All My so-called "friends" are GOP/Tea baggers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:please give me a few good reasons as to why we need a federal department of education? where are these federal elementary schools or federal universities?

Considering that red states are far bigger beneficiaries of federal programs, I think it would serve them right to have it abolished. Enjoy your solely state-funded schools, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas...

1. good schools don't need a lot of funding. they need children from involved parents.
2. calling a state a "red state" or a "blue state" is so silly. pretty sure there are more republican votes from California than from any other state, and millions of democratic voting minorities in the states you mention above.
3. we seemed to educate kids pretty well for the first 200 years of this country without a federal Dept of Ed.

[Anonymous]

I was a moderate Republican once, until I moved to Virginia.

DemoInVA
formerly one of 16 moderate Republicans anymore...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Did you see the unhinged wingnuts in Wisconsin calling for the death of the Governor?

Did you see the unhinged governor of Wisconsin callng for the death of 50 years of rights for the working class and middle class?

is this a parody post? I will assume you are being serious. What rights are being killed exactly? The civil service laws, some of the most generous in the country, are not affected. Unions are not being busted. All that has been done is correct one aspect of negotiations with public unions. Public unions negotiating with the elected leaders that they spend 90% of their funds to put in office is not an arm's length management-labor transaction. This is why federal workers cannot collectively bargain for wages and benefits, and why public unions in 26 states cannot either. Unfortunately we are $14T in debt on a federal level, and more trillions on a state level. Sorry if this reality upsets you.

Your post just sounds silly.

Perfect example of the wingnut tendency to either ignorance or disingenuousness: the "one aspect of negotiations with public unions" which you elide here is "collective bargaining", which is the essential aspect of a union. Unions collectively bargain. If you can't engage in collective bargaining, there's no point in being a union.

It's like saying you've passed laws which do nothing to affect dining, just one aspect of the culinary experience is affected: eating food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Did you see the unhinged wingnuts in Wisconsin calling for the death of the Governor?

Did you see the unhinged governor of Wisconsin callng for the death of 50 years of rights for the working class and middle class?

Now, now, you're going to make yourself all sweaty. The nurse will be in to fluff your pillows and give you some crushed ice very soon.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This kind of post is just really juvenile, not funny, not intelligent, not edgey or whatever brand of 'coolness' you are trying to display. I might have been impressed with this kind of attitude in 9th grade but now that I'm an adult, I think it's just stupid and mean. It's the low level of intellectual abilities coupled with insulting school-yard bullying that is so ugly.

Pretty much sums up the image posted above of Obama with little glass of beer. Not funny, not offensive, just kind of embarrassing to see such an elaborate attempt at funny deflate like a poorly cooked souffle. It's a bit like some poorly mimeographed broadsheet you'd see at some gun show featuring Hillary Clinton with a penis, or something. Or everything Dennis Miller's done in the last decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Did you see the unhinged wingnuts in Wisconsin calling for the death of the Governor?

Did you see the unhinged governor of Wisconsin callng for the death of 50 years of rights for the working class and middle class?

is this a parody post? I will assume you are being serious. What rights are being killed exactly? The civil service laws, some of the most generous in the country, are not affected. Unions are not being busted. All that has been done is correct one aspect of negotiations with public unions. Public unions negotiating with the elected leaders that they spend 90% of their funds to put in office is not an arm's length management-labor transaction. This is why federal workers cannot collectively bargain for wages and benefits, and why public unions in 26 states cannot either. Unfortunately we are $14T in debt on a federal level, and more trillions on a state level. Sorry if this reality upsets you.

Your post just sounds silly.

Perfect example of the wingnut tendency to either ignorance or disingenuousness: the "one aspect of negotiations with public unions" which you elide here is "collective bargaining", which is the essential aspect of a union. Unions collectively bargain. If you can't engage in collective bargaining, there's no point in being a union.

It's like saying you've passed laws which do nothing to affect dining, just one aspect of the culinary experience is affected: eating food.

so why do we have federal workers unions, or why do we have state worker unions in the 26 states that prohibit collective bargaining? Are Indiana and Virginia not states with hundreds of thousands of state workers, many on whom belong to unions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:please give me a few good reasons as to why we need a federal department of education? where are these federal elementary schools or federal universities?

Considering that red states are far bigger beneficiaries of federal programs, I think it would serve them right to have it abolished. Enjoy your solely state-funded schools, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas...

1. good schools don't need a lot of funding. they need children from involved parents.
2. calling a state a "red state" or a "blue state" is so silly. pretty sure there are more republican votes from California than from any other state, and millions of democratic voting minorities in the states you mention above.
3. we seemed to educate kids pretty well for the first 200 years of this country without a federal Dept of Ed.

and I should have added: 4. I have nothing against the Dept of Ed. Coordinates federal student loans and does testing and employs 5,000 people, but again, we are in debt $14T and cuts need to be made. Nothing is off the table, including defense and SS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Did you see the unhinged wingnuts in Wisconsin calling for the death of the Governor?

Did you see the unhinged governor of Wisconsin callng for the death of 50 years of rights for the working class and middle class?

is this a parody post? I will assume you are being serious. What rights are being killed exactly? The civil service laws, some of the most generous in the country, are not affected. Unions are not being busted. All that has been done is correct one aspect of negotiations with public unions. Public unions negotiating with the elected leaders that they spend 90% of their funds to put in office is not an arm's length management-labor transaction. This is why federal workers cannot collectively bargain for wages and benefits, and why public unions in 26 states cannot either. Unfortunately we are $14T in debt on a federal level, and more trillions on a state level. Sorry if this reality upsets you.

Your post just sounds silly.

Perfect example of the wingnut tendency to either ignorance or disingenuousness: the "one aspect of negotiations with public unions" which you elide here is "collective bargaining", which is the essential aspect of a union. Unions collectively bargain. If you can't engage in collective bargaining, there's no point in being a union.

It's like saying you've passed laws which do nothing to affect dining, just one aspect of the culinary experience is affected: eating food.

so why do we have federal workers unions, or why do we have state worker unions in the 26 states that prohibit collective bargaining? Are Indiana and Virginia not states with hundreds of thousands of state workers, many on whom belong to unions?

There are only 5 states that have outlawed collective bargaining for public workers: Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina And Virginia.

You can learn more about unions, collective bargaining, and more here or at your public library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:please give me a few good reasons as to why we need a federal department of education? where are these federal elementary schools or federal universities?

This is too stupid to respond to, sorry.

[Anonymous]

No. Only 26 states have laws that grant collective-bargaining privileges to substantially all public employees. Twelve have laws that give collective bargaining to some workers, and twelve have no statewide collective-bargaining law at all, though some municipalities may grant bargaining rights in those states.

And most federal civilian workers do engage in collective bargaining, but wages and benefits are excluded from that bargaining, rendering it very limited. Far from seeking to strengthen the hand of federal-employee unions, Barack Obama has sought to impose a two-year wage freeze on federal workers through the budget process. If the federal government had a bargaining law like the one Wisconsin has today, he would be unable to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Did you see the unhinged wingnuts in Wisconsin calling for the death of the Governor?

Did you see the unhinged governor of Wisconsin callng for the death of 50 years of rights for the working class and middle class?

Now, now, you're going to make yourself all sweaty. The nurse will be in to fluff your pillows and give you some crushed ice very soon.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This kind of post is just really juvenile, not funny, not intelligent, not edgey or whatever brand of 'coolness' you are trying to display. I might have been impressed with this kind of attitude in 9th grade but now that I'm an adult, I think it's just stupid and mean. It's the low level of intellectual abilities coupled with insulting school-yard bullying that is so ugly.

Pretty much sums up the image posted above of Obama with little glass of beer. Not funny, not offensive, just kind of embarrassing to see such an elaborate attempt at funny deflate like a poorly cooked souffle. It's a bit like some poorly mimeographed broadsheet you'd see at some gun show featuring Hillary Clinton with a penis, or something. Or everything Dennis Miller's done in the last decade.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are calling them narrow minded? Look in the mirror

No, I think OP is right. There are limits. It's one thing to disagree with someone and it's another to have differences that are so major that they make you sick.

Exactly. In general, my friends share my (liberal) values. For this reason, I don't have tea bagger friends. I do OTOH have a few moderate Republican friends.

[Anonymous]

It absolutely amazes me how the far right-wing has managed to convince people that public worker salaries are somehow the root of this country's economic problems. Yes, that's right--it's those greedy teachers and policemen and firefighters who make (gasp) $40,000 a year!! And they dare to expect pensions on top of that. The nerve!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It absolutely amazes me how the far right-wing has managed to convince people that public worker salaries are somehow the root of this country's economic problems. Yes, that's right--it's those greedy teachers and policemen and firefighters who make (gasp) $40,000 a year!! And they dare to expect pensions on top of that. The nerve!

the #s don't lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It absolutely amazes me how the far right-wing has managed to convince people that public worker salaries are somehow the root of this country's economic problems. Yes, that's right--it's those greedy teachers and policemen and firefighters who make (gasp) $40,000 a year!! And they dare to expect pensions on top of that. The nerve!

the #s don't lie.

What about Wall Street? What about the people who got us into this mess to begin with (none of whom have given up anything)?

Memories are short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. good schools don't need a lot of funding. they need children from involved parents.

Really? Money doesn’t buy you anything? Then we can tax the rich again?

Anonymous wrote:2. calling a state a "red state" or a "blue state" is so silly. pretty sure there are more republican votes from California than from any other state, and millions of democratic voting minorities in the states you mention above.

Are you suggesting that we can’t make generalizations about the political views of the residents of certain states, e.g., “Texans are generally more conservative than residents of Massachusetts? Your observation is pointless faux cleverness.

Anonymous wrote:3. we seemed to educate kids pretty well for the first 200 years of this country without a federal Dept of Ed.

What? What?! That’s just moronic. That’s what you want to return to – 1850s education? Let’s drop the pretense and put the kids on tractors and assembly lines. If you wanted to talk about the middle of last century, you would have had a decent point.

Anonymous wrote: Nothing is off the table, including defense and SS.

Except taxing billionaires, right? That’s an abomination.

By including defense, you just removed yourself from the tea party and put yourself as possibly a libertarian. If that’s so, I don’t know why you’re defending them. The myth that tea partiers are primarily libertarian in their beliefs is baloney – they’re the same ignorant, religious rednecks the rich Reps have been manipulating for decades. If you’re libertarian and identify as a tea partier, it’s just because you wanted to feel popular for a change. (BTW, I’m sympathetic to that desire.)