Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

Thursday, April 16, 2009

TEABAGGER UNSURE OF THE CONCEPT...


Seen at a teabagger protest in Philadelphia.
Perry's advocating secession for the state of Texas because of the federal government's profligate ways. Of course, we never heard from this grandstanding twit while Texas' Favorite Son, George "National Embarrassment" Bush never vetoed one spending bill and while the gummint grew under him. But oh, now that a Democratic president is in office for three whole months, Gov. Perry has his little jockey shorts all in a twist over taxes and sovereignty.
Another great Republican idea, when the going gets tough, cut and run! Secede!
You go Texas!

33 comments:

TAO said...

Send them a bill and let them buy their way out of the union!

Bill them for GWB eight years...

AdamS said...

Now that is an ironic picture.

Also, re 'secession' - if you're referring to state sovereignty, then that's something totally different. The states created the federal government and have the power to dissolve it if it becomes tyrannical; thus these bills aren't cutting and running, rather they are standing up to a tyrannical government. Drawing a line in the sand if you will.

TAO said...

Adam,

The whole Civil War thing was about States rights and their ability to exert state sovereignty...

State Rights lost that battle.

Christopher said...

I wonder how many time this douchebag conservative in the photo has lowered his junk into someones mouth?

Probs only once when he could afford a hooker and then she gave him blue ball! LMAO!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Adam S.,

Where were these brave Texans while Bush was trampling on their sovereign rights? Remember wiretapping American citizens? Remember Jose Padilla? Torture? Bush cut taxes while America was fighting two wars. Unprecedented in the history of this country, while Iraq was costing the taxpayers several billions of dollars a MONTH. And he budgeted the war offline! I didn't see Texans marching over the tyranny of that outrage, nor over Bush's running up of the deficit and never vetoing a spending bill while the Republicans were in charge of Congress.

This is why all of the grandstanding by the Republicans rings hollow and is rank hypocrisy.

They see tyranny in the government only when there's a Democrat in the White House.

Anonymous said...

In other words the definition of tyranny is: holy crap there's a Democrat/black man/muslim/arab/terrorist in the white house!!

Anonymous said...

Also: wah, waaaaah, we lost the election!!

dmarks said...

AdamS said: "The states created the federal government and have the power to dissolve it if it becomes tyrannical"

Please tell me the law or mechanism, in Federal law, the Constitution, or elsewhere, that describes this mechanism. If it exists, surely Perry would be referring to it.

Shaw: Jose Pedilla? Not the best guy (an actual convicted terrorist) to have on your list.

Anon: You kind of come across as a racist. Put the race card back in the deck.

Satyavati devi dasi said...

I wonder if the Christian Right has come out to all these parties to show their wholehearted support of The Teabagging Movement?

TAO said...

Are you telling me that these tea bag parties are related to some sadistic sexual act?

Anonymous said...

Excuse me? Dmarks: please don't tell me you don't think that some (lots) of the people out there teabagging aren't pissed simply because a black man is in the white house!!!???
I'M not the racist! Read their signs, all the "talking points" are there: socialist, fascist, terrorist, Hitler! You name it. There's a lot of pure hatred out there that has NOTHING to do with spending or the deficit.

dmarks said...

Anon: You raised the race card, not me.

"socialist, fascist, terrorist, Hitler!"

None of which equates to "black man".

"please don't tell me you don't think that some (lots) of the people out there teabagging aren't pissed simply because a black man is in the white house!!!???"

I will tell you this because I saw absolutely no evidence of it at the "party" I observed. More like "none" instead of "some (lots)".

Hard as it may be for you to believe, almost all of the opposition to Obama and his policies have nothing to do with skin color. After all, the same general group of voters who voted against him also voted against John Kerry.

TAO said...

You are right dmarks, when you say, "After all, the same general group of voters who voted against him also voted against John Kerry."

These folks are not racist they just hate having an INTELLIGENT President!

They like Presidents with nicknames like "Dubya" because it rhymes with "Bubba" and they want their President to be the number 1 Bubba of the land....

If you elect someone President because he is someone you would most apt drink a beer with at a bar then you sure don't want to do that with someone who could ruin it all with intelligent conversation!

Give us BUBBA!

Which explains why Sarah Palin should be the standard bearer of the conservatives in 2012...Jindal, Romney, and dumbass from South Carolina just don't look like party animals! They look like WINE DRINKERS!

Sarah can pound a beer or two...

Sarah in 2012 and race has nothing to do with it!

Anonymous said...

You didn't see it so it doesn't exist. Well, I did. But, as usual dmarks is correct. No point arguing.

Anonymous said...

And btw: how am I the racist if I mention something I see that someone else did; i.e. fascist, socialist, marxist, etc.?? How does that make ME the racist. Your twisted brain makes MY head hurt.

dmarks said...

Tao said: "They like Presidents with nicknames like "Dubya" because it rhymes with "Bubba" and they want their President to be the number 1 Bubba of the land...."

The Bush haters tended to use "Dubya", just as "Bubba" was an insult used on Clinton.

Thanks for saying something better than the racist "anon" :)

dmarks said...

Anon: "You didn't see it so it doesn't exist. Well, I did. "

What exactly did you see?

Anon: "But, as usual dmarks is correct. No point arguing."

Usually in regards to you, since you have extremely poor grasp of the facts and use insults when things get beyond your control. And there is nothing lamer than your "they are racist since they called Obama a socialist" argument.

Anon: "How does that make ME the racist."

Because you are injecting race into the subject where it was not before, and are making a big deal over Obama's skin color. When that should NOT matter at all.

Arthurstone said...

Yawn.

I'd wager here's more tea bagging on a typical Saturday night in San Francisco than protestors at yesterday's 'Tea Party'. Fox News & LImbaughian encouragement notwithstanding this is a small group of marginalized types eager to cloak themselves in victimhood.

Boo f**king hoo.

Anonymous said...

dmarks: go back to my original 2 comments and tell me where the racism is? I don't get you.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

Jose Padilla is the PERFECT example because it's supposed to set us apart from every other country in this world--it makes us the "shining city on the hill."

We were once the country that afforded a Constitutional guarantee of due process for ANY LAW BREAKER, even the most degenerate.

That's what made this country great.

George W. Bush imprisioned an American citizen without charging him and by withholding his right to a lawyer.

Jose Padilla is an excellent example of the debauchery of the Constitution under George W. Bush.

dmarks said...

And he ended up convicted in the end. An actual guilty terrorist. Not a good example. To find a good example, find one of the completely innocent people held at Gitmo for a long time and set free.

Shaw Kenawe said...

dmarks,

You're missing the point completely.

dmarks said...

So would anyone else about an actually guilty man serving time in prison.

If you are trying to make the point I think you are, why not use as an example someone who was held without charge who was not an actual terrorism convict?

James Wolfer said...

Dmarks: The point is, the Bush admin held him without charge for a time. Its unconstitutional in and of itself.

And he wasn't convicted of terrorist. He was convicted of conspiracy.

He was only charged when the Supreme Court was gearing up to rule his holding unconstitutional, thereby taking away the power. By formally charging him, finally, they rendered the point legally moot thereby reserving the ability to do so again in the future.

You want someone who is innocent but punished anyway? Read my post a few back about double jeopardy.

James Wolfer said...

Ali al-Marri. Held without charge on the US mainland since 2003. Arrested in the US but never charged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Saleh_Kahlah_al-Marri

dmarks said...

"And he wasn't convicted of terrorist. He was convicted of conspiracy"

What sort of conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

dmarks missing the point??? NO!!

Shaw Kenawe said...

The fact that this country would afford protection even to those who are considered despicable is what the Constitution is about.

Jose Padilla is an American citizen who was deprived of his Constitutional rights when George Bush labeled him an "enemy combatant."

You've also forgotten the shameful action this country took against an innocent Canadian citizen--extraditing him to another country to be tortured.

Whether Padilla was innocent or guilty of any crime does not excuse the Bush administration from breaking the law.

James Wolfer said...

Shaw said it.

Doesn't matter what he was accused of.

Point is, he was labeled an enemy combatant and locked up.

Do you want Bush, or Obama, doing that to you?

Its the Red Scare all over again, except for now its Muslims!

AdamS said...

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

The tea parties started in 07, the real revolution is only just beginning, as more and more citizens demand a return to constitutional limitations of government power.

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised"

AdamS said...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff191.html

"...the Constitution is sustained by the states. If three-fourths of them want to dissolve it, they can."

Since the constitution has already been gutted by the government, it seems logical to dissolve the fed gov and rebuild it in such a way that it obeys the constitution.

There is a growing citizen revolution in America - it's an almost inevitable consequence of currency collapse, unemployment, banker theft, and police state. For now I mean a revolution through law. The tea parties are just the beginning.

And it's not a neocon right-wing revolution, it's a revolution of the people; in fact the liberty movement has grown to be such a threat to the corporate establishment, that it's under an attempted hijack by the FNC neocons (which won't work btw). Believe me, Limbaugh or whoever didn't start this, the people did. The Founding Fathers would roll in their graves if they knew what was allowed to happen to their creation during the last few generations.

Arthurstone said...

AdamS typed:

'There is a growing citizen revolution in America - it's an almost inevitable consequence of currency collapse, unemployment, banker theft, and police state.'

Child's play.

Wait until wars are waged over dwindling resources such as fresh water. Wait until ocean levels rise a couple of feet forcing mass migration even within our borders. Wait until entire populations of unsustainable cities in the American Southwest pull up stakes and head for Minnesota and Washington state. We have problems the 'founding fathers' never could have imagined. While we dither over the 'god-given right' to an AK-47 or cheap gasoline we are missing far larger and far gloomier scenarios.

This stuff now is merely a prelude to far greater difficulties.

Today we have an inconvenience. The bad times still await.

Cheers!

libhom said...

Where did you get that hysterical photo?