't care a wit about whether he's black, white, whatever, I only care whether or not he's doing a good job for the country and its citizens, which according to more than 50% of the country--he's not. Enough said. Moreover, you're referring to 2012 because you cannot reasonably argue otherwise. It goes without saying that before then, we have a pesky little fact to contend with, i.e. the midterm election of 2010. Funny, you seem to have forgotten about that. I wonder why. Much water will run under the bridge before 2012, and given the way things are going right know, I wouldn't be counting my electoral chickens, as it were. You also have a nice day, and don't forget, 2010 is just around the corner.

Marc Jeric| 4.16.10 @ 2:48AM

Let us not waste our time on reading that ACORN thug Purple-something - he is getting paid $16/hr by his boss Abu Hussein from Kenya to spew his invective and namecalling.
As a former refugee from a communist hell I am perhaps more knowledgeable in the matter of the marxist political handbook. The guy is a commie.

gene hauber| 4.17.10 @ 5:11PM

to purple haze,
you, as is all souls, are entitled to your opinion on any subject because opinions are subjective, BUT and its a big but.....FACTS ARE OBJECTIVE AND YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN.

PLEASE stop clogging up the thinking man's commentary space and go back to huff or daily coz with the rest of the un-american "bleeding heart feelers" have a nice day

Purpleguy| 4.17.10 @ 7:09PM

Other than ad hominem attacks, can you defend whatever it is you take issue with? If you are truly a thinking man, prove it. Political debate is an American virtue and if you can't defend your political position then YOU are the un-American. Have a nice day!

JmsA| 4.19.10 @ 11:42AM

Hey purpleturd, check this out:

From today's Hoven's Index:

Initial claims for unemployment insurance:

March 27, 2010: 443,000; April 3, 2010: 460,000; and April 10, 2010: 484,000.

I guess a lot more people, as you claimed, are giving up. What's more, a lot of them are problem are included in the eighty percent of the country who don't trust congress, i.e. they don't trust the democrats which are now running the show. Still think things are getting better?

Have a nice day. 11/02/201o

JmsA| 4.19.10 @ 11:46AM

I apologize for the bad grammar. I actually meant to write: I guess a lot more people, as you claimed, are giving up. What's more, quite a few of them I suspect comprise the eighty percent of the country who doesn't trust congress, i.e., mostly the democrats who are now running the show.

herve leger| 4.18.10 @ 9:31PM

this is hard to understand....

JmsA| 4.19.10 @ 3:29PM

Purpleturd, didn't I advise you not to count your 2012 electoral chickens?

Check these poll results by PPP:

Mitt Romney leads Obama 45-44. Mick Huckabee leads Obama 47-45. Sarah Palin is now behind Obama by 45-47. Newt Gingrich is even with Obama, 45-45. The poll’s margin of error was less than 4%.

Something is resonating with the America public, and isn't the One, is it? Still think he's invincible? 11/02/2010

JmsA| 4.19.10 @ 3:50PM

Purpleturd,

This just in from Gallop: 50% say Obama doesn't deserve to be re-elected.

Still countin' them chickens? 11/02/2010

fsjdk| 6.30.10 @ 11:36PM

beijing massage shanghai girl

Rockstar Hats| 11.4.10 @ 10:31AM

it is interesting and new era hats on saleinformative article. This has been very helpful understanding a lot of things. I’m sure a lot of other people will agree with me.