Advertisement
Advertisement

Tom Toles for September 17, 2010

  1. Big dipper
    SuperGriz  almost 11 years ago

    Toles Friday rant is here: http://tinyurl.com/322ehqu

     •  Reply
  2. Stitch
    dshepard  almost 11 years ago

    Finally, some of us are figuring out that booting one party and putting in the other hasn’t been nor will it ever be the solution.

     •  Reply
  3. Missing large
    meetinthemiddle  almost 11 years ago

    Demonizing is much more simple bi-directionally than multi-dimensionally.

     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    rottenprat  almost 11 years ago

    Very few see it that way. They are comic relief, if anything.

     •  Reply
  5. Marx lennon
    charliekane  almost 11 years ago

    The cartoonist’s comment: priceless!

     •  Reply
  6. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    Who will be our first Ayatollah?

    I’d ask what would be our national religion, but that much is already obvious. Then we can officially declare war on other religions.

     •  Reply
  7. Me 3 23 2020
    ChukLitl Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    They are actually fairly close to the original tea partiers. They’ve felt voiceless & object to taxes. The founding fathers wrote some impressive documents. The founding weird uncles threw some tea in the bay.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    rottenprat  almost 11 years ago

    The original TEA party had Social Security and Medicare, et al?

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    disgustedtaxpayer  almost 11 years ago

    www.americanthinker.com article “Conservative America Ready to Take Control”….the “unabashed conservatives who are winning Republican primaries….are standard bearers of a vast army.”

    (think Reagan, 1980, and the awakened Moral Majority)

    all those Hate Speech attacks on the Tea Party population come from Leftists and Liberals who seem to believe they are the Ordained Royalty to Rule USA forever!

     •  Reply
  10. Amnesia
    Simon_Jester  almost 11 years ago

    I think the Republicans are beginning to understand how Victor Frankenstein must have felt.

    “No…stay back! I CREATED you!”

     •  Reply
  11. P1010045
    lloydsjohnson  almost 11 years ago

    Let’s remember this is the crowd that says “keep the gubment outta my medicare.” These are the mindless ditto-heads that don’t need any facts. We have a black man in the whitehouse and that’s just wrong. They are unincumbered by the thought process.

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    genetica  almost 11 years ago

    Can anyone tell me where I could find the term “czar” in the Constitution? I, for one, don’t like being the frog in the pan of water. It does seem like it is getting warmer with each action this administration takes. I think the TEA party is the forerunner of a much larger movement on the horizon.

     •  Reply
  13. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    Non-Hispanic White 79% Non-Hispanic Black 6% Other 15%

    Democrat supporters 6% http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1&ref=politics

    Well, he’s right, they DO have blacks and Democrats!

    But when you look at it that way, 6% of 100 is 6… and 6% of 40 is ~2… so if this is truly bipartisan support, than that would mean that the Healthcare bill was bipartisan.

    But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

    Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

    Others could not explain the contradiction. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1&ref=politics

    How does that work, exactly?

     •  Reply
  14. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    “Can anyone tell me where I could find the term “czar” in the Constitution? I, for one, don’t like being the frog in the pan of water. It does seem like it is getting warmer with each action this administration takes. ”

    Eric Cantor: All of Bush’s Czars were totally fine, but Obama’s …

    I love the “in the Constitution” stuff, it can work both ways. Like, “can anyone tell us where in the Constitution it says the federal government can deny marriage rights and focus benefit taxation on a specific type of birth minority?” or “can anyone tell us where in the Constitution it says the government can use religion to deny or oppress a minority and violate their rights to equal protection under the law?” Things like that. Where’re the ‘strict Constitutionalists’ fighting for the LGBT community? Trying to levy religious legislative oppression against them, gotcha!

     •  Reply
  15. Ys
    HabaneroBuck  almost 11 years ago

    Marriage is not defined as a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and his cousin, three women to one man, etc….it just isn’t. No one is robbing you of your right to live your life how you want to live it by denying the term “marriage” to living arrangements that are not marriages.

    The Tea Party is just standing on the actual Republican platform. If all those so-called R’s were actually loyal to their profession, there would be no need to throw them out. For instance, look at Arlen Specter, a complete careerist. He turned coat. The Tea Party is, in essence, tossing out the turncoats before they completely abandon the party altogether. A little “house cleaning”.

     •  Reply
  16. Avatar201803 salty
    Jaedabee Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    “Marriage is not defined as a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and his cousin, three women to one man, etc….it just isn’t. No one is robbing you of your right to live your life how you want to live it by denying the term “marriage” to living arrangements that are not marriages.”

    Marriage is defined as one man, 700 women, and 300 concubines, according to the Bible. You should seriously stop attempting to use historical definitions… not only are there numerous examples of same-sex marriage throughout history, but the definitions of words like “gay” have changed drastically over the years. I don’t recall the Flintstones being a show advocating a homosexual old time, yet what is the primary use of the definition of the word ‘gay’ today? More recently, marriage was defined as between one man and one woman of the same race. Interracial marriage was illegal. Do you think that was constitutional? That’s how it was defined. Should we go back to that? The same arguments you are using were used to deny one person who was black and one person who was white from marrying. Do you agree with this? DOMA has been ruled unconstitutional. DADT has been ruled unconstitutional. If you are a strict constitutionalist, then your support for the abolition of unconstitutional laws should be apparent. If a state wishes to provide ALL of their citizens with the full protection of the law (the 14th Amendment) they shouldn’t be barricaded by the Federal government from doing so, which DOMA does , for nothing other than religious reasons, which is the government respecting the establishment of a certain religion, a violation of the 1st Amendment. Socialism isn’t the danger here, Theocracy is.
     •  Reply
  17. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 11 years ago

    It may not have started out that way, but having attended several “TEA Party” events, and watching their current rants with Heritage Foundation sponsorship, it appears to have BECOME the ranting of what we called “The extremist religious right”. This is, and alway has been, an over-loud, and over-represented in the press, MINORITY OF AMERICANS.

    Seeing Gary Bauer and O’Donnel, and listening to what they’re really saying– nope, it isn’t just elephants thrown overboard for their support, but all who oppose the dunking chair and witch burning.

     •  Reply
  18. Jollyroger
    pirate227  almost 11 years ago

    “You were the only ones on board with them.”

    Too true, LOL!

     •  Reply
  19. Missing large
    jhouck99  almost 11 years ago

    See if you can guess who espouses these ideas:

    return to the Bretton Woods system, including a gold-based national and world monetary system, and fixed exchange rates replacement of the central bank system, including the U.S. Federal Reserve System, with a national bank war on drug trafficking and prosecution of banks involved in money laundering ending the International Monetary Fund, creating an “International Development Bank”, and expanding the U.S. Export-Import Bank a crash program to build particle beam weapons and lasers, including support for elements of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) support for a military buildup to prepare for imminent war opposition to environmentalism, health maintenance organizations, outcome-based education, gay rights, abortion, and the nuclear disarmament movement that the idea of man-made global warming is a “fraud”

    http://tinyurl.com/t-bag-la-douche

     •  Reply
  20. Warcriminal
    WarBush  almost 11 years ago

    Man! The reich wing party is in dire straits!

    First they get rid of Barry Goldwater republicans in favor of “conservative” republicans like Reagan.

    Now they are getting rid of the “conservative” republicans in favor of teabagger republicans.

    Hey moderates if you’re still out there: TAKE YOUR PARTY BACK.

     •  Reply
  21. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    “The reich wing party”

    I wouldn’t call the GOP that. The reich wing party is still to come.

     •  Reply
  22. Missing large
    Carolo1  almost 11 years ago

    jhouck99 and declare the earth flat

     •  Reply
  23. 1107121618000
    CorosiveFrog Premium Member almost 11 years ago

    The term “czar” was an invention of the media to get attention, get over it.

    You shouldn’t listen to what political pundits (of both sides) say. If tomorrow the Tea Party formed the government, that Abortin was illegal, that the army and police were private businesses, that civil rights were back to what they were in 1950, that homosexuality was illegal, do you think Coulter and Limbaugh could say “everything is okay”?

    No. Those guys are paid to say they are outraged. Nothing to complain about, no ratings, no money and after a few days of no news, you’re a nobody.

    Even if they don’t think something, they have to say it if they sense it can get them fame.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment
Advertisement

More From Tom Toles

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement