Cialis fr


Dear America: Your Tea Party is a clusterfuck of morons, racists and clowns

palin ha-ha, politics of the politics, race, teabaggers

Know your Tea Party people. Know them by their words and deeds . .


Dale Robertson, President and Founder of Tea Party.org:


Jim Russell, White Plains Tea Partier, candidate for New York’s 18th district.

On the mixing of human races:

The most serious implication of human sexual imprinting for our genetic future is that it would establish the destructiveness of school integration, especially in the middle and high-school years . . In the midst of this onslaught against our youth, parents need to be reminded that they have a natural obligation, as essential as providing food and shelter, to instill in their children an acceptance of appro-priate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.

He announced his candidacy, and then they threw him a little Nazi Party.


Christine O’Donnell, Delaware candidate for U.S. Senate.

On the mixing of species:

American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

Next: Tea Partiers with fully functioning human brains.


–Candidate for Colorado Governor, Dan Maes.

From his website, on his short career as a cop:

At one point in my 2 years there I was place (sic) undercover by the Kansas Bureau of Investigations to gather information inside a bookmaking ring that was also allegedly selling drugs. I got too close to some significant people in the community who were involved in these activities and abruptly was dismissed from my position. I was blindsided and stunned to say the least.

You know what else stunned Dan? Having his ‘undercover cop’ fantasy arrested.

Who wrote [the claim] on the website?

“Whoever typed it, typed it. That’s all I’ve got to say,” Maes said, before referring questions to his campaign spokesman.

Later, his spokesman, Nate Strauch, confirmed that Maes had written the comments.

Call homicide, Dan’s campaign just died.


–Tea Party Candidate for Governor of New York, Carl Paladino.

The New York Post:

It was just about a year ago, hours after the death of her son in a car crash, that Cathy Paladino’s husband told her he was the father of a 10-year-old girl with another woman — and that all their children and most of their friends already knew.

Think that’s funny? You should be on his e-mail list. *DING*, you have mail:

Good ol’ Carl.


–Speaking of funny, how about that brilliant satirist, former head of and spokesman for Tea Party Express, Mark Williams:

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government “stop raising our taxes.” That is outrageous! How will we coloreds ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

HA HA HO. Hilarious.

. . repeat after me: Islam is a 7th Century Death Cult coughed up by a psychotic pedophile and embraced by defective, tail sprouting, tree swinging, semi-human, bipedal primates with no claim to be treated like human beings or even desirable mammals for that matter.

Stop, you’re killing me.


Sharron Angle, Nevada Tea Party candidate gunning for Senator:

What is a little bit disconcerting and concerning is the inability for sporting goods stores to keep ammunition in stock . . That tells me the nation is arming . . They’re afraid they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways . . . If we don’t win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?

A fair question, considering you’re out of bullets. Guess you’ll just have to throw rocks at the Coloreds.


–Tea Party fave Rand Paul, Senate candidate from the rugged state of Kentucky.

On the abhorrent mining practice of mountain top removal:

. . I think coal gets a bad name because I think a lot of the land apparently is quite desirable once it’s been flattened out. As I came over here from Harlan, you’ve got quite a few hills. I don’t think anybody’s going to be missing a hill or two here and there. And some people like having the flat land. Some of it apparently has become quite valuable when it’s become flattened.

A desert can be valuable, too. Atomic weapons testing.


–And Sarah Palin, of course, the queen of the Tea Party klan.

Here she roils the Seas of Couragebilly from which the Campaign Hope Tea Admirals rebelliously pride-weigh their Reaganchors:

I’ll know that I have spoken up and I will speak up to thank people like Mr. Reagan, as we honor his dad, to encourage you too, Alaskans, to do the same and don’t just hang in there and go along to get along but stand up and speak up, and be bold and demand that Washington be prudent with our public monies and prioritize for America’s security, and forget the political correctness that makes one guard your conversation, and couch our words so cautiously that they lose meaning, and we lose effectiveness, and then we lose hope because we start thinking that politicians are only worried about their poll numbers and attracting campaign contributions for their next bid so that they can hold on to some title and some position.

Well said. OR, in a word — a single Tea Party word:



Oh. And also. Jesus:

Share
19 COMMENTS

19 Comments

  1. Senor Faraferu  •  Sep 28, 2010 @7:18 pm
    avatar

    Obama just cut taxes for small businesses 8 different ways. I wonder how that info will ever make it to these fuckers little pea brains.

  2. toma  •  Sep 29, 2010 @2:45 am
    avatar

    FREEDOM, YOU OBSCENE SHIT STAINS!

    Unless you’re with us. Err, then it’s freedom! And . . barbecue!

  3. shle896  •  Sep 29, 2010 @5:24 am
    avatar

    LOL, my three year old daughter has a better handle on the English language than Sarah Palin.

    Every time I’ve ever read a quote from that woman, I have to re-read it to understand what she is trying to convey. Surely not all Alaskans speak in run-on sentences, do they?

  4. DownriverDem  •  Sep 29, 2010 @5:52 am
    avatar

    So let’s get this correct: The repubs are against everything I believe. They will prove it daily if they win control. Talk is out there that they will impeach Obama.

    But progressives/liberals are mad because things haven’t moved fast enough in 2 years?

    Give me a break. This is exactly how the repubs want progressives to think. So go ahead and don’t vote. You will just prove the repubs media mantra.

  5. Plisko  •  Sep 29, 2010 @8:49 am
    avatar

    Oh sure DownriverDem. As long as the opposition is worse then I guess the Democrats can say or do anything: call people fucking retards, say they are on drugs, say they are whiners, ignore their interests, tell them they are irresponsible, tell them they are whiners that need to buck up. . . etc etc.

    I guess I never knew how elections worked until now. I guess now we vote based on who the other side is . . not based on how we feel about the way our own candidates respect us.

  6. sliderossian  •  Sep 29, 2010 @8:54 am
    avatar

    There is STUPIDITY and there is IGNORANCE. Ignorant people I can understand, as someone can be isolated from experience which is then replaced by dogmatic BS and fueled by fear and hate. Once a person has the ability to interact with the demonized people and discover the universal nature of humanity, there should be a fundamental change of perspective, an epiphany of paradigm-changing proportions. They have EVOLVED. However, STUPIDITY can get in the way of that evolutionary change, making some people hang on to nasty ideas about others lifestyles or beliefs, even when they have information to the contrary, because it ruins their narrative (which has now become more important than the truth). They become jaded, mean-spirited, hurtful, penurious, extremely selfish and totally SOCIOPATHIC.

    So, the question is, where do people sit in this progression? Are they IGNORANT, STUPID, EVOLVED or SOCIOPATHIC? Look at our leaders and prospective leaders and see where they fit in that scheme. It’s a fun game (don’t forget to put our present administration to the question as well – that’s a real hoot!).

  7. 23h4  •  Sep 29, 2010 @8:57 am
    avatar

    All the articles on here are by ignorant idiots that have no idea what your talking about. It would be nice if i could find a liberal that actually educated themselves about what they are talking about

  8. timr  •  Sep 29, 2010 @9:43 am
    avatar

    plisko, so go ahead and don’t vote. Then blame everyone else for what the rethugs will do over the next 2 years.
    You all who will not vote this year remind me of all the idiots who voted for Nader in Fl back in the 2000 election-rather than vote for Gore because they wanted to send a “message” to the democrats. We have them and only them to thank for 8 years of gw bush, the worst president ever.
    Yes, I know I am ignoring Kerry in 2004. That is because Kerry was not even close to being the best candidate.
    But back to the idiots who are sitting on their hands. So, you expected the world to change and Obama hasn’t done it. Crybabies. You do not understand how our govt is supposed to work, do you? Myself, I think that Senate leader Reid is the worst leader in decades. What we really need is a senate leader like LBJ. Too bad there is no one out there.
    Yes, I to am mad as hell. But mad at the freekin idiots on the left. I already know that the rethugs are a lost cause. BUT, they know how to manipulate the sheeple, and they also know how to manipulate you latte slurping “progressives” who thought that all Obama had to do was show up. Bull crap. Each and every dem who does not vote this year is going to be responsible for the govt that we get. If the rethugs win then you shallow people have no right to bitch about anything, because IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT. that the crazy people win. Nobody else, just you. And if you happen to be one of those idiots who voted for Nader in the 2000 election in Fla. The bush years are your fault. The 4000 dead and over 50,000 injured are all your fault. I hope like hell that you can not sleep at night.

  9. toma  •  Sep 29, 2010 @10:42 am
    avatar

    Previous to Obama, since 1968, we’ve had a grand total of 2 Democrats as President. One of those only got elected because of the Watergate scandal, so it could have been one, Clinton, in a 40 year span. We are smarter, more educated, and actually aware of reality around us, but, for the life of us, we can’t get Democrats elected as President.

    Well, we’ve got one now. And you guys want to trash his re-election hopes? President Mitt Romney is a good alternative to you? That’s a good idea?

    Obama and his administration have fucked up a thousand ways ’til Sunday, so you want Newt Gingrich to run the country? Look at what 28 years of Republican presidential policies have done to the country. Look at the gap between rich and poor, look at the power and control of corporations, look at the numbers of people who think evolution and global warming are hoaxes, and you want Republicans back in control?

    You don’t have to like Obama one bit, but you can’t work to destroy him and think you’re doing the right thing.

  10. Senor Faraferu  •  Sep 29, 2010 @11:06 am
    avatar

    Exactly timr! ^^^

    You know what’s awesome? Embarrassed republicans that pretend (or whatever) to be tea-baggers who then go to blogs and pretend to be upset liberals.

  11. R.F.Kapoor  •  Sep 29, 2010 @12:06 pm
    avatar

    Ten years later and we’re still punching the hippies who voted for Nader? Grow up. The Democratic Party is responsible for persuading people to vote Democratic. In 2000, 2.9 million Floridians voted for Bush and 2.8 million Floridians stayed home; combined, these two groups outnumbered Nader voters by sixty to one. The “responsibility” for the Bush years lies with people who voted for Bush.

    Insulting liberals will not convince them to vote for Democrats. What might have convinced them is a fight for liberal values: Civil rights for women, the LGBT community, and immigrants; the Public Option; a return to the rule of law; an infrastructure overhaul program to get people back to work. The GOP has lost a number of major legislative battles this Congress, but because they fight, their people will turn up at the polls.

  12. Senor Faraferu  •  Sep 29, 2010 @1:12 pm
    avatar

    We’re punching liberals that are bound to make that same mistake those hippies made. Frankly RF, it sounds like you’re going to make the same mistake. Also, you are placing blame on the executive branch when you should be taking a slap at congress.

    Don’t you think Obama would have signed a bill with public option? What did you think of the Lilly Ledbetter Act? Should Obama issue an executive order to stop DADT or do you think it should go through congress? Lemme guess, you would’ve had a better way of thwarting that depression. Didn’t Obama sign something in the last day or so or were you too upset at him to notice?

    I’d like to hear how you would have done a better job. Otherwise, grow up yourself.

  13. R.F.Kapoor  •  Sep 29, 2010 @2:58 pm
    avatar

    Oh no, I intend to vote straight-ticket Democrat, because it would be a tragic mistake to stay home and let the GOP win. However, I think I understand why some Americans feel that their vote makes no difference. I’m disturbed that the reaction of Democratic Party loyalists is not compassion for their discouraged fellow countrymen and a desire to bring them over to their side, but anger and abuse. Lack of compassion is supposed to be a conservative fault.

    You’re quite right to ask me what I would have done better — criticism without offering suggestions is just whining. Had I been in Obama’s place I would have taken a stand on, for example, the Public Option, and mobilized public opinion to pressure Congress. Realistically a bill with the Public Option could never have passed, but we might have gotten more than we did, and Obama could head into November railing against the do-nothing Congress. It worked for Truman; it could work for Obama.

    Thanks for letting me have a say.

  14. Senor Faraferu  •  Sep 29, 2010 @5:01 pm
    avatar

    Thank you. And thanks for clarifying. I consider myself to be very liberal and left of Obama. I wouldn’t consider myself a Democratic party loyalist either.

    The thing is, we’re already on the same side but I hear things that sound like neocon memes from otherwise smart people and it make my head explode. Of course there should be criticism of the president but not for the sake of it. And not with an axe to grind.

    The Public Option is a perfect example: As with many issues, Obama knew the outcome before we did. In other words, he knew well in advance that the Public Option wasn’t going to happen. So to champion the public option when it didn’t have a chance was a zero sum operation and who knows what he was trying behind the scenes. You think he could’ve gotten us more, I think he could have lost it all and got as much as he could.

    My students are still on their parents health insurance plans. My son can’t get bumped from my insurance which has happened to other people with my insurance company. My company (dissolved) could afford insurance for my employees where it couldn’t under Bush. These are all big fuckin deals to me and none of this would have happened under an uber-liberal / progressive president.

    So in the end what’s more moral? Helping as many people as possible or standing pat on your ideals?

    Very true that a lack of compassion is a conservative trait – its that so called “empathy gene”. I may be mad at my fellow libs but anger and compassion aren’t mutually exclusive.

  15. R.F.Kapoor  •  Sep 30, 2010 @8:49 am
    avatar

    Well said, Senor Faraferu. I think my own head was exploding when I saw lefties teaming up with the GOP to scuttle healthcare reform. On that matter I’m guilty as charged in thinking we could have gotten more. The GOP was going to shout “socialism” and Big Insurance was going to give the Republicans their campaign donations no matter what proposal was made, so I think it would have helped promote unity on the left to start with a strong package and then start making concessions, instead of pre-emptively caving in to Republican objections.

  16. Constant Cynic  •  Oct 6, 2010 @2:11 pm
    avatar

    Why do people continue to support the public option in health care? How can that possibly work? Look at what has happened in MA for an example of how that would blow up the entire health care system.
    Do people really believe that the federal government can run a health care system more efficiently than private businesses? Do this thought experiment with me… Imagine Aetna or a large insurer considering an upgrade to their computer systems. They will measure the cost against the improved efficiency very carefully and spend only when it makes sense. Now imagine the feds doing the same. Do you really believe they would make the right decision? How could they? They will be driven by political motives not by economic considerations. They will be concerned with who gets the government contract. They will want to make sure that whoever gets the business supports them in future elections, etc. etc.
    Having government run more than it should doesn’t work because decisions based on politics result in terrible efficiency vs. decisions based on economic reality.
    The stimulus bill is a perfect example. How was that $800 billion or whatever spent? How was it decided which projects got the money? The answer: politics. It is obvious that the money would not be spent well and it hasn’t been.
    There is a large and growing segment of the population that realizes that government is good at certain things but not good at everything. The government is trying to do more and more and things continue to get worse and worse. This is no coincidence!

  17. Constant Cynic  •  Oct 6, 2010 @2:22 pm
    avatar

    BTW, you can find a group of crazies in any political party. The Dems and Republicans each have plenty. That you can find a bunch of ridiculous folks in the Tea Party simply demonstrates that it is the same as the others in that respect.

    Why not discuss the underlying message of the Tea Party? It is a movement to shrink the size of the federal government and prevent our children and grandchildren from being in debt up to their eyeballs. Is it fair to spend money on ourselves and leave them to live with such large debts?

  18. toma  •  Oct 8, 2010 @6:49 am
    avatar

    CC, there are so many poorly thought out allegations and half-baked ideas in there, I don’t know where to begin. So, I’m not going to try, frankly.

    The underlying Tea Party message to shrink debt? Where were they when George W. Bush blew the debt sky fucking high? He started out with a $200 billion yearly SURPLUS and left us with a trillion dollar yearly DEBT. Yet I didn’t see any of the old, white TPers in 2002, or ’03, ’04, ’05, ’06, ’07 or ’08. If you say they’re concerned with debt, you’re lying — we would have seen them protesting years ago.

    And there are two times when government over-spending isn’t just a good idea, it’s required: in defense of the country, as in World War Two, and in an economic collapse, like right now. The stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do, get some people back to work, and expand the employment of others — an entirely successful program. Anyone who argues otherwise if willfully stupid.

    Later.

  19. Bob  •  Oct 11, 2010 @9:15 pm
    avatar

    Many of the articles posted so far show that their authors have no real concept of economics and that the responses are driven by emotion, not logic. Most dwell on actual dollars. The real measure of economic stability is the debt ratio – pubic debt as a percentage of Gross National Product. World War II created a huge spike in the debt ratio. It dropped steadily until 1980 at the end of the Carter administration, then began a steady rise in percentage until midway during the Clinton administration when it took a sharp decline. It then rose very slightly during the Bush administration. However, the current administration has shown the highest spike in the debt ratio since WWII. A rise from 40% to over 55%. This is a great concern because as the ratio goes higher, it becomes progressively harder to lower. However, it should be noted that our ratio is still lower than most other nations. Do I think we need to curb government spending? Absolutely. “If the opposite of pro is con – then is the opposite of progress, congress?”