Head-Spinning Political Shit!

[MsDemeanor]

The problem is that if all of the reasonable people head north, the nut jobs who are left behind will have control of all the nuclear weapons.

[Gayla]

Well, if they let me have control of the nukes, then I'll stay. I think that's a fair trade.

[Corkey]

http://teapartynationalism.com/index...ion&Itemid=104

In case there was any doubt

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Corkey

http://teapartynationalism.com/index...ion&Itemid=104

In case there was any doubt

Ok I must be behind, again. Is this Sarah Palin's tea party or another tea party?

These people are, pardon my language, majorly f*&^ed.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Ok I must be behind, again. Is this Sarah Palin's tea party or another tea party?

These people are, pardon my language, majorly f*&^ed.

Oh these are the people who run the people who just got elected.
Fun stuff huh?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Corkey

Oh these are the people who run the people who just got elected.
Fun stuff huh?

I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.

Ok I need to read this when I am awake. Thanks for the link.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.

Ok I need to read this when I am awake. Thanks for the link.

All the nuts have fallen from the same tree, they just haven't figured out which nut is in charge.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.

The different factions are each backed by a different wealthy person, corporation, or career politician. Rove is behind some of it, the brothers at Koch Industries (a couple of boys who inherited daddy's fortune and now share the #9 spot of the richest people) are behind a group, etc. Some are also pushing an extreme concoction of the god/guns/gays conservative social agenda, while others want to confine their pile of lies to monetary issues. All of the would be amusing if it were not destroying millions of lives and shredding the very fabric of our country.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I havent been able to read all of the propaganda yet.
But why are there so many factions? Factions usually
indicate dissention in the ranks over specifics.

Ok I need to read this when I am awake. Thanks for the link.

Pretending like there are a zillion factions rather than one central Tea Party is part of the illusion they use to pretend that they are legitimately grass roots.

[dreadgeek]

1) This item from Talking Points Memo: "We've been very involved in CPAC for over a decade and have managed a couple of popular sessions. However, we will no longer be involved with CPAC because of the organization's financial mismanagement and movement away from conservative principles," said Tom McClusky, senior vice president for FRC Action.

"CWA [Concerned Women for America] has decided not to participate in part because of GOProud," CWA President Penny Nance told WND. [Ed. note: Penny Nance's title is chief executive officer of CWA. Another individual, Wendy Wright, holds the title of president.]

This regarding CWA and FRC as well as WorldNet Daily saying that they are pulling out of CPAC (Conservative Political Action Committee) this year because GOProud is being allowed to attend and set up a booth.

2) Having covered "we're conservative and hate gays"* now to the "we're conservative and look, the non-white people are coming right at us!".

The good news is that the right-wing isn't talking about President Obama being a secret Muslim right now. The bad news is that they're now concerned that he's going to use his honorary status as a Crow Tribe Indian to return the United States to Native Americans.

The outrage began after the President announced on December 16 that the U.S. would reverse course and support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. The Declaration was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2007, but the U.S., under President Bush, opposed it.

"The aspirations it affirms -- including the respect for the institutions and rich cultures of Native peoples -- are ones we must always seek to fulfill," the President said of the Declaration at White House Tribal Nations Conference where he announced the reversal. He went on to describe efforts to improve health care, education, and unemployment rates in tribal areas.

"While the declaration is not legally binding, it carries considerable moral and political force," the State Department wrote of the Declaration, "and complements the President's ongoing efforts to address historical inequities faced by indigenous communities in the United States."

Despite this, the right has seized onto some of the language to attack the President -- including Article 26, which says:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.
2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.
3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.
Obama was adopted as an honorary member of the Crow tribe during the 2008 campaign, and was even given the name "One who helps people throughout the land." Most of the outrage lobbed at the President in the wake of the announcement, naturally, references that fact.

Last week, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the Christian conservative American Family Association, Brian Fischer, wrote a blog post claiming that "President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords."

"Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire," Fischer wrote. "But for the other 312 million of us, I think we'll settle for our constitutional 'We the people' form of government, thank you very much."

Yesterday, the right-wing blog World Net Daily took it a step further in a post called "Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans? President believes nation can spare some sovereignty." The article describes how "President Obama is voicing support for a U.N. resolution that could accomplish something as radical as relinquishing some U.S. sovereignty and opening a path for the return of ancient tribal lands to American Indians, including even parts of Manhattan."

Yes, Virginia, this is REALLY happening in the United States.

*Just because it is, for some reason, necessary to say this (although it shouldn't be): my statement is not meant to imply that all conservatives hate gays or that all liberals are filled with sweetness, light and moral perfection. However, we ARE talking about conservative groups, pulling out of a conservative event because of the presence of queers. Trying to pretend that the same thing happens with liberal groups is just nonsense.

Cheers
Aj

[waxnrope]

That shut makes me fighting mad. Then, I stop. Who believes it and why? Gawd, we need to move the government to urgently revamp the disaster which is public education. To commit to curricula inclusive of critical thinking.

[theoddz]

The following is a very interesting editorial article where the commentator explores what would happen if the State of Texas were to succeed from the United States, as some of its more conservative, radical right wingers have suggested. It's quite the interesting read, really.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149...y/?page=entire

Comments??

It makes me really wonder what these so called "Conservatives" who aren't wealthy, but who are actually what might be considered "poor" or socioeconomically below the middle class line would do, if they got what they *think* they want.

~Theo~

[BullDog]

Excellent article Theo. I've been attempting to talk about similar things in a different thread to no avail.

[waxnrope]

Originally Posted by theoddz

The following is a very interesting editorial article where the commentator explores what would happen if the State of Texas were to succeed from the United States, as some of its more conservative, radical right wingers have suggested. It's quite the interesting read, really.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149...y/?page=entire

Comments??

It makes me really wonder what these so called "Conservatives" who aren't wealthy, but who are actually what might be considered "poor" or socioeconomically below the middle class line would do, if they got what they *think* they want.

~Theo~

In other areas, they are getting what they want. Think about the watered down health care bill as an example. Talk about shooting yerself in the foot! Again, I think about the lack of critical thinking taught in schools ...

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by gayla

Well, if they let me have control of the nukes, then I'll stay. I think that's a fair trade.

Yeah, that makes me feel better