Only in Livingston County.
The Livingston County Daily Press & Argus is reporting on a Genoa Township woman who plans to change things by writing anti-government and anti-Obama graffiti on her garage door. I have a better idea: vote.
What is even more amazing is her motivation and her mission. The article claims the rightwing Republican decided to deface her garage because “The final straw occurred when the federal government bailed out insurance giant American International Group Inc. within the past year.” Perhaps someone should tell her AIG received $85 billon and the government received a 79.9 percent stake in the insurer in Sept. 16, 2008. George Bush was the president when that occurred.
She is urging other “tea baggers” to create “a grassroots movement to speak out against the Big Government Spending that our Country's current Administration has made clear it will continue.” Funny how she ignores the then record deficit Bush ran up to rebuild a country he destroyed for no real reason that be conned the country into fighting. She also ignores the Bush recession President Obama is trying to reverse by spending the money in the U.S. instead of in Iraq.
But hey, if a small minority wants to deface their homes with graffiti, be my guest. The good news is they are a small minority.
24 comments:
How dare this woman express her own opinion on her own garage door!
How shocking! Doesn't she know that all opinions must be cleared through the guru thought police?
It never ceases to amaze me how much you fear other opinions.
Me? I think opinions are fine. The false ones eventually fall to the force of free-flowing information. And even when I disagree with something, I sometimes learn from it.
You criticize the tea parties. You criticize this woman. Too bad for you that the First Amendment still exists.
No wonder you harp so much about fascism. It's in your blood.
You do have great timing. From the AP today:
WASHINGTON — The federal deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time ever and could grow to nearly $2 trillion by this fall, intensifying fears about higher interest rates, inflation and the strength of the dollar.
The deficit has been widened by the huge sum the government has spent to ease the recession, combined with a sharp decline in tax revenues. The cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also is a major factor.
If I really “fear other opinions,” brett, then why would I let you express your baseless opinions? I would think graffiti is graffiti, but he absurdity of it is she is doing it because of the AIG bailout and her dislike of President Obama, but it was under Bush that the bailout occurred.
For the right wingers to scream First Amendment is a bad joke when it was a mere three years ago supporters of the last president claim his critics were aiding the enemy with their criticism of him.
Now my question is to this lady since most of these bailouts happen under the Bush White House where was her outrage then? I've heard of delay reactions but damn, this lady waited what a year to be pissed off. I know I'm taking up what Guru already said in his article but it has to be said. And it's a very good question for those on the right.
Where was this anger of government spending when George W.Bush and the Republican majority were acting like a teenagers in a mall with their brand new credit card? I certainly didn't hear one right winger scream about government spending when Bush was asking for whatever and the Republicans rubber stamping it.
From my point of view it seems that this lady and many of those on the political right only found their concern about government spending when the presidency changed political parties.
Little Johnny has it wrong. So does this lady with the garage, although she her one leg to stand on is a little firmer.
First, Bush didn't do the spending. The Congress did. The Republican Congress did. From the time Bush took office until the end of 2006, it was the Republican Congress guilty of spending and President Bush guilty of not vetoing the excessive spending. So what happened? The Republicans got booted out on their butts in the election of 2006.
It's also worth noting that the hard times didn't come until the Democrats took office in 2007. It took until October of 2007 for the financial industry to start falling apart, but that was still ten months after the Democrats started controlling the purse strings, and remember, it's Congress that controls the purse strings, not the President.
As for Obama, he has had a Democrat Congress that is willing to give him everything he wants. Yes, there were three Republicans that joined with the Democrats to get the stimulus bill through, but one of them changed to the Democrat party and the other two are liberal Republicans (Collins and Snowe).
So is Obama guilty of this excessive spending? Yes, but with a caveat. He's talked the Democrats in Congress into giving him everything he's wanted. So the lady with the garage is focusing on Obama when it really should be focused on the socialist Democrats in Congress AND Obama.
Bush was guilty for not vetoing the Republicans outrageous spending, and Obama is guilty for advocating for the outrageous spending. It cost the Republicans the election in 2006. What's happening now will cost the Socialist Democrats in 2010.
The economic problems now belong to Obama. He's taken a record deficit of $500 billion and shattered it. It's now double what Bush had and it's about to be doubled again before this year is out.
Dance around it with your blame of Bush all you like, there is no hiding from the facts. Republicans spent and cost themselves the election in 06. Bush didn't veto.
Democrats spent during 07 and the recession came. Democrats have really spent in 09 and Obama not only hasn't vetoed the spending, but he's advocated for this spending.
Johnny, Obama also voted for those bailouts that he teamed up with Bush to pass. All of them.
He owns them as much as anyone.
The only bigger joke than Obama his the collection of jokers he came from before his current job - the US Senate.
When will I learn? I assumed you had accurately portrayed this lady in your post. But you didn't. I went back to the newpaper web site archives and read the story. You rant about things that weren't written and are inaccurate.
Although she clearly is a conservative and not a fan of Obama, her campaign is against "government" and not against Democrats. She said the final straw was the AIG bailout. She never blamed that on Democrats...she blamed it on government. It is telling that you made the leap from big government to Democrats.
Nowhere in the story are tea baggers mentioned, but you say she is urging other tea baggers to "crate" (or create, which is what you probably intended) a grassroots movement. So anyone who doesn't agree with your socialist agenda is by definition a "tea bagger." There is nothing in the story that indicates she even knows about the tea bag movement. But what if she does?
She is expressing her opinion in in a clear, civil, orderly way. But you go bananas because she dares express an opinion. I'm glad you are such a failure in life...a guy like you with power would be scary.
You use terms like graffiti and "deface her garage." Technically, I guess it is "graffiti" although it is on her own property. Hard to say she is defacing her garage when the message can be removed and both she and her husband...who own the garage...think it is fine. But in guru's world, he gets to decide how other people use their property.
I have a better idea, he says: Vote. How arrogant and stupid can one man be? (I know, guru will show us the answer to that.) Are you suggesting that she doesn't vote? What is your basis for that? My guess is that she does vote. One son ran for school board; it sounds like they discuss politics in their family. They seem engaged so they probably vote and, in Genoa, the majority voted for McCain.
Why do you have such a hard time with freedom of expression? Why in the world would you try to ridicule a person getting involved?
(Go ahead and run your usual attack rants about how bad Bush was and how wonderful Obama is. But please note, I never said whether or not I agree with her position. I do agree with her expressing her opinion; and I applaud her for it.
Boy the talking point gang is out in force today, it seems those on the right want to forget the last eight years which is ironic because Guru latest post is talking about that thing.
Bush had a rubber stamp congress six of his eight years and anything he wanted his Republican hitchmen in the congress made sure it got through. And thanks to Republican support for deleregualtion which cause the current collaspe. Another point I notice flew over the heads of the right wing posters is that I said if you and that lady are so upset with government spending where was this outrage in 2002,2003,2004,2005 and 2006? Where Bush passed budget after budget with hidden spending projects.
Again right wingers if you're going to base your "protest" on the outrageous amount of government spending then don't get mad or lie when someone reminds you of the type of outladish government spending that went on with the government you pretty goose step to.
Michigan Republican or whatever the hell you call yourself I remember the right wing backlash against the Dixie Chicks for a little comment.
Johnny C....I'm sure you thought you were making a point...if it were discernable, I might respond to it.
So...if I understand it right, unless you have demonstrated that you were critical of the last administration, you lose all right to comment today about government. Is that it? Interesting.
By the way, will you and guru (if you are indeed different people), send me copies of all your criticism of the Clinton administration? Because surely you wouldn't criticize Bush if you hadn't first criticized Clinton. Unless you are going to make the argument that Clinton was perfect. Then, that would make Obama the Third Coming of Jesus Christ, not the Second.
What a broken record. Anything that doesn't "goose step" to Obama and you say: But, but, George Bush did a bad job.
The point is that the right didn't afford the same quality of dissent when your guy was in power. It seems to me the right just re-discover freedom of speech when the presidency changes political hands. If you want to bash President Obama go right ahead but remember the things you are complaining about today were things you supported yesterday.
All I'm saying if you're going to shit your pants about government spending with President Obama where was the same desire to make sure that future generations didn't had to pay off the massive debts when Bush and the Republicans were in charge? Like Guru said by now most of you guys pretty much threw Bush under the bus once he exited stage right.
Nobody suggest Clinton was prefect and fault free but come on now you guys are acting like this massive debt was racked up in six months of the Obama presidency not the past eight years of the Bush's presidency.
As to the goose stepping, I was refering to when Bush wanted something the Republican congress granted it to him and other than Ron Paul on certain issues the Republicans in congress, right wing talk radio and to the average right wing republican voter themselves didn't say one thing that went against what Bush wanted.
Little Johnny of course, has it all wrong again. If you look back to my earlier post, you'd see that I laid the spending at the feet of the Republican congress as I did the Democrat congress. However, look back at the history of the debt. Bush didn't run up an $11 trillion debt. He doubled what was left him by Clinton. Who doubled what was left him by Bush 41.
This is not Bush's debt. This is America's debt accumulated over years. However, in less than one year, Obama has doubled the debt.
Surely, Johnny C., you aren't waiting for partisans of one side to critize their own. That just doesn't happen...unless the extreme side doesn't think their guy is extreme enough.
But my original point was that guru threw a fit because a woman happened to express her opinion...in her own way...on her own property. He just hates that.
And, by the way, where does it say that you have to qualify with past statements before you can express a new opinion?
To Johnny C.: Of Course it's fair comment for you to bring out the debt...and war...and privacy violations...and torture...that defined the Bush years. No problem with that.
But Obama is president now. It's fair comment to question the value of his programs. And, although the woman is clearly a conservative, her criticisms were mostly aimed at government, not Democrats.
Look at it this way: If you criticized Bush 2 years ago, would you accept the response that: Yeah, well, where were you when Clinton (whatever).
Sigh. I'm digressing again. I'm not trying to defend the woman's point of view. I'm defending her right to have a point of view. You seem willing to let her have that. Not guru. He is not only incensed that she has an opinion that he hasn't blessed, he wrongly characterizes her position. She clearly said the "final straw" came when "the government bailed out" AIG. Repeat: The Government.
Guru is the one who turned it into an anti-Obama, anti-Democrat position. She is pissed off at the government. And she is expressing her opinion.
Guess had ol' guru been around in the 1700s, he would have told Tom Jefferson and the gang that they couldn't criticize King George unless they had critized his predecessor.
Johnny can speak for himself, and he has. But I’m not going to let his BS stand.
It was Bush’s unnecessary war that and tax cuts for the rich that squandered the budget surplus he was left with. Saying, “Bush didn't do the spending. The Congress did” is a cop out. He sent Congress his budget, and, like everything else, they rubber-stamped it. Plus, the Iraq occupation spending wasn’t even included in the budget. Trying to blame the Democrats because they controlled Congress for some 18 months is ridiculous.
The recession came before Democrats won Congress back - although Republicans kept denying it, and that was one reason they won control, as well as the corruption. It was Bush’s war and his policies that plunged the country into a near depression.
President Obama does have a Democratic Congress, but they are far from a rubber stamp. In the six months he has been in office he has done a lot, but not everything. It’s sad that Congress is finally getting a backbone now. By the way, anonymous, it’s the Democratic Party.
So is Obama guilty of this excessive spending? No. He has to take extraordinary steps to get us out of the mess Bush left. Once again, anonymous, there is no such thing as a “socialist” Democrat in this country, and that is just a fascist Republic talking point.
It's amazing how upset you get at the term socialist. Why does it upset you so? Do you think there is something wrong with socialist policy?
That's odd. Because a lot of what the Democrats, including Obama, is socialist-based. I'm not saying it's a bad thing; it's just a fact. You seem to be the one who finds it a bad thing.
If you don't like socialism, you are backing the wrong horse. You also don't like Medicare and Medicaid, because those are socialist programs. Why do you shy away from the truth?
Man you guys are trying your hardest to spin this woman actions, again if this woman action was motivated by her dislike of the amount of money being spent by the government or the various government bailouts and not politics why didn't she paint her garage back when the bailouts first happen?
Now to Guru's post itself in that post he didn't say the woman couldn't express he only pointed out what she, Kevins, Not Anonymous and the tea bag movement are guilty of and it's the in your face unashamed hypocrisy of this faux outrage.
When Bush and the Republicans were borrowing and spending between the years I mention in a earlier post I didn't hear or see one protest nor any outrage from any of these people.
The point again is this lady is selective outrage from her silence in 2008 it's clear she didn't mind government spending and bailouts now since the president has a (D) after his name now it's holy shit look what they're spending.
Nobody is saying this woman can express herself no matter how hypocritical she is but let's not get of track what this is about a right wing Republican who can't stand the fact her side lost.
I did accurately portray this lady, and that’s why I provided a link to the P & A story. The "campaign" is obviously anti-Obama and ant-Democratic. She had no problems with running up a deficit for the Iraq invasion and the polices that created this economic mess.
My post is pointing out the hypocrisy of her actions not trying to censor anyone. The height of hypocrisy is using someone like Cheney talking about liberty. This is what the tea bagger movement is about: it’s an extreme rightwing fringe that doesn’t like the fact they lost the election.
I don’t have a “socialist” agenda.” It’s funny that every time I point out the right’s hypocrisy I’m “going nuts” or “bananas.” I have done neither. When the facts are not on your side you have to stoop to personal insults, and that’s all you have, brett.
That is correct, brett., vote. Her candidate lost the election, and you guys are pulling his BS in response. Just try being honest for a change. You didn’t like the results of the election. No problem; work for your candidate, and stop giving us this BS about the country going socialist and other anti-government rhetoric.
Again, if I had “such a hard time with freedom of expression” I wouldn’t let someone like you comment who brings nothing to the table but insults. I would do what rightwing blogs do and just ban you.
“he teamed up with Bush to pass?” He was one vote among 100.
Again, Johnny C can speak for himself, but Bush created the mess Obama is trying to clean up. Bush took office with a budget surplus; he left the next president a record deficit.
Of course Johnny C and I are different people. If you click on his profile, you will see it is fully filled out, unlike yours. We are not hiding like you are, brett.
“He doubled what was left him by Clinton?” Impossible, brett. President Clinton left a surplus, bush a record deficit.
I have never “thrown a fit.” I pointed out the woman’s hypocrisy.
It doesn’t say anywhere “you have to qualify with past statements before you can express a new opinion, but you can’t lie and ignore facts and not expect to get called on it. And, by the way, where does it say I can’t criticize something I don’t agree with?
He's never thrown a fit. Right.
And Michael Jackson never slept with little boys.
What I find funny here is when the economy started to fail under Bush it was ok for the Republicans and the right wing to blame the Clinton era even tho the Clinton White House left the Bush team a surplus but if you mention the fact Obama stepped in the crap Bush and Cheney left the right scream stop talking about the past.
Now Guru we know the right wing has issues with projection because right wingers have multiple screen names they assume we do too.
“It's amazing how upset you get at the term socialist. Why does it upset you so?” First, it doesn’t u set me; You are jumping to a false conclusion, and that is that I am upset just because I am correcting a falsehood. It makes me no more upset to correct any other falsehood.
That’s just another lie, brett. President Obama is not “socialist-based.” Medicare and Medicaid are not “socialist programs.” Socialism is a system where there is government or collective ownership. That’s not the case with those programs.
That is correct, brett. I never thrown a fit. I don’t know much about Michael Jackson, other than about his early music.
Post a Comment