Two Tea Party Witnesses for the Prosecution

Of all the positions I’ve taken on this blog, probably none has attracted so much vitriol as my attitude toward the Tea Party participants. I have called a good number of them uninformed and ignorant and a small minority of them outright racist. In return I have been told I don’t respect the first amendment and that I am un-American because I don’t support the common man in his effort to redress perceived wrongs. Perhaps if I saw a Tea Party participant present himself convincingly, I might be persuaded that the Tea Party movement is something more than misdirected rage and amorphous social anxiety.

This week the Tea Party movement took a far right turn and started to eat its own at a town hall with Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham. Graham, one of the Senators most critical of President Obama, was called a traitor by folks in the crowd.

This odd turn of events demanded an explanation so once again, two “witnesses for the defense” of the Tea Party movement got paraded on national television and wound up simply winning the case for the prosecution. In fact, I challenge anyone to watch the following video and not cringe with discomfort:

Let’s start with some reasonable objections that Tea Party sympathizers might have with the above interview.

  1. Chris Matthews is a bully. That is why the show is called “Hardball”. Chris reserves the right to be tough and often rude to his guests in what he believes is a quest for the truth.
  2. The two men are relatively ordinary private citizens with no preparation for a TV interview, much less with a tough interviewer with Matthews’ experience.
  3. In a corollary to point 1, Chris does not play fair, asking questions far afield from the main topic of why the sudden turn on Lindsay Graham.

With those objections out of the way, let’s look at how our defenders of the Tea Party movement fared:

  1. Everett Wilkinson of Florida Tea Party Patriots starts off with the total foolishness that nearly 2 million marched on Washington on 9/12, when reliable estimates place the crowd at no more than 500,000 tops (more conservative estimates come in at about 75,000).
  2. Wilkinson could not answer the question that I have repeatedly asked in the comments section of this blog, namely why the sudden need for protest when all of our fiscal problems, e.g. out of control spending, started in the Bush administration?
  3. Next comes the old stuff about Iraq being responsible for 9/11 (and some odd comment about Iran thrown in there also).
  4. Wilkinson ends up looking like a good natured guy who spouts Republican talking points without much underlying knowledge. He supports my supposition that a lot of Tea Party members are vague, to be kind, about what is really bothering them. Wilkinson’s finest moment, and I say this sincerely, is when he reminds Matthews that he is basically off topic. Wilkinson looks like a pro compared to what comes next.
  5. Next up is Allen Olson, a self described South Carolina Tea Party organizer. His first “gripe” is that Lindsay Graham is willing to “meet the Democrats more than halfway” about social security.  OK, good specific gripe there. What about this social security debate has Olson upset? “Well, I’m not exactly sure exactly what the issue was but Senator Graham said he was willing to talk to the Democrats on the issue of social security.” In impolite circles, this is known as not having the foggiest idea what you’re talking about. Matthews exercises incredibly empathetic restraint with this fellow who on the very first question makes it clear he has no business being interviewed about politics. Maybe about the Clemson Tigers, but not about politics.
  6. Matthews pours a bit of salt in the wound by suggesting Graham is a “Richard Russell conservative”, a reference to a Georgia Senator who led a conservative movement from the late 30’s to the early 60’s. I had to look Russell up to find out who he was. Olson, as he literally bobbed and weaved in his chair, was as clueless as I. Matthews has studied politics and Olson clearly has not. Unfair fight but again evidence that this representative of the “movement” is in way over his head.
  7. Chris then explores climate change and evolution in an attempt to make the guy look like a real neanderthal. Olson handles this pretty well actually, saying he doesn’t believe in climate change (lots of folks agree with him) and that he supports science and religion.
  8. While Olson distances himself from those calling Graham a traitor (Olson stops at RINO), he then caps off the interview by proposing a Sarah Palin/Jim DeMint President/VP ticket in 2012. We won’t discuss Sarah, whom I’ve opined on extensively but Jim DeMint? DeMint, the Senator whose only reason to block health care reform is to destroy Obama’s presidency? DeMint, who visited the foreign government of Honduras, not recognized by our government? The same DeMint who compared Obama’s administration to Nazi Germany? Yeah Olson sure does know how to pick ’em.
  9. Like Wilkinson, Olson ended his part of the interview on a sympathetic note, comparing Palin’s bomb of an interview with Katie Couric, to his own nervousness talking to Chris Matthews. An ordinary guy defending an ordinary gal.

Bottom line, these two gentlemen are the best the Tea Party movement has to offer as public spokespeople. In their cringe-worthy testimony, they prove my supposition that the Tea Party waters are rough but don’t run very deep.

The prosecution rests its case.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

79 thoughts on “Two Tea Party Witnesses for the Prosecution

  1. While Rutherford deals in chaff, more serious issues are at hand:

    WASHINGTON — About the only thing more comical than Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize was the reaction of those who deemed the award “premature,” as if the brilliance of Obama’s foreign policy is so self-evident and its success so assured that if only the Norway Five had waited a few years, his Nobel worthiness would have been universally acknowledged.

    Going Rogue by Sarah Palin FREE

    To believe this, you have to be a dreamy adolescent (preferably Scandinavian and a member of the Socialist International) or an indiscriminate imbiber of White House talking points. After all, this was precisely the spin on the president’s various apology tours through Europe and the Middle East: National self-denigration — excuse me, outreach and understanding — is not meant to yield immediate results; it simply plants the seeds of good feeling from which foreign policy successes shall come.

    Chauncey Gardiner could not have said it better. Well, at nine months, let’s review.

    What’s come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election? Iran cracks down even more mercilessly on the opposition and races ahead with its nuclear program.

    What’s come from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking human rights off the table on a visit to China and from Obama’s shameful refusal to see the Dalai Lama (a postponement, we are told). China hasn’t moved an inch on North Korea, Iran or human rights. Indeed it’s pushing with Russia to dethrone the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    What’s come from the new-respect-for-Muslims Cairo speech and the unprecedented pressure on Israel for a total settlement freeze? “The settlement push backfired,” reports The Washington Post, and Arab-Israeli peace prospects have “arguably regressed.”

    And what’s come from Obama’s single most dramatic foreign policy stroke — the sudden abrogation of missile defense arrangements with Poland and the Czech Republic that Russia had virulently opposed? For the East Europeans it was a crushing blow, a gratuitous restoration of Russian influence over a region that thought it had regained independence under American protection….read more

    http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/10/16/debacle_in_moscow

    Bottom line, if Obama and Rutherford represent the Progressive movement and the best it has to offer, they prove my supposition that the Progressive party is not only the party of fools, but dangerous to the well being of the entire world and party to evil.

  2. Sorry, I don’t have time to read this whole article but I firmly believe in sitting back and letting the GOP and it’s fringe elements ruin their own party. They do a good job at it.

  3. Is the ‘Obama effect’ turning the world against Israel?
    By Yoel Marcus
    Tags: Israel News

    The cancellation of the international air exercise with Turkey is no big deal. It harms the strategic interests and international standing of Turkey more than Israel. Even when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan explains his decision by saying the Israel Air Force killed children with phosphorous bombs during Operation Cast Lead, he is harming his country’s security interests more than Israel’s.

    During the battles against the Kurds in southern Turkey, to say nothing of the Armenians, the cruelty involved would not put Turkey on the list of candidates for the Nobel Prize in Mercy. But don’t expect any television series on this subject in Istanbul.

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121557.html

    He is pushing along

  4. I firmly believe in sitting back and letting the GOP and it’s fringe elements ruin their own party.

    Sensico, this can go one of two ways. The Republicans can become the Whigs of the 21st century and cease to exist

    or

    the power to appeal to the average man’s ignorance, will catapult them to greater standing and we will see a frightening shift of this country to the far right.

    There is a third possibility, and clearly the best, which is moderate sane Republicans will finally get fed up with this foolishness and take their party back. Part of the backlash against Lindsay Graham, I believe, is that he dismissed Glenn Beck and called the birthers crazy.

  5. A couple of comments on Tex’s Krauthammer piece,

    First, I love the accidentally pasted in advertisement for Sarah Palin’s new book. Nice subliminal sales work there Tex. 😉

    Second, I also love the Chauncey Gardiner reference taken from the film “Being There”, one of my all time favs. I actually compared Bush to Chauncey Gardiner in one of my old posts.

    I find it amazing that Krauthammer can write like Elric.

    What’s come from Obama holding his tongue while Iranian demonstrators were being shot and from his recognizing the legitimacy of a thug regime illegitimately returned to power in a fraudulent election?

    Right out of the Elric playbook and totally inaccurate. Obama expressed grave concern about the events that unfolded in Iran. What were we to do? Take over the country by force in protest of a crooked election? I don’t see Krauthammer’s undies in a knot about the fraudulent election in Afghanistan. Of course not, Karzai is “our man”.

    Tex needs to quote people who have their facts straight. But then distortion of the facts is the favorite game of Tex, Elric, Charlie K and their ilk.

  6. Rutherford,

    You spoke the other day of the amazing intellectual powers of the left, asking if there was one soul from the right “worthy” of such accord.

    Can you show me a journalist from the left comparable to Krauthammer’s depth so we can have a frame of reference?

    P.S. – I did that cut & paste very quickly before breakfast this morning. I had to laugh after I noticed the sentence for Sarah Palin’s book posted, proving that I don’t do much in the way of proofing anymore.

    Though at first somewhat embarrassed, I soon realized it was actually a gift, being that I had advertised for the one you and your lovely wife most hate on your own blog.

    Manna from heaven, it was…

  7. Elric,

    I actually saw this one last night. Juan Williams is one lib I have a fair amount of respect for because I honestly do believe he makes a stab at being honest and fair, and I believe Juan is reasonable intelligent.

    For the whitey hatin’ puke, like the feckless guest who was proven wrong, this is intolerable — but especially intolerable by some “Uncle Tom” like Juan Williams, who would dare hold other blacks accountable to the truth.

    No different than Rutherford concerning his opinion of Clarence Thomas. How dare a black man consider himself Conservative – if too many do, it would remove the excuse of victimization and this too can’t be tolerated. 😉

  8. Here’s some more of that ‘humanly’ focus Rutherford wants to implement about government compassion and empathy straight off Obama street.

    One in eight girls pregnant at a Chicago high school:

    http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Robeson.High.School.2.1251642.html

    Perhaps Obama should worry about cleaning up his own backyard first before the “divine” deliverer decides what is good for all of America?

    What a disaster the philosophy of liberalism/progressivism is – and it would be laughable if the results weren’t so tragic.

  9. Tex,

    Juan is one of the few libs I respect because he is actually honest and fair minded, unlike the host here.

    Sad about Chicago. Perhaps if Thuggy wasnt busy voting present and helping out his thug friends, he could of helped out his own neighborhood.

  10. Can you show me a journalist from the left comparable to Krauthammer’s depth so we can have a frame of reference?

    How can we talk about the depth of a dude who can’t get his facts straight? To answer your question, I’d start with Bill Moyers and move from there.

    P.S. While I understand how he could be grating to a good number of people, no liberal on TV does a better job of exposing foolish Republicans for the fools they are than my buddy Keith Olbermann. 😉

  11. Rutherford can’t even define what a so called intellectual is.

    He likes to talk back and forth with Sensico about all the “idiots” that disagree with him.

    So I ask again. Rutherford, is Sensico deep? Go browse her blog, is she an intellectual?

    What makes someone deep?

    Does one need truth on their side to be deep?

    You brought up Hegel in your post about Beck, almost conceding Beck some points becuase he has mentioned Hegel.

    Rutherford, care to explain why understanding Hegel is important? Do you understand Hegel? Or will you have to secretly go to Wikipedia or some other website to have someone else explain for you to the notion of “dialectic”.

    Does making a moral judgment automatically disqualify someone as being deep?

    For instance, if Rutherford gives props to Mao for the amazing things he did in China, against all odds, am I being shallow by pointing out that Mao murdered millions? Am I some how not an intellectual becuase I am prone to ethically dismiss Mao?

    We see a trend this week with Rutherford. He seems to claim wisdom is on his party’s side.

    Rutherford, lets start with three people so that the Rabbit can improve himself and maybe be worthy of at least your shadow.

    1. Is sensico an intellectual? If your answer is yes, show me how she is an intellectual so that I can emulate her. If your answer is no, explain to me why she should be taken seriously.

    2. Why is Hegelian philosophy important to the debates of today? Be real careful answering this one. I will be googling your words very closely.

    3. Outside of linguistics, what makes Chomsky’s world view so intellectual? Is it linguistics? If so, is there another technical field that maybe the Rabbit can master that will give more credence to my take on geopolitics? What field would help me in this area?

    I’m eagerly awaiting these answers.

  12. Why is it that Rabbit always wants to call me out? I am an intellectual. To be honest, I don’t have time to write long ass post that make the same points. I post my opinion in a short and straight to the point manner. But, you know, I’m happy that you feel the need to promote my blog for me.

    Elric, intellectuals do not solely use someone’s words as their own. That removes you from the discussion of who and who isn’t an intellectual. You know who’s also an intellectual, Wickle cause he’s smart enough to not let you post shit loads of irrelevant links. You can’t even have a healthy debate. To be honest, I’m absolutely done here, for today 🙂

    Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a post to write which will probably garner criticism from DR. In which I’ll then ask, where the fuck is your blog? If you think you can show more depth and blog better then prove it, until then f-off.

  13. What makes you an intellectual? What is an intellectual? Who here defines you as one? Can it be a self proclaimed? Is that even possible? Do you think Rutherford thinks you’re an intellectual? Being an intellectual is very important to him, so if he does, which he might, you should take great pride in that.

    Maybe you can point to an individual blog penned by you that could go into a sort of “intellectual portfolio”?

    That way, you wouldn’t have to respond to nasty ol’ Rabbit. You could just say, “Hey, I am intellectual, see Blog #234 or something”.

    Intellectual status is essential to being taken serious around here, sensico. This is important stuff!

    ps…sensico….Maybe you can point me in the right direction when it comes to why we should take people who like to invoke Hegelian Philosophy into today’s political fold very seriously.

    come on sensico, help a brother out. Explain Hegel to stupid old Rabbit and then apply it to Rabbit’s life.

    I want in on the club!

  14. While I understand how he could be grating to a good number of people, no liberal on TV does a better job of exposing foolish Republicans for the fools they are than my buddy Keith Olbermann.

    Then I have to assume you’re also an admirer of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, both of whom expose foolishness by your party of Fidel by a factor of many times better, if one is to consider wage vis-a-vis Keith “Fired by ESPN Sportscaster” Olbermann?

    Rutherford, are you serious in this statement? 😮 Bill Moyer? Bill Moyer couldn’t even make a living wage if he weren’t being supported by public funds. O’Reilly has kicked Moyer’s ass as a farce so many times, it has become routine.

  15. I could care less about what you think which is why I won’t scan my blog and 800+ posts trying to find a post that’s suitable to your views on intellectualism. And I don’t care if R thinks I’m an intellectual or not. I don’t think I should have to prove anything to you.

    You however would do go to prove to me what gives you the authority to make assumptions about me when you don’t know me.

    I don’t consider you an intellectual and yet I still respect you enough to blast you. In politics being intellectual doesn’t mean shit anymore and we can tell when GOP congressman waist time pursing the birther movement’s cause.

  16. sensico, I am even more confused now.

    Do I have to personally know someone to find out if they are “intellectual”? Is that something I need to check off on the “intellectual rubric”?

    I find your response to me fascinating.

    Being an intellectual is very important to you too, as it is Rutherford.

    Yet, I would think it easy for an intellectual to scan her blog and find some intellectual worthy material.

    You also find me NOT to be an intellectual.

    I knew you would say that and agree with your assumption.

    I am curious why you think I am not one.

    I have my own reasons. I have an average IQ. I’m not the most well read Rabbit. I always feel inadequate in Ann Arbor. I hunt. Love sports. Swear alot outside of work. I also have big feet.

    I will say this, however. I’m starting to formulate a hypothesis. “Intellectual” is synonymous with the follwing statments:

    1. I agree with
    2. That person is smart
    3. That person uses big words
    4. That person talks about Hegel

    In all reality, I think it may be used more as a negative word to signify a lack of intelligence or truth, i.e. Sean Hannity is stupid (replace stupid with “not intellectual”)

  17. O’Reilly Guest to Juan Williams: ‘Go Back To the Porch’

    LOL, I have no idea what “go back to the porch” means, Maybe one of my more connected brothas or sistas can fill me in.

    Problem is, Juan is defending Rush playing “Barack the Magic Negro” on his show, saying that Rush was making fun of the phrase used by a black author. Eh, no. The phrase may have originated with a black author but it was used to make fun of Obama by Rush. It was in questionable taste. Juan needs to be careful not to migrate from being an independent thinker to being an apologist for racism.

  18. “You however would do go to prove to me what gives you the authority to make assumptions about me when you don’t know me.”-sensico

    Cue Jerry Springer crowd. “You don’t know me! You don’t know me”!

    Jerry Jerry Jerry!

    Is sensico an intellectual? If your answer is yes, show me how she is an intellectual so that I can emulate her. If your answer is no, explain to me why she should be taken seriously.

    Actually, I haven’t made any assumptions. Rutherford has recently taken a liking to intellectualism. Being one is good. Not being one is bad.

    Just curious what he thinks about you.

  19. Being an intellectual is very important to you too, as it is Rutherford. – DR

    No, it isn’t

    btw, you stay in Ann Arbor??!!!????!!!???….HIPPIE and I can’t believe you call me a spoiled brat and then complain that you don’t have shit when you stay in Ann Arbor. F-U you hypocrite! I stayed in Ann Arbor for three summers, been all over downtown Ann Arbor and visit my aunt more times then I’d like, nothing about Ann Arbor spews middle class hardworking, struggle shit like DR would like everyone to think his life actually is.

    Oh and personally, I think myself as an intellectual and would have not problem just telling you to go to my blog and check out my intellectualism. So there you go, go to my blog and check out my intellectualism 😛

  20. To also clarify, I don’t go around calling myself an intellectual and try to downplay my intellectualism as much as possible because there’s nothing worse then a jackass thinking he knows everything and understands everyone.

    This is something you need to take up with R and leave me out of it. I am not the one who goes around analyzing whether someones an intellectual. Referring to the last blog post, I believe someone said Glenn Beck never claimed to be an intellectual and they’re correct. Why analyze someone’s intellectualism to bash them when they are claiming to be intellectuals? With that said, intellectual and the name Glenn Beck shouldn’t have been in the same sentence to begin with 😛

  21. Uh…sensico…for better or worse, I’m from the border of Inkster and Garden City.

    I have also lived in the Warrendale neighborhood of Detroit and Dearborn.

    But then again, I’ve lived in Norfolk, VA, Richmond VA, Keflavik, Iceland, Eureka California, and once spent a month in Phoenix but I don’t remember much.

    I now live in a very boring suburb in a nice house I shouldn’t have bought.

    I’m not from Ann Arbor. I go there to eat sometimes.

  22. When the cops left Warrendale so did the Rabbit….you been through there lately?

    I forgot Westland. Believe it or not, the most crime ridden place I ever lived in was Westland. There are some total cracked out mini-ghettos in Westland.

  23. With that said, intellectual and the name Glenn Beck shouldn’t have been in the same sentence to begin with-sensico

    Why?

    Seriously. Why? What makes you one and him not?

    Hey, R made intellectualism to be the great test when it comes to taking someone seriously. R was very impressed that Beck reads Hegel and stuff.

    So, why can’t I apply R’s test of legitimacy to you, a public political blogger?

  24. DR,

    You know whats sad? Here is a small list of the “intellectual” on the left.

    Marx
    Lenin
    Stalin
    Hitler
    Mao
    Castro
    Pol Pot
    Alinsky
    Ayers
    Sanger

    Etc

  25. Ich bin … busy?
    posted at 5:50 pm on October 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
    Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

    A year ago, the city of Berlin was so important to Barack Obama that he conducted a campaign event there. This year, though, the 20th anniversary of the fall of Berlin’s most notorious Cold War symbol and the end of the Iron Curtain doesn’t interest the leader of the free world. Der Spiegel reports that Obama has taken a pass on the celebration of the demolition of the Berlin Wall:

    It’s not the first country in Europe to get snubbed on a war commemoration, either. The White House blew off the Poles and their observance of the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II, and then announced that the US would reverse itself on missile defense on the anniversary of the Soviet invasion a fortnight or so later. The Obama administration seems to have a pretty poor sense of history, especially for a group that prides itself on maintaining its international standing.

    This case is especially egregious, for two reasons. First, as noted above, Obama used Berlin when he needed to show that he could make America popular abroad. Second, the US played a very large role in helping to bring down that wall, and certainly made it a cause celebre for almost 40 years. Its 20th anniversary should have the American head of state to underscore our part in that history.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/16/ich-bin-busy/

    Why would Thuggy go? He views it as a sad moment in history when people became free from oppression.

  26. Sensico: “I am an intellectual.”

    Did Stuart Smalley tell you to repeat that?

    Rutherford: “How can we talk about the depth of a dude who can’t get his facts straight?”

    So I guess you don’t think Barack Obama or Joe Biden have any depth on economic or foreign policy issues?

    Obama thinks Honduras had a military coup, and Biden thinks the Stimulus is working beyond expectations.

    Unfortunately, the “facts” say otherwise on both.

    I wouldn’t dwell too much on the word “facts” if I were a democrat. Because, while your party’s baseless and unprovable claims look pretty in newsprint, the facts you folks are producing aren’t worth a damn.

    And how about the depth of the various “news” firms pulling phantom Rush quotes out of their ass? WaPo, CNN and your beloved MSNBC would be on that list.

    How shallow are they for not getting their facts straight?

  27. Hey, this is the first time I’ve even referred to myself as an intellectual online and definitely don’t call myself and intellectual offline.

    You know, you would be better off living in Macomb county, cheap houses and strong police presence. Never been to Westland but heard nothing but bad stuff about it.

    “So, why can’t I apply R’s test of legitimacy to you, a public political blogger?”

    first of all, I never read Hegel. I’m a future scientist, I enjoy reading science textbooks for fun. There are different type of intellectuals and specialize in a certain areas. It’s also a mindset. I’m sorry but some asshole calling the Pres. a socialist with the main reason being that he has too many czars when in reality it’s about the same amount Bush had, is not what I call an intellectual.

    Either way, who gives a shit anyways. I hardly go around caring whether someone is an intellectual or not because it’s not important. I only address this issue when asked.

  28. Oh please, Washington Post heavily leans republican. Weird how washington post becomes the liberal media now that democrats are in Washington. I used to remember during the Bush years when conservatives loved Washington Post.

  29. “You however would do go to prove to me what gives you the authority to make assumptions about me when you don’t know me.” – Sensico

    “you stay in Ann Arbor??!!!????!!!???….HIPPIE and I can’t believe you call me a spoiled brat and then complain that you don’t have shit when you stay in Ann Arbor.” – Sensico

    “I’m not from Ann Arbor. I go there to eat sometimes.” – DR

    I think Sensico’s own words sum this up nicely…

    “F-U you hypocrite!”

  30. Sensico: “Oh please, Washington Post heavily leans republican. Weird how washington post becomes the liberal media now that democrats are in Washington. I used to remember during the Bush years when conservatives loved Washington Post.”

    That a really nice opinion, but would you like to stick with the “facts”? We wouldn’t want Rutherford to think you to be without depth.

    I never said anything about liberal media or right/left leaning. I said those firms attributed unsubstantiated quotes to someone.

    Would you care to comment on that?

  31. ???

    gosh, why is it, that all of the sudden Red Pill wants to attack me. I am over you fanatical obsession with me. Your little retorts are bastard stupid.

    DR said, “I always feel inadequate in Ann Arbor.” the statement came out of nowhere with little context, sort of like the way DR complains about my comment not making since, so I reasonably assume he meant he lives in Ann Arbor. He then tells me he doesn’t. Presumably a misunderstanding that would be forgiven and forgotten because it’d be childish and trivial to make something more out of it. But of course! I can’t expect Red Pill to not attack me on that, especially seeing as he likes to continually attack people because he thinks a 48/47 split isn’t +/- 3 points within the margin of error of a 50/50 split.

    Lets plat the Red Pill Psyche Game. What is it about me that draws out the idiocy that exist within Red Pill?

    Is he trying to prove his conservatism by attacking a democrat on some shit that’s not even argue worthy?
    Does he hate me cause I’m beautiful?
    Does my avatar make him “vibe”?
    Is it because he’s bored and has shit else to do?
    Is there something I have that he doesn’t? (god doesn’t like envy)
    Did I make him feel stupid because he refers to this blog as being “the corner bar”? (lol it’s not that serious)
    Did he run out of coke? (and no, I’m not talking about the cola)

    What is it? I find this so fascinating. You know what sugar, whenever you come at me with some stupid comment that I’d expect Elric to post, then I’m going to refer to these questions until I get an answer.

  32. Rutherford I was hestant to post a comment here but what the hell.
    I find it pretty weak that you on one hand acknowledge the points about “Tingles” Mathews and discount them at the same time.
    Mathews is a total douche only rivaled by “your buddy” Keith Olbermann.
    Mathews “Hardball” (NOT) is so freaking pathetic a show. He has people that by no means speak to the true sentiment of the majority of the Tea Party philosophy. People are seriously fed up and are lashing out. In a democracy that is actually healthy. What isn’t too healthy is when people like tingles purposely go find people to make them look bad and themselves look good. I find his style reminiscent of Morton Downey bak in the day or Howie Carr if you had and remember any exposure to him during your stay in the Boston Metro area.
    As for the Tea Partiers turning on their own side. This is crazy. One they don’t have a side. That’s part of their beef. They seriously feel nobody is on their side looking out for them. As for turning on Graham. It’s freaking South Carolina dude. I almost relocated there and I think there is a case for saying there are a ton of lovely people there. Native and transplant. There are of course a healthy amount of Deliverance stand ins. In a ultra red state like SC if you have a Tea Party who exactly do you think shows up ?
    Last bit since this is kinda too long and nobody likely cares anyhow. On one hand I get the word choices and style of this post. I can give you props for it as witty and thoughtful. I also would say though that it served as a major turnoff. It comes off very Gestapo-ish. Overplayed to show some kind of evil and your side being that of good and lawful and order like. It contrasts exactly with the message the saner TP’ers have concern with. Your posts style fits well into the aura of Whitehouse email reporting lines and stuff like that.
    oh yeah a PPS as it were. Do you seriously not known the meaning and seriousness of telling someone especially a black person to “get back on the porch” Let me help you out…it ain’t a nice thing.

  33. You brought up Hegel in your post about Beck, almost conceding Beck some points becuase he has mentioned Hegel.

    I think you have me confused with some other blogger dude. I didn’t say squat about Hegel. I mentioned a scholar named Pestritto. It was Pestritto who was impressed that Beck read Hegel.

    I haven’t read Hegel and don’t know the first thing about him.

  34. Densico is dumb enough to think the Washington Post leans “right”. That’s parody, right Rutherford? I think you have that confused with the Washington Times. The Post is real close to the NY Slimes in lefty print.

    Looks like you went straight from exaggeration to downright lies there Dense, unless you’re that dumb. Either way, you’re wrong.

  35. RE:all of our fiscal problems, e.g. out of control spending, started in the Bush administration?

    In a word: Wrong.

    Our fiscal problems can be traced to Jimmy Carter. In 1977, he signed into law The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.)

    It is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Congress passed the Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation. To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions.

    In September 1999, in a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

    To further loosen sound fiscal policy, Clinton helped in 1999 by signing the banking overhaul measure. Congress passed the bipartisan measure November 5, opening the way for a blossoming of financial “supermarkets” selling loans, investments and insurance. Proponents had pushed the legislation in Congress for two decades, and Wall Street and the banking and insurance industries had poured millions of dollars into lobbying for it in the past few years. “It was sweaty, it was tense, but it had momentum,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) said of the final bargaining session. He and Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) whose states are home to Wall Street and the banking industry (New York) and the insurance industry (Connecticut), helped broker the agreement.

    In April of 2001, the Bush Administration’s FY02 budget request in April 2001 raised red flags about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and declares that the size of the GSE’s is “a potential problem,” because “financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”

    In January of 2003 Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.

    In February of 2003 the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that “although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,” “the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them.” As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. (”Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO,” OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)

    On Sept. 10, 2003, Rep. Frank objected, stating, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially” But the more pressure there is, then the less I think we will see in terms of affordable housing.” The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” (Stephen Labaton, “New Agency Proposed To Oversee Freddie Mac And Fannie Mae,” The New York Times, 9/11/03)

    It’s all here http://rightamerican.wordpress.com/gse-meltdown-time-line/

    The out of control spending of the Bush administration? Please get real. Whatever you may call “out of control” of the Bush admin, it pales in comparison to Obama’s.

    Today, our federal deficit is now 1.42 trillion dollars. You can read about that here http://ourobamanation.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/federal-deficit-is-now-1-42-trillion-dollars/

  36. RE:Densico is dumb enough to think the Washington Post leans “right”.

    Stunning assessment on her part. She is so self-consumed by her liberal view she doesn’t even have a firm grasp on reality.

    Here – let me school her a bit.

    Beginning with Richard Nixon, observers hav often cited the Post, along with The New York Times, as exemplars of “liberal media bias”. More recently, liberal critics have accused the publication of bias, as well.

    Originally due to the perceived left-wing bias in both reporting and editorials, The Washington Post has been called “Pravda on the Potomac”, an allusion to the official newspaper of the Soviet communist party. Since then, the appellation has been used by both liberal and conservative critics of the Post.

    FBI director J. Edgar Hoover reportedly told President Lyndon B. Johnson, “I don’t have much influence with the Post because I frankly don’t read it. I view it like the Daily Worker.”

    What she may be referring to is the editorial section. I suppose the editors are trying to offset their liberal bias in that manner. The editorials on foreign policy and economic issues have seen a definitively conservative position.

  37. HEY RUTHERFORD!!!!

    I just heard this.

    You’re going to be awfully jealous of my family. Guess who my oldest daughter was assigned to sit with in a round table meeting today? Of course, he was late and the meeting didn’t go off as planned, but she did get a personal invite from Neil Bush to attend the speech of only about 500 for our unnamed guest.

    I’ll give you a hint. Today is G.W. Bush Sr.’s 20th anniversary of the “Points of Light” organization and dignitaries from all over were invited to Texas A&M this afternoon. Since my daughter is a president of a school-wide organization at A&M, she got an invite of one of nineteen students to talk about (and here is the dead give away) community service.

    Can you imagine who my daughter shook hands with today? Venture a guess?

  38. Ben,

    Nice post on the fiscal crisis. Of course, Rutherford, Wally when he shows up, and Densico will deny, obfuscate, dance, run around in circles, and their head will rotate 360 degrees like Linda Blair from the Exorcist, but great post nonetheless.

    Truth hurts, even when the opponent in denial. 😉

  39. Thanks.

    It took me quite awhile to dig up that information and build that post with references.

    I’m still updating it as I find new data.

    I was floored to discover Jimmy Carter’s role.

  40. RE:Of course, Rutherford, Wally when he shows up, and Densico will deny, obfuscate, dance, run around in circles, and their head will rotate 360 degrees like Linda Blair from the Exorcist, but great post nonetheless.

    Yuri Bezmenov, a Russian born, KGB trained subverter tells about the influence of the Soviet Union on Western media:

    The main emphasis of the KGB has not been in the area of intelligence gathering. Only 15% of time, money and man-power is spent on espionage. The other 85% is spent on “ideological subversion” or “active measures”. It is a great brain-washing process. It takes a long time.

    The process consists of 4 stages, one of which is called “Demoralization”. This stage takes between 15 and 20 years. This is because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students. The process exposes the students to the ideology of the enemy i.e. the Marxism-Leninism ideology and is pumped into the soft heads of young students for at least 3 generations without being challenged or contra-balanced by the ideology of the basic values of American patriotism.

    Most of the people who graduated in the ’60s, the drop-outs, the half-baked intellectuals now occupy the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media and education system. America is now stuck with them.

    The process of demoralization is then complete and irreversible. It will take another 15 to 20 years to wash away the intellectual contamination and corruption of values. A person who is demoralized is unable to process truth.

    I see many Dems who, even when faced with the truth, continue to deny it.

    They have been demoralized.

    They will probably deny that as well.

  41. They will probably deny that as well.

    😆 Oh Ben, you can count on it. The half-baked blog…

    Somewhere I had read that before, and am in 100% agreement. It will take a long time to remove the stench of the ten-fifteen years from about ’63-’78. You’re seeing the second and third generations now in Rutherford, Wally Curator, and Densico (the newcomer to the block).

  42. Sensico is all emotion and very little fact. She could help herself if she would stay with the facts and create a proper sentence. Hell, even my half-baked sentences are constructed better. Does anyone remember sentence diagramming? I don’t. No matter.

    Sensico is getting her education from professors who have already been demoralized. Most universities today are conveyor belts spewing out little drones indoctrinated by the likes of Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor.

    So at the end, our university professors indoctrinate yet another drone who are released upon the world, incapable of critical and independent thinking.

    What a waste.

  43. Rutherford,

    I was fully aware that you didn’t personally name drop Hegel.

    However, I find ironic that you quoted the dude saying that Beck should be taken seriously, as opposed to practically any other right wing voice, becuase Beck is well versed in Hegel, a philosopher that I guessed you were clueless about.

    I think you are clueless about 95% of academia gloobty glock. Yet, they are distant gods from Olympus to you. You revere them becuase you think you should.

    Take Chomsky. What exactly is so intellectual about him? You never really answered that.

    You ultimately agreed with the guy writing about Beck: the jury is still out on Beck becuase he is in touch with the intelligentsia. He reads Hegel and stuff and you’ve heard from somebody that Hegel is pretty deep.

    Intellectuals are to be taken serious, we are told. And Beck just might be one. Most on the right are not intellectuals and should be laughed at.

    Why do you give a free pass to yourself? You don’t feel the need to torture yourself with Hegel. Why should Bill O’Reilly have to?

    In fact, except for your “only the oppressed can be victims of racism” philosophy, I actually haven’t seen you drink from the well of academia that much (thank you).

    You’re into MSNBC, hating FOX and desperately trying to peg Tea Party guys as dim wits, extremists or racists (and even party animals out for a good time.) Throw in a little Palin bashing and social cometary on racism and poof!! RUTHERFORD LAWSON.

    Your opinion on Beck changed for the better when you found out he read Hegel. Did it not?

    Rutherford, I want you to like the Rabbit. Will you give me a reading list that will make you respect me more?

    If I am to be taken seriously by the left for being an intellectual, surely someone like yourself can help me by leading the way.

    Or do conservatives need to “understand” the left by reading books most on the left don’t have to read themselves?

    So, give me the required reading list. I beg of you.

    Rutherford, that blog on Beck being an intellectual was as self serving as my vain response to Elric the other day celebrating my own charisma.

    I call total bull shit. 100% bull shit.

  44. The Tea Party boys must have read my blog cos look who they rolled out today!

    Phillip Dennis, a Texas Tea Party organizer more than held his own with Chris Matthews, I saw nary a blunder and he hit the unstated racism charge head on.

    If the Tea Party wants credibility, they need more guys like this.

  45. Chris Matthews is so lame to be laughable Rutherford. Chris is a product of liberal group think. This guy did a poor job of vetting Chris until the last couple of minutes.

    What Tex would have said to the irrelevant wimp Matthews was this:

    Yes, FDR did win all but two states. He did by subsidizing votes on the backs of those working. His own Secretary said in 1939 said FDR’s policies didn’t work and wouldn’t work. That’s the history Matthews. And the only good thing that came out of this financial crisis was to re-evaluate FDR and his policies. Not only did FDR help get 6MM Jews killed by his lack of character and major cowardice, but he would have ruined the economic engine of the country altogether if not for WWII. And that Chris is why your show is viewed by 1/4 of the people that view FOX News, because you’re a leftist shill and a lackey for Barack Obama and everyone knows it. Outside of your pack of pukes, you’re a laughing stock.

  46. Alfie, seriously I have no idea what get back on the porch means. I figured out contextually that it wasn’t a compliment, but beyond that, I haven’t the foggiest. Is it like “get back to the cotton field”?

  47. Another one of those “clean” Democratic donors to Barack Obama goes down in insider trading scam. I thought it was the Republican candidates that were crooked? That’s four billionaire Dem hedge fund managers the last nine months caught ripping the public off of millions.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Billionaire-among-6-nabbed-in-apf-2808194948.html?x=0

    Throw in John Conyers, Charlie Rangel, John Edwards, and the rest of the tax cheats and ambulance chasers appointed by MaO and it should be apparent why 1/2 the country thinks the Democratic party not to be trusted in any capacity.

  48. Is it like “get back to the cotton field”?

    It’s worse. Have you never heard the racial insult of “porch monkey” Rutherford?

    From wiki…

    a term dating back to American 17th century colonial times, that originally referred to african american slaves who when not working would sit and talk with other slaves on the porch of their plantation homes.

    Now you know…

  49. Another one of those “clean” Democratic donors to Barack Obama goes down in insider trading scam.

    You cannot be serious? Now Obama is responsible for the actions of each of his donors? You’re as bad as the nimrods who connect Obama to Polanski because some Obama donors are the same sort singing Polanski’s praises. Talk about nutty guilt by association.

  50. Tex, thanks for wising me up on the porch business. LOL yeah I had even heard the term porch monkey and didn’t know what that meant either. Hey, my black friends HAVE always called me racially sheltered. 😉

  51. Not only did FDR help get 6MM Jews killed by his lack of character and major cowardice

    Oh you’re on a roll today. So are you willing to apply that standard to all Presidents? That would condemn a whole lot of Pres’s on both sides of the aisle … one word … Darfur.

  52. I am an intellectual. To be honest, I don’t have time to write long ass post that make the same points. I post my opinion in a short and straight to the point manner.” – Sensico

    What makes you an intellectual? What is an intellectual? Who here defines you as one? Can it be a self proclaimed? Is that even possible? Do you think Rutherford thinks you’re an intellectual?” – DR

    I don’t consider you an intellectual and yet I still respect you enough to blast you. In politics being intellectual doesn’t mean shit anymore…” – Sensico

    What an arrogant twit- this from the moron who 1) called taxes charity and 2) then lied about the context behind the statement to cover up the stupidity of it.

    To be an intellectual requires intelligence, it requires you knowing your own core beliefs (which you’ve consistently failed to articulate) and it requires an understanding of the philosophical structures of the community, to include the ones you don’t subscribe to (which you also consistently fail to do). I don’t think a kid who hasn’t completed college and who has clearly shown a complete lack of understanding and knowledge of the political system they rant about can call themselves an intellectual. The narcissism of the left is without bounds.

    This isn’t a news flash to anyone who reads either your posts or your blog- you’re not an intellectual, or are even close to being one.

  53. Here’s another one for you R, why is Obama meeting in secret with the New York Times and MSNBC while waging war on Fox News?

    See, we see this, and I don’t mean the ‘right’, but the ‘people’ and we get a little pissed. Can you please tell me, how in the hell can you even remotely call this administration transparent?

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s