Former Alaska governor Palin says she will run for president in 2012 "if there is nobody else to do it"

[craigt3365]

And still no comment on the source of the Tea Party movement funds. Hello? The Koch billionaire brothers and their underwriting of the Tea Party movement? Hello? The group claims it is against corruption, big government, subsidies etc. And yet, a big conglomorate that makes its profits from undertaking all of the activities the current US administration is trying to rein in is a key source of funding. The Tea Party is a front for the same people that brought you the Wall Street fiasco and that are opposed to anything remotely involving a reduction of pollution and the US carbon footprint.

I admit I don't know much about the Tea Party...but at 4PM today, CNN is running a special. Thought some of you might like to know...

[Englander]

Obama didn't have much choice. Either add debt or throw the world into a (bigger) economic meltdown. He did the right thing...but it hurts for sure.

He had a choice.

Now the painful part starts, just like in England, cuts have to be made. It will be interesting to see what they do about this...

What painful part, the US is spending like never before it hasnt made cuts thats not painful he's spending to stay in power and keeping ponzi going for that little bit longer, .... Further to that Britains cuts take govt spending to 2008/9 when Gordon Brown was spending like mad to stay in power ... but because they spin it like there are huge cuts the sheeple swallow the medicine.

Our kids will think this generation were fcuken stoopid asshles who spent their future and theyre correct. (just as i think of the baby boomers)

[phaethon]

Double post - mods may delete

[phaethon]

According to BBC News website someone had a placard at yesterday's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear which read "Palin-Voldermort 2012"

[craigt3365]

According to BBC News website someone had a placard at yesterday's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear which read "Palin-Voldermort 2012"

Thanks...that made my day!!!

[chuckd]

And still no comment on the source of the Tea Party movement funds. Hello? The Koch billionaire brothers and their underwriting of the Tea Party movement? Hello? The group claims it is against corruption, big government, subsidies etc. And yet, a big conglomorate that makes its profits from undertaking all of the activities the current US administration is trying to rein in is a key source of funding. The Tea Party is a front for the same people that brought you the Wall Street fiasco and that are opposed to anything remotely involving a reduction of pollution and the US carbon footprint.

I admit I don't know much about the Tea Party...but at 4PM today, CNN is running a special. Thought some of you might like to know...

It really isn't that hard to learn a little something about the movement. Here are a few links to help:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/tea-party-obama.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201004/tea-party-members-revealed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

If you fall for the main stream media version, as Jingthing apparently has, this additional link will fit right in. This is the Huffington Post take on the recent surveys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/tea-party-survey-old-cons_n_522336.html

By the way, I have already watched the CNN episode. Ir pretty well falls into the MSM range of reporting. You can see the same thing on MSNBC virtually every day.

[craigt3365]

And still no comment on the source of the Tea Party movement funds. Hello? The Koch billionaire brothers and their underwriting of the Tea Party movement? Hello? The group claims it is against corruption, big government, subsidies etc. And yet, a big conglomorate that makes its profits from undertaking all of the activities the current US administration is trying to rein in is a key source of funding. The Tea Party is a front for the same people that brought you the Wall Street fiasco and that are opposed to anything remotely involving a reduction of pollution and the US carbon footprint.

I admit I don't know much about the Tea Party...but at 4PM today, CNN is running a special. Thought some of you might like to know...

It really isn't that hard to learn a little something about the movement. Here are a few links to help:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/tea-party-obama.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201004/tea-party-members-revealed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

If you fall for the main stream media version, as Jingthing apparently has, this additional link will fit right in. This is the Huffington Post take on the recent surveys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/tea-party-survey-old-cons_n_522336.html

By the way, I have already watched the CNN episode. Ir pretty well falls into the MSM range of reporting. You can see the same thing on MSNBC virtually every day.

Thanks for the links. I will check them out for sure. I don't watch CNN every day, but several times a week. It's hard keeping up on events back home when we are so busy with all the fun stuff going on here!

[craigt3365]

And still no comment on the source of the Tea Party movement funds. Hello? The Koch billionaire brothers and their underwriting of the Tea Party movement? Hello? The group claims it is against corruption, big government, subsidies etc. And yet, a big conglomorate that makes its profits from undertaking all of the activities the current US administration is trying to rein in is a key source of funding. The Tea Party is a front for the same people that brought you the Wall Street fiasco and that are opposed to anything remotely involving a reduction of pollution and the US carbon footprint.

I admit I don't know much about the Tea Party...but at 4PM today, CNN is running a special. Thought some of you might like to know...

It really isn't that hard to learn a little something about the movement. Here are a few links to help:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/04/tea-party-obama.html

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201004/tea-party-members-revealed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

If you fall for the main stream media version, as Jingthing apparently has, this additional link will fit right in. This is the Huffington Post take on the recent surveys:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/01/tea-party-survey-old-cons_n_522336.html

By the way, I have already watched the CNN episode. Ir pretty well falls into the MSM range of reporting. You can see the same thing on MSNBC virtually every day.

I watched this last night. It's not something you would see everyday as it is more of historical show. How it got going, who the major players are, how they have fared over the past few years in contests, etc. Sure, the tea party is in the news on a daily basis, but this was a good show to watch to get an overall perspective. And they did a fairly good job of balanced reporting. Both good and bad.

[powderpuff]

... but she is totally unqualified and I am positive that she would lose against pretty much anybody.

Hussein is equally unqualified. Now he can add totally failed as president to his resume.

Socialism stinks.

[powderpuff]

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. (Sound familiar? It's the Tea Party Manifesto summed up).

I say the Tea Party are saps and are being used by some seriously greedy dangerous nasty people.

So how come when Hussein stands up & lies to the American public & the world at large - no media call him out on it?

Yesterday at a rally he said that Repubs had no interest in funding AIDS research. huh? I guess if you were born yest as Hussein seems to have been that's your understanding.

Notwithstanding he told a group of Hispanics that conservatives are "the enemy". The dear leader leading. Rick Santorum would get my vote.

[geriatrickid]

The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industryespecially environmental regulation. (Sound familiar? It's the Tea Party Manifesto summed up).

I say the Tea Party are saps and are being used by some seriously greedy dangerous nasty people.

So how come when Hussein stands up & lies to the American public & the world at large - no media call him out on it?

Yesterday at a rally he said that Repubs had no interest in funding AIDS research. huh? I guess if you were born yest as Hussein seems to have been that's your understanding.

Notwithstanding he told a group of Hispanics that conservatives are "the enemy". The dear leader leading. Rick Santorum would get my vote.

Well first off, when people resort to cheap shots they start off in a weak position. If you are refering to President Barack Obama, then use his name as such. Yes, his middle name is Hussein. So what? That was his father's name. Is there a crime in having the name Hussein? Does the name Hussein label sommeone as evil? If that was the case than the various George's that held were POTUS would be tainted since they shared a name with King George that tried to stop independence. The use of the name Hussein is intended to play to the worst fears of ignorant people. OOOOOOOOO his name is Hussein. He must be evil. Get a grip. There are millions of people in the world named Hussein and not everyone is a terrorist. Is it his fault he was named Hussein? Is it a child's fault that he is named Horace or Herbert or Horatio or Herman? Does it mean Horace will be a whore, Herbert's a pervert, Horatio likes fellatio and Herman is a fat depraved junkie?

The reference to the term "enemy" was a slip up. The President goofed. He has withdrawn the comment and apologized. People make slip ups. If someone admits wrong and no harm is done, then rational people move on.

The comment on the funding of AIDS research is accurate. The proposal put out by the Republicans is to implement large cuts in spending on such activities. There really wasn't any impetus on AIDS research under the previous Bush administration. What President Bush did achieve and it will be his legacy was the funding of social aid projects in Africa that will directly benefit those with AIDS. Note that the previous Bush administration refused to allow full stem cell research and it cost the US terribly in terms of scientific advancement. There is something very sad when stalwarts like Nancy Reagan have to argue on behalf of stem cell research.

There is far too much polarization in US politics. The people raging against President Obama expected immediate changes despite the fact that the Republicans delayed those changes. When President Obama took office he inherited a mess and jobs were being lost at a horrific pace. Within 3 months he stopped that bleeding. He worked with what he had which was a government that had been run as a free for all with financial institutions doing as they pleased.

I note the attempt to blame the Dodd Frank legislation for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Nope. President Bush was in charge. He was alarmed by what he saw happening and wanted to do something, or at least that is what he claims. I believe him. He was blocked by "Republican" legislators and lobbyists that said no. I wouldn't even call these people Republicans as they certainly do not represent the GOP. Rather those vested interests are more aligned to the Tea Party sentiments of selfishness and greed.

You still haven't addressed the charade that is the Tea Party and that their largest source of funding comes from the Kochs. How can a group claim to be representing the typical american when it is funded by groups like the Kochs and staffed by old time extremist Republicans? Remember Lee Atwater? Well, he's at the helm of the organization now. That is hardly indicative of regular folk. As Sarah Palin likes to whine, "he's in the beltway, yuck, yuck, yuck."

[Englander]

A cracking article about the Tea Party and reclaiming our freedom from govt. in The Telegraph.

Arriving back at Heathrow late on Sunday night I felt - as you do on returning to Britain these days – as if I were entering a failed state. It's not just the Third World shabbiness which is so dispiriting. It's the knowledge that from its surveillance cameras to its tax regime, from its (mostly) EU-inspired regulations to its whole attitude to the role of government, Britain is a country which has forgotten what it means to be free.

God how I wish I were American right now. In the US they may not have the Cairngorms, the River Wye, cream teas, University Challenge, Cotswold villages or decent curries. But they do still understand the principles of "don't tread on me" and "live free or die." Not all of them, obviously – otherwise a socialist like Barack Obama would never have got into power. But enough of them to understand that in the last 80 or more years – and not just in the US but throughout the Western world – government has forgotten its purpose. It has now grown so arrogant and swollen as to believe its job is to shape and improve and generally interfere with our lives. And it's not. Government's job is to act as our humble servant.

What's terrifying is how few of us there are left anywhere in the supposedly free world who properly appreciate this. Sure, we may feel in our hearts that – as Dick Armey and Matt Kibbe put it in their Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party manifesto – "We just want to be free. Free to lead our lives as we please, so long as we do not infringe on the same freedom of others". And we may even confide it to our friends after a few drinks. But look at Australia; look at Canada; look at New Zealand; look at anywhere in the EUSSR; look at America – at least until things begin to be improved by today's glorious revolution. Wherever you go, even if it's somewhere run by a notionally "conservative" administration, the malaise you will encounter is much the same: a system of governance predicated on the notion that the state's function is not merely to uphold property rights, maintain equality before the law and defend borders, but perpetually to meddle with its citizens' lives in order supposedly to make their existence more fair, more safe, more eco-friendly, more healthy. And always the result is the same: more taxation, more regulation, less freedom. Less "fairness" too, of course.

Rarely have I felt more despondent about the world's future than I do right now, Britain's especially. At least when Blair and Brown were in charge, busily ruining things, there was always the consolation that soon would come the backlash which would see a decent, small-state, conservative administration regaining power and the country's fortunes restored. This hasn't happened. The similarities between the Eton Grocer's Coalition and the New Labour government he ousted are far greater than the differences. All are run by a professional political mandarin class in the interests of the professional political mandarin class. The Big Society – contra a bizarre leader in this week's Spectator – has very little to do with rolling back the frontiers of the State. It's about entrenching Tony Blair's Third Way socialism-lite, only under a zappy new name. For even the merest glimmer of hope about the future, the only place to look right now is across the Atlantic.

And this is why I'm more excited than an Englishman has any right to be about today's mid-term US elections. As Scott Edwards, president of Republican Party Animals put it yesterday: "Tonight is a lot like the night before Christmas when you were a kid. You knew the next day was going to be great, but you didn't quite know how great, and you were much too excited to sleep." I agree with him. Not even with Margaret Thatcher's first victory in 1979 or the Gipper's in 1980 was there an election with quite so much at stake. We're talking about the future not just of the US here, but of Western Civilisation itself.

If this isn't obvious, let me explain why. As you all know, since Climategate I've been dedicating far more of my time than is healthy to exposing the great Global Warming scam. This is not because I've suddenly realised I'm a scientist manque who wants to spend the rest of his life obsessing about forcings, feedbacks and solar radiation. It's because I understand that "Environmentalism" is but one strategically significant theatre in a much greater ideological war being waged across the world. It's the same one Toby Young is fighting over education; the same one the likes of Rod Liddle, Andrew Gilligan, Nick Cohen and Mark Steyn are fighting over political Islam; the same one Melanie Phillips is fighting over Israel. And its ultimate outcome is at least as important as those of the ones we fought in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. At stake is exactly the same thing the Greek alliance fought for when Western Civilisation was born at Salamis in 480 BC; the same thing we citizens of the West have been fighting for ever since: the right to forge our own destinies as free men and women, rather than remain infantilised, oppressed and enslaved as vassals of a tyrant state.

Sure there's no comparison (well not that much) between Obama's US and Stalin's Soviet Union; Coalition Britain and Mao's China; Julia Gillard's Australia and Queen Ranavalona's Madagascar; sure the war we're currently fighting doesn't involve mass destruction like that of World Wars I and II. But it's precisely because the ideological struggle we're currently engaged in is so seemingly democratic and innocuous that it is in fact so dangerous. With Hitler and Stalin it was easy: the enemy was plain in view. Today's encroaching tyranny is an of altogether more subtle, slippery variety. It takes the form of the steady "engrenage" – ratcheting – of EU legislation; of the stealthy removal of property rights and personal liberty under the UN's Agenda 21; of the eco-legislation created by democratically unaccountable bodies like America's Environmental Protection Agency; of the stealthy encroachment of the Big Government into the most intimate recesses of our daily lives – not just under barely disguised socialist administrations like Obama's even under notionally "Centre right" ones such as Cameron's or Sarkozy's. When the Enemy is as sly and insidious as that, it's much much harder for the increasingly oppressed populace to rouse itself to the appropriate state of alarm and rebellion.

That's why today I say: "Thank God for the Tea Party!" Though it has been typically misrepresented by the liberal media as a rattlers' nest of gun-toting fruitcakes who want to ban masturbation and abortion, it is, of course, nothing of the kind. It is – whatever the increasingly redundant Moonbat may claim – a genuine grass roots movement inspired by the one great political cause truly worth fighting and dying for: the cause of liberty.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100061751/only-the-tea-party-can-save-us-now/

[canuckamuck]

Englander, you're alright.

[craigt3365]

Great article. Thanks for sharing! The Tea Party has some "nutters" for sure, but then they are everywhere. If they can help reduce the size of government...and help get rid of politicians feeling they are entitled to everything under the sun....then God bless them.

The Gettysburg Address excerpt, Abraham Lincoln:

government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

---------------------------------------------

Seems government has forgotten this....

[cdnvic]

I posted a warning about name calling, and referring to other's political beliefs in derogatory terms. This time I deleted the post, next inflammatory comment will garner a lengthy suspension. This includes referring to persons with intentional misuse of their name.

[Jingthing]

Great article. Thanks for sharing! The Tea Party has some "nutters" for sure, but then they are everywhere. If they can help reduce the size of government...and help get rid of politicians feeling they are entitled to everything under the sun....then God bless them.

The Gettysburg Address excerpt, Abraham Lincoln:

government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

---------------------------------------------

Seems government has forgotten this....

Hate to burst your bubble but the tea party people are more like --

government of Fox News Corp, by Fox News Corp, for Fox News Corp, top Fox News Corp ratings shall not perish from cable televison

So help me, GLENN BECK

At Rupert Murdoch's cable network, the entity that birthed and nurtured the Tea Party movement, Election Day was the culmination of two years of hard work to bring down Barack Obama - and it was time for an on-air celebration of a job well done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207572.html

[craigt3365]

Great article. Thanks for sharing! The Tea Party has some "nutters" for sure, but then they are everywhere. If they can help reduce the size of government...and help get rid of politicians feeling they are entitled to everything under the sun....then God bless them.

The Gettysburg Address excerpt, Abraham Lincoln:

government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth

---------------------------------------------

Seems government has forgotten this....

Hate to burst your bubble but the tea party people are more like --

government of Fox News Corp, by Fox News Corp, for Fox News Corp, top Fox News Corp ratings shall not perish from cable televison

So help me, GLENN BECK

At Rupert Murdoch's cable network, the entity that birthed and nurtured the Tea Party movement, Election Day was the culmination of two years of hard work to bring down Barack Obama - and it was time for an on-air celebration of a job well done.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207572.html

Yeah, that's sad. I know 2 of their candidates were a bit on the fringe. O'Donnell and Angle...they didn't get elected. But that Ron Paul guys seems fairly well centered, but I have not really read much about him. Just saw his winning speech the other day.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican party deals with this group...and where they go from here. But, not a bad start for a grass roots party. I can't even imagine having to compete with the powerhouses of the 2 dominant parties. Takes guts for sure.

[Jingthing]

Ron Paul well centered? That is hilarious. Ron Paul wasn't running. That's the famous libertarian Dad. RAND PAUL won, Ron Paul's son. He is among the most radical of the tea party people (also an extremist libertarian, look up what that means) and also will probably lead the tea party people coalition. You really should do some research before commenting on such things.

Rand Paul is very much out of the American mainstream. To wit --

The entire tea party people movement is more than a bit on the fringe. But these are strange and very hard times in the US so the rise of radical fringe far right wing groups is rather predictable. The empire is crumbling and too many people don't want to face it like adults. Things are clearly going to get a lot worse before they start to get better.

[Jingthing]

Some other radical Rand Paul positions --

-- he favors abolishing the US department of education

-- he favors abolishing the Federal Reserve

-- he is against government industrial safety regulations (you know the kind of laws that prevent too many mining deaths, etc.)

-- he is against against ANY government bailouts no matter how dire the emergency. Note that the Bush/Obama financial bailouts are credited by most mainstream economists as saving the entire world from a great depression. The auto industry bailouts which saved so many jobs have been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST.

This movement is indeed radical right wing, with a capital R.

It is one thing to make noise as an outsider and complain for political gain. But good leaders, when push come to shove, make the hard decisions that need to be made in a severe crisis. Even George W Bush did this with the financial bailouts before he left office, and that is one thing he really deserves credit for. With a Rand Paul in the driver's seat, would you trust such a radical right wing libertarian ideologue to make the correct decisions? No. They are driven by being true believers.

[Englander]

The empire is crumbling and too many people don't want to face it like adults.

They Tea Party want to balance the budget and pay off the debt ..... The Dems and Reps have spent like there is no tomorrow and are intent on spending like never before if it werent for the Tea party's rise.

Now what is doing the right thing balancing the budget and paying off your debt, or keep on spending so the young of America have to pay it off.

Jing you are so blinkered in your views its untrue.

PS The Tea Party are the only entity who openly speak of bring troops home from foreign wars .... good to see your crocodile tears and blatant hypocrisy on this issue.

[Jingthing]

They Tea Party want to balance the budget and pay off the debt ..... The Dems and Reps have spent like there is no tomorrow and are intent on spending like never before if it werent for the Tea party's rise.

A time when you are in danger of rapidly entering a great depression is not the time to make debt the top priority. On the day of this so called game changing election, the fed, in all its wisdom went the opposite direction with a huge stimulus spend, and probably more coming. The fed was right to do that. BTW, the tea party people and the republicans aren't really serious about balancing the budget, if so, they would openly talk about renegotiating entitlements (as Obama has said he is open to discussing) but the right wingers do no such thing. There are tweaks that could easily fix the problems with social security (raising the income cap and tweaking retirement ages). Medicare will be much harder but the longer government waits to address it, the more impossible it gets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110305412.html

[Englander]

Here this is from Wiki, im sure there is more truth in it then what you write.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

-- he favors abolishing the US department of education

Paul supports returning control of education to local communities and parents and thus eliminating the federal Department of Education, but he says that some functions of the Department of Education, such as disbursing student loans and Pell Grants, should be transferred to other departments instead of being eliminated.[129][130] Paul opposes federal regulation of homeschooling.

-- he favors abolishing the Federal Reserve

He also opposes the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the Federal Reserve's control of the money supply and interest rates. He has advocated allowing the free market to regulate interest rates, and supports Congress' constitutional role in controlling the money supply. Paul endorses H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, a bill, introduced by his father, mandating an audit of the Federal Reserve. Although Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve, he supports transparency and accountability of the semi-private institution. Additionally, Paul opposes inflation and supports "restoring the value of the dollar that has devalued by approximately 95% since the Federal Reserve's inception in 1913".[124]

Paul supports tax cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment, and has criticized both Republicans and Democrats on deficit spending.[125]

-- he is against against ANY government bailouts no matter how dire the emergency. Note that the Bush/Obama financial bailouts are credited by most mainstream economists as saving the entire world from a great depression. The auto industry bailouts which saved so many jobs have been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST.

Its called capitalism comrade! But you clearly support bailing out the banks and printing money, clearly showing who is the extremist.

And the only economist who claimed the bailout saved the world was Grodon brown and he truly is a fcuken nutjob and up there with the worst economists in the Mugabe regime.

[Jingthing]

You're totally wrong. The fact that the Bush/Obama finance industry bailouts were desperately needed to avoid a total global meltdown is indeed mainstream economic thought. Of course, the specifics of it are debatable. Many including me feel the bailouts all around should have been MUCH BIGGER, and if they had, there would have been a lot more noticeable progress by now. Yes the bailouts were expensive, but not doing them would have been a lot more expensive in the long run. Obama faced a political problem with this, people really are hurting bad, it is very difficult to sell that politically, if he hadn't done what he did, a lot more people would be hurting badly. But the politics of this is not the same thing as the reality of it.

[Englander]

The bank bailouts whether they saved the economy we will never truly know or as for the bailouts of failed businesses we'll know in the future ... but if they fail again im taking it you support another bailout.

But ive shown 2 of your points on education and the federal reserve are totally taken out of context and he is offering viable alternatives.

But i believe that when speakers for Tea Party talk about making abortions illegal, banning canabis etc.. theyre contradicting themselves ... you cant do this without being a police state ... you either want freedom or you dont

[Jingthing]

Most tea party people are also social conservatives. Not all, but most. So that means, as any American knows,

against the constitutional separation of church and state, they are often quite openly pro Christian theist

anti-gay

anti immigrant

anti abortion rights

and of course pro drug enforcement (to be fair, the vast majority of Americans still wouldn't vote to totally legalize cannabis for more than medical purposes, more or less proven in the recent California initiative vote)

You are naive if you believe they represent a pure "freedom" message. Hardly.

Although of course I deeply oppose the tea party fanatics, I am hopeful in the long run that they move the republican party (which is already right wing) so far right that they in effect castrate the R party from taking the presidency for a long, long time. For example if they run with Palin they will be slaughtered.

[Englander]

Most tea party people are also social conservatives. Not all, but most. So that means, as any American knows,

against the constitutional separation of church and state, they are often quite openly pro Christian theist

anti-gay

anti immigrant

anti abortion rights

and of course pro drug enforcement (to be fair, the vast majority of Americans still wouldn't vote to totally legalize cannabis for more than medical purposes, more or less proven in the recent California initiative vote)

You are naive if you believe they represent a pure "freedom" message. Hardly.

Although of course I deeply oppose the tea party fanatics, I am hopeful in the long run that they move the republican party (which is already right wing) so far right that they in effect castrate the R party from taking the presidency for a long, long time. For example if they run with Palin they will be slaughtered.

IM of the opinion that the majority of people on the demonised right just want to get on with their lives peacefully and think others should be able to do as they please.

[Jingthing]

IM of the opinion that the majority of people on the demonised right just want to get on with their lives peacefully and think others should be able to do as they please.

If you are talking about the American far right, you are objectively wrong about that simply based on their very public policy statements (as noted above). But believe what you want.

One clear example, what kind of supreme court judges do you reckon a President Palin would select? Those favoring making abortion illegal? Of course! Those favoring no equal rights for gay people? Of course! Those who see the US as a "Christian" nation (maybe good for right wing Christians, but what about Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-believers)? Of course!

Next ...

[Ulysses G.]

The "far right" would be the American Nazi party, the racist militias and other such loons. They have nothing to do with the Republicans OR the Tea Party.

[Jingthing]

The "far right" would be the American Nazi party, the racist militias and other such loons. They have nothing to do with the Republicans OR the Tea Party.

No, they would simply be more far right. You know I am right about the kind of supreme court judge a President Palin would pick, why don't you just admit that?

BTW, some of those "loon" groups you mentioned do indeed have quite a lot in common with the typical tea party person in regards to American isolationism, anti-immigration policies, anti-Muslim, and being pro Christian theocracy, also being almost entirely white. One big difference of course is that I don't feel the tea partiers are overtly anti-semitic.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-25/tea-party-embraces-pro-life-christian-conservative-ideals/

The Alaska election results underscore the extent to which the Tea Party movement and its candidates—strongly anti-abortion rights politicians such as Miller, Sharron Angle in Nevada, Marco Rubio in Florida, Rand Paul in Kentucky, and Ken Buck in Colorado—have come to be affiliated with Christian conservative ideals, even as Tea Party organizers say they have little interest in social issues.

...

Elizabeth Shipp, political director of NARAL: Pro-Choice America, told The Daily Beast, “You’re seeing a lot of these crazy Tea Party candidates make it through primaries,” noting that the movement’s increasing anti-abortion rights identity could hamper its ability to appeal to independent voters, more than half of whom support abortion rights, compared to just 26 percent of self-described Tea Partiers.

“These are extreme social conservatives,” Shipp said.

[chuckd]

-- he is against against ANY government bailouts no matter how dire the emergency. Note that the Bush/Obama financial bailouts are credited by most mainstream economists as saving the entire world from a great depression. The auto industry bailouts which saved so many jobs have been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST.

You might want to get your facts straight. Your statement"The auto industry bailouts which saved so many jobs have been PAID BACK WITH INTEREST." is a very large stretch of your imagination.

1. Ford Motor Company received no bailout money, thus there is no need for a payback.

2. Chrysler Motor Company received $14.3 Billion in loans, of which $3.9 Billion had been repaid as of May 2010.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chrysler-pays-back-19-billion-in-federal-debt-2010-05-17

3. The truth about General Motors follows:

________________________________________________

Uncle Sam gave GM $49.5 billion last summer in aid to finance its bankruptcy. (If it hadn't, the company, which couldn't raise this kind of money from private lenders, would have been forced into liquidation, its assets sold for scrap.) So when Whitacre publishes a column with the headline, "The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full," most ordinary mortals unfamiliar with bailout minutia would assume that he is alluding to the entire $49.5 billion. That, however, is far from the case.

Because a loan of such a huge amount would have been politically controversial, the Obama administration handed GM only $6.7 billion as a pure loan. (It asked for only a 7 percent interest rate—a very sweet deal considering that GM bonds at that time were trading below junk level.) The vast bulk of the bailout money was transferred to GM through the purchase of 60.8 percent equity stake in the company—arguably an even worse deal for taxpayers than the loan, given that the equity position requires them to bear the risk of the investment without any guaranteed return. (The Canadian government likewise gave GM $1.4 billion as a pure loan, and another $8.1 billion for an 11.7 percent equity stake. The U.S. and Canadian government together own 72.5 percent of the company.)

But when Whitacre says GM has paid back the bailout money in full, he means not the entire $49.5 billion—the loan and the equity. In fact, he avoids all mention of that figure in his column. He means only the $6.7 billion loan amount.

But wait! Even that's not the full story given that GM, which has not yet broken even, much less turned a profit, can't pay even this puny amount from its own earnings.

So how is it paying it?

As it turns out, the Obama administration put $13.4 billion of the aid money as "working capital" in an escrow account when the company was in bankruptcy. The company is using this escrow money—government money—to pay back the government loan.

GM claims that the fact that it is even using the escrow money to pay back the loan instead of using it all to shore itself up shows that it is on the road to recovery. That actually would be a positive development—although hardly one worth hyping in ads and columns—if it were not for a further plot twist.

Sean McAlinden, chief economist at the Ann Arbor-based Center for Automotive Research, points out that the company has applied to the Department of Energy for $10 billion in low (5 percent) interest loan to retool its plants to meet the government's tougher new CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. However, giving GM more taxpayer money on top of the existing bailout would have been a political disaster for the Obama administration and a PR debacle for the company. Paying back the small bailout loan makes the new—and bigger—DOE loan much more feasible.

In short, GM is using government money to pay back government money to get more government money. And at a 2 percent lower interest rate at that. This is a nifty scheme to refinance GM's government debt—not pay it back!

GM boasts that, because it is doing so well, it is paying the $6.7 billion five years ahead of schedule since it was not due until 2015. So will there be an accelerated payback of the rest of the $49.6 billion investment? No. That goal has been pushed back, as it turns out.

In order to recover that investment, the government has to sell its equity. It plans to do that only when GM becomes a publicly traded company once again. GM was hoping to turn a profit by the end of 2010 and float an initial public offering this winter. However, GM Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell, when queried about that timeline a few days ago, demurred. The offering will be made, he said, "when the markets and the company are ready."

The reality is that there is no certainty that GM will ever be able to make taxpayers whole. Some analysts such as Center for Automotive Research's Sean McAlinden and Global Insight's George Magliano believe that it will—eventually. McAlinden maintains that this will happen when the company's market capitalization touches $60 billion. (At GM's peak in 2000, this level was only $57 billion.) This is a challenging but not an impossible goal—provided the economy does not dip into another recession, he maintains. Magliano too maintains that the company will be able to pay back taxpayers if the industry is able to ramp up annual vehicle sales from the expected 10.8 million this year to 17 million in 2014 and GM captures 20 percent of these sales.

and the link: and the link: http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/general-motors-economy-bailout-opinions-columnists-shikha-dalmia.html

________________________________________________________

General Motors repaid the government using government money placed in an escrow account at the time of the original government bailout.

More here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/grassley-slams-gm-administration-loans-repaid-bailout-money/

Google "GM payback of bailout" for even more links.