David Brooks: Tea partiers are narcissistic, egomaniacal, self-righteous people who distort the truth!

posted at 8:37 pm on September 18, 2010 by Patterico

David Brooks on the Tea Party:

Along the way, the movement has picked up some of the worst excesses of modern American culture: a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil.

It’s good to know none of this applies to the Democrat party!

Narcissism? Brooks thinks the Tea Party suffers from it, but does not mention Obama. I guess Brooks thinks there’s no narcissism in Obama’s comparing his election to the fall of the Berlin Wall, or turning the White House into almost a shrine to himself, or reading a letter from someone who says she is going to be buried in an Obama T-shirt, or building an imperial stage for his nomination speech, or writing his autobiography years before being elected President.

Victimhood? Brooks thinks the Tea Party has it — but not Obama, who thinks people don’t like him because of his middle name, which his wife calls the “fear bomb”; or who plays the race card (I don’t “look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills”).

An egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity? Are you kidding me, David Brooks?

Obama humiliated the Supreme Court in front of the nation. He humiliated Netanyahu. He gives his opponents the finger (not once, not twice, but three times). He is haughty with opponents (even as Michelle assures us that he is never disagreeable).

A willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil? David Brooks, are you telling me that the Tea Partiers distort the truth, and President Obama doesn’t?

Let me list just a few examples, Mr. Brooks.

Obama claimed an aide filled out a questionnaire with extreme views, but his handwriting showed up on the form. He said he wouldn’t run for president in 2008 and then did. He ran a dishonest ad tying John McCain to Rush Limbaugh on the issue of immigration reform — and distorting Limbaugh’s quotes beyond all recognition in the process. He claimed McCain was “fueled” by money from lobbyists and PACs, when that actually accounted for only 1.7% of McCain’s money.

Obama flat-out lied about taking public financing — and he lied about why he didn’t do it, blaming it all on McCain when it was his own decision. Obama misstated the reason that he voted against a bill that would have required doctors to give medical attention to babies born alive after a botched abortion. Obama took money from oil companies and claimed he didn’t.

He inflated his role in the creation of the stimulus package. He was deceptive about McCain’s regulatory record.

Since being President, he has misrepresented job creation numbers; broken his promise to allow bills to be reviewed by the public before passage; broken his promise to have no lobbyists in the White House; broken his promise to close Gitmo (thank goodness), and has broken a whole host of other promises. He has lied about whether ObamaCare would cover illegals and a host of other things.

He asked people to send “fishy” online commentary about his health care plan to a special e-mail address: flag@whitehouse.gov. Sounds like someone making a list — but it’s all for the greater good, you see.

Obama has consistently demonized his opponents — including the Tea Partiers, the GOP, Fox News, BP and other oil companies, “bitter clingers” who won’t vote for him, Wall Street/banks and businesses, the rich (especially those who got bonuses), insurance companies during the health care debate, car companies, and anyone who opposes unions or him.

He called the Cambridge police “stupid”; has demonized insurance companies; gone after Rush Limbaugh; and recently declared war on John Boehner.

I don’t really have to list all the ways he has demonized and blamed George W. Bush, do I?

Yet according to David Brooks, the people who distort the truth and demonize opponents in an effort to paint themselves as the Good fighting the Evil are . . . the Tea Partiers.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the “conservative” at the New York Times could see a few logs in the opponents’ eyes, even as he whines about the mote in the eyes of the Tea Party?

Thanks to a reader who pointed me to the link, gave me considerable help in researching this, and listed all the people and groups Obama has demonized.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

This post is one big logical fallacy. I’d expect to see this kind of crap on daily kos.

p0s3r on September 19, 2010 at 11:48 AM

It’s good to know none of this applies to the Democrat party!

He never said none of it applies to the Democratic party.

This post is one big logical fallacy.
p0s3r on September 19, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Yeah. It’d be funny, if it weren’t apparent that he spent a lot of time putting the post together. What a waste.

crr6 on September 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM

There is a concerted effort by some here to bring to light that Odonnell “Dabbled in Witchcraft” maybe true maybe not or a youthful cuiosity.

COMPARED TO THE LEADER OF THIS GREAT NATION WHO DABBLED IN DRUGS, nah no comparison.

concernedsenior on September 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM

At least she didn’t dabble in Cocaine like Barry, or Marxism like Coons. Isn’t he still a Marxist? The haters are right. She is not as qualified as say Al Franken….

adamsmith on September 19, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Problem is, you can’t truthfully rebut an argument by simply projecting accusations back at the accuser, even it the accuser is being hypocritical.

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Huh? Witchcraft is the latest accusation?

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Every time one of these victims of a “social cascade” appears making obtuse statements, it only reinforces the view in the “Tea Party” that the “elites” are completely out of touch with reality

.

There you go again. Every time you start blaming the ‘elites’ you fail to realize that not all elites think the say way. The elites who took charge of this country over 8 years ago and doubled the national debt while creating a deficit in the trillion dollar range were not the same elites ruling the country a decade earlier. And as a Tea Partier who celebrates our Founding Fathers, you probably don’t realize that our founders were among the most elite men on earth, who didn’t trust ‘common people’ to run the country.

And all the talk of ‘socialism’ comes from people who clearly don’t understand what the word means. Yes, health care reform occurred, but without a single payer option it’s in no way socialist. Saving GM and Chrysler required those corporations to give equity to the government to ensure American taxpayers would be repaid- and that’s on schedule to happen in an upcoming IPO. The one opportunity the government did have to ‘nationalize’ an industry was missed when Obama’s team decided not to buy out and break up the ‘too big too fail’ banks such as Citibank. And now those banks are a huge drag on the economy (bad assets mean too conservative lending) and each of those banks is still too big too fail. Our one chance to nationalize would have put main street ahead of Wall Street, but it never happened.

To me, Tea Partiers are just another example of the 60′s generation resurfacing to express their self-centered expectations. The ‘greatest generation’ was followed the the ‘greediest generation’. That’s why lower taxes will always be the top item on their agenda, because their main concern is self fulfillment.

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Well said, Patterico :)

Richard Romano on September 19, 2010 at 1:30 PM

a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil.

Enough about Brooks already, what does he say about about the Tea Party?

entagor on September 19, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Huh? Witchcraft is the latest accusation?

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Much like the other criticisms of O’Donnell, it’s something that spawns from something dumb she’s actually said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nECxQUi_pr0

She ‘dabbled in witchcraft’, by her own admission. Which is nothing, because by the late 90s, wicca was a trendy religion for chicks to get into (thanks, Buffy TVS!), but still, I wonder how that squares with the “DeMint Wing” of the party.

Point is, this is just YET ANOTHER thing that makes her look like a kook.

Vyce on September 19, 2010 at 1:38 PM

And by the way

a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil.

I wouldn’t apply this statement to the Tea Party as a whole.

To the “true conservatives” that I’ve seen around these parts for the past week, well yes, this applies to more than a few.

Vyce on September 19, 2010 at 1:40 PM

There is a concerted effort by some here to bring to light that Odonnell “Dabbled in Witchcraft” maybe true maybe not or a youthful cuiosity.

concernedsenior on September 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM

-
So my g’daughter reads Twilight, wears the shirts, and has been to the movie… Going by that logic 90% of the youth in America are forever more disqualified… It’s all about the powerful grasping at straws… and their followers carrying the water..
-

RalphyBoy on September 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

The ‘greatest generation’ was followed the the ‘greediest generation’. That’s why lower taxes will always be the top item on their agenda, because their main concern is self fulfillment.

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM

So what? What’s wrong with placing one’s own self fulfillment above all else? It doesn’t preclude helping the needy, you know. It also has the benefit of promoting investment and consumer spending, which in turn strengthens the economy and creates jobs. This idea that working for one’s self is somehow immoral, or less moral than working for the benefit of others, is bullshit. It is entirely possible to put your own self interest first, and still help the truly needy. In fact, you’re likely to be able to do more help when you are able to keep more of what you earn.

holygoat on September 19, 2010 at 2:28 PM

The Tea Party means change.

Consider pollster Scott Rasmussen’s view of insurgent Republican Carl Paladino, winner of the primary for governor of New York:

“. . .Paladino’s overwhelming victory in the primary against former Congressman Rick Lazio should not be considered too much of a surprise.

“It’s the same “Mad as Hell” response we’ve seen all across the country.

“Paladino has fashioned his campaign around the movement’s core themes of anger, reform and anti-incumbency. He rails against government excess and literally says he is “mad as hell. . .”

“Another potential plus for Paladino is that prominent members of the New York political establishment from both parties, such as Ed Koch, Carl McCall and Alphonse D’Amato, have come together to call him unfit and unqualified for office. They wrote an open letter claiming that “anger overcame reason and enabled a fringe element to choose the Republican nominee. The end result was the selection of Mr. Paladino, a divisive figure simply not fit to lead this great state.”

Paladino got 62% in the Republican primary, Lazio 38%.

The Republican primary voters picked Paladino even though Lazio will still be running on the Conservative Party [of New York State] line.

Emperor Norton on September 19, 2010 at 2:29 PM

What? Obama is a jackass? I was told that he was a good man.

Another from the Protein Wisdom crowd heard from, looking to re-ignite old blog wars that most of us have moved on from. I explained the context of that comment in a comment above. It related to teaching my daughter not to make politics personal. It was twisted into something else.

Patterico on September 19, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Awesome post Patterico. Thanks for exposing David Brooks for what he is. A partison hack put up as a conservative journalist by the LSM.

brtex on September 19, 2010 at 5:20 PM

David Brooks: “Tea partiers are narcissistic, egomaniacal, self-righteous people who distort the truth!”

Hey Pantywaste!

You’re projecting, Again!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on September 19, 2010 at 5:51 PM

So my g’daughter reads Twilight, wears the shirts, and has been to the movie… Going by that logic 90% of the youth in America are forever more disqualified…
-

RalphyBoy on September 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Did your daughter date a satanist and have a picnic on a satanic alter as well? If so, you might want to have a word or 2 with her.

Boxy_Brown on September 19, 2010 at 6:13 PM

It is entirely possible to put your own self interest first, and still help the truly needy. In fact, you’re likely to be able to do more help when you are able to keep more of what you earn.

holygoat on September 19, 2010 at 2:28 PM

That’s all fine and good unless you apply it to an entire generation, and think about how running up the deficit might seem great to one generation and then become very painful for the next.

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 7:01 PM

There are some that claim that they are standing between the rain drops and are therefore dry while its pouring rain.

mixplix on September 19, 2010 at 7:32 PM

….but enough about the Demoncrap Party , Babbling Brooks.

How do you feel about the groundswell of conservatives standing up to the Big Government Machine, you know ’cause you’re like ..real conservative.. and stuff right ?

cableguy615 on September 19, 2010 at 7:37 PM

The Tea Party is not a retread of the Boomers… it gains adherence from those the generation before and two generations behind it. That makes it cross-generational.

Instead of trying to place it via generation, perhaps a better way would to be examining it by how it functions and see how that fits with what we know about our modern times. That leads to some very interesting paths for the role of the individual as the foundation of the modern society… because society is built from the bottom-up, not the top-down.

And what allows the Tea Party to function is set to change the world.

ajacksonian on September 19, 2010 at 7:46 PM

Problem is, you can’t truthfully rebut an argument by simply projecting accusations back at the accuser, even it the accuser is being hypocritical.

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM

As Bill O’Reilly has said many, many times along with pointing to other bad behavior to justify your own.

There are some that claim that they are standing between the rain drops and are therefore dry while its pouring rain.

mixplix on September 19, 2010 at 7:32 PM

Now that’s hilarious!!

AprilOrit on September 20, 2010 at 2:25 AM

And by the way

a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil.
I wouldn’t apply this statement to the Tea Party as a whole.

To the “true conservatives” that I’ve seen around these parts for the past week, well yes, this applies to more than a few.

Vyce on September 19, 2010 at 1:40 PM

True Conservatism has always been an all about me selfish endeavor, if it wasn’t there wouldn’t have been a reason to coin the phrase compassionate Conservative.

AprilOrit on September 20, 2010 at 2:29 AM

I’ve read “selfish behavior” in a couple of these posts. That’s exactly the reason why communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism et. al. all FAIL!!!!! Marx was a genius. Only problem with geniuses like him is they can’t see the wood because the trees are in the way. He never figured greed or wanting to succeed above others into the equation. That’s why it’s never worked or ever will work. It’s a system that’s way too easy to rig for yourself…..

adamsmith on September 20, 2010 at 7:44 AM

My hubby was talking to me about disruptive innovations, like Apple’s iPhone. One definition is “a product with a serious impact on the status quo and changes the way people have been dealing with something…”

As we were talking, he said that the Tea Party is a good example of a disruptive political innovation. A game changer.

It’s as good of a description as I have heard lately.

Fallon on September 20, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Look in the mirror fool!

chicken thief on September 20, 2010 at 9:25 AM

So my g’daughter reads Twilight, wears the shirts, and has been to the movie… Going by that logic 90% of the youth in America are forever more disqualified…
-

RalphyBoy on September 19, 2010 at 2:19 PM

Did your daughter date a satanist and have a picnic on a satanic alter as well? If so, you might want to have a word or 2 with her.

Boxy_Brown on September 19, 2010 at 6:13 PM

Perhaps she didn’t know he was a satanist until after the fact. As a teenager did you ever ‘date’ someone that was not who you thought they were, or even if you had an inkling they might be a ‘bad boy’ went anyway? Teenagers are not the smartest when it comes to social situations. She may have been shy and awkward and this person offered her a chance to widen her circle of acquaintances. Did she say she continued to date this person? Did this date ignite a passion to further explore witchcraft? Did she continue to explore and practice witchcraft? In what context was this answer given to the perverted Maher anyway? Was the question “what was your worst date experience?” or “your most unusual date?”

How in the world is this any worse than smoking pot but not inhaling? This doesn’t even begin to compare to doing cocaine.

Youthful indiscretions can be excused if the person learns from the experience, doesn’t continue to do the same thing over and over and as you achieve wisdom see the error of your youth.

Give it a rest.

ladyhawke53 on September 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM

He never figured greed or wanting to succeed above others into the equation. That’s why it’s never worked or ever will work. It’s a system that’s way too easy to rig for yourself…..

adamsmith on September 20, 2010 at 7:44 AM

What you, and others like bayam don’t understand, is that many people strive to be “rich” not only for their own good, but for others also.
They have a talent/gift to be successful and make money, along with that most are very benevolent.
Most of us waste our resources on self indulgent, successful use their resources to build and create.
Every church, every non-profit organization that is successful, has those people driving those organizations.
That’s what leaders do, and that is what Marx and others never figured out…people are not greedy, the government is greedy.
Carnegie was one of the first, how many towns, cities, had libraries because of his “greed”? Over 2,500 were built to educate the masses…that is how “greedy” men work, they accumulate, then with their excellent skills, give back.
Government creates nothing…they consume.

right2bright on September 20, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Yea? But look how well it worked in Russia, Cuba, China, our inner cities..wait…maybe they just didn’t do it right.

IlikedAUH2O on September 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM

There is a ground up hostile takeover of the R party going on. I have seen Wiccans join with socons to oust the incumbents at the grass roots level.

The new flavor that allows all of them to work together? They are united behind “Government can’t“. They are taking a States Rights position on a number of issues: abortion, the drug war, etc.

MSimon on September 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Along the way, the movement has picked up some of the worst excesses of modern American culture: a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil.

Combined with that pic, I would be motivated to put Brooks to the medieval wheel

Sonosam on September 20, 2010 at 11:03 AM

That’s all fine and good unless you apply it to an entire generation, and think about how running up the deficit might seem great to one generation and then become very painful for the next.

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 7:01 PM

No amount of taxes can satisfy the wish-dreams of liberals. Cut the federal budget down to enumerated powers.

The ‘greatest generation’ was followed the the ‘greediest generation’. That’s why lower taxes will always be the top item on their agenda, because their main concern is self fulfillment.

bayam on September 19, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Actually, America is still the most generous nation on earth. It gives the most to private charities. The most selfish countries have always been the most socialist because socialism is at core materialism.

The only national leader in the world who believes all property is evil (as you seem to), currently runs North Korea. Every night the nation is almost entirely without lights… it’s a true eco-socialist paradise. Perhaps you should consider it.

theCork on September 20, 2010 at 11:23 AM

bayam, crr6, p0s3r: it’s a stupidity magnet.

SDN on September 20, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Brooks is pretty hard-edged himself. Interesting that he suggests that others are.

AnninCA on September 20, 2010 at 11:50 AM

Re.ladyhawke53

Excuses are for democrats.

Boxy_Brown on September 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM

David Brooks. Direct your fire down range or stop shooting. Whose side are you on?

That curly 80’s hair.
That virginal seductive stare
that strips my conscience bare
it’s witchcraft.

Castle had Cooms has no defense for it.
The tea is too intense for it.
What good would commonsense for it do?

‘Cause it’s witchcraft!
Tea Party witchcraft.
And although I know it’s strictly taboo

when you arouse the need in me
my heart says “yes indeed” in me
Proceed with what you’re lead in ‘me to!

It’s such an ancient pitch
but one I wouldn’t switch
‘Cause there’s no nicer witch than you!

To his credit, Patterico is now directing fire down range. We should encourage him and thank him for that. Cooms is into burgermeister-meisterburger corruption against dissent in Delaware (this sounds like Jersey politics if you ask me). And now apparently Cooms said to Kossacks that they have to defend “Biden’s Seat.” Hmmm, defending seats, where have I heard that before?

Mr. Joe on September 20, 2010 at 11:59 AM

is this the same David Brooks who was FORCED to buy one of those over-priced homes with mortgages he could not afford?

David your credibility is on the ocean floor, at the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

pabo on September 20, 2010 at 12:14 PM

A Conservative at the NYT is an oxymoron. Just like RINOs in Congress, you can register as a Republican without a confirmation that you agree with anything to do with its platform or 1% of right-wing ideology. You can call yourself Conservative. You can even call yourself a fiscal Conservative. Doing all that doesn’t make it so. Pretending and acting are fake and phony. If you don’t believe in the things you espouse to align to yourself then what does that make you? Pathetic actually…meaningless and pointless obviously…

Sultry Beauty on September 20, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Ummm…er…I forgot to say fraud. FRAUD.

Sultry Beauty on September 20, 2010 at 12:25 PM

Funny, when you have the vote it doesn’t really matter whether the pols and pundits like you or not — your vote still counts! Tough stuff, Brooksie!!

littleguy on September 20, 2010 at 12:27 PM

David Brooks is still a conservative wannabe. He and that twit Noonan have the same view of the world around them, and of course its tinted by the same clouded glass at the NYT.

belad on September 20, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Judging from his words in the header, it looks like a self description, not an enditement.

Old Country Boy on September 20, 2010 at 1:00 PM

Sounds like the Democrats David Brooks to me.

burt on September 20, 2010 at 1:04 PM

As if David Brooks knows anything about the truth. What self-appointed, elitist, narcissistic arrogance. Pot… Kettle. I guess the country has been ruined by the Tea Party. Yeah, that’s the story — not the educated smarties from Harvard and Yale.

mbabbitt on September 20, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Before this thread retires, I’ll finally poke David Brooks with his own critique that applies ever so apply to HIMSELF.

maverick muse on September 20, 2010 at 2:10 PM

belad on September 20, 2010 at 12:56 PM

Did you read Noonan’s article this past weekend? She was siding more than less with the Tea Party movement leading the GOP (given the obvious circumstances that it is the Tea Party movement that has momentum, NOT THE GOP). She would credit the Tea Party just so long as the Tea Party acknowledges the fragile and precarious American political institutions. AS IF it’s the political institutions (including her position as MSM pundit) that must be saved at all costs, Constitutional Republic be damned.

maverick muse on September 20, 2010 at 2:15 PM

“Tea Party = nuts” is so easily and readily reported in the national news, but this goes unreported.

MississippiMom on September 20, 2010 at 2:47 PM

It’s good to know none of this applies to the Democrat party!

He never said none of it applies to the Democratic party.

This post is one big logical fallacy.
p0s3r on September 19, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Yeah. It’d be funny, if it weren’t apparent that he spent a lot of time putting the post together. What a waste.

crr6 on September 19, 2010 at 12:16 PM

If you readily admit that everything Brooks accuses the Tea Party of applies to the Democrat Party, then what was the point of the essay by Brooks? Why isn’t Brooks’ op-ed “laughable” or a “waste”?

I guess I am missing your point here. Brooks calls his opponents names, says they do x, y, and z. Patterico points out that the party and President Brooks supports does more of the same things he accuses the Tea Party of.

And your response is what exactly? That you admit such is true and that Brooks never claimed it wasn’t?

So, then Patterico’s post is accurate? But it is so obvious that nobody needed to say it?

So you admit the democrats lie, call their opponents the most evil since hitler, and claim victomhood? But that everybody knows this so we should just ignore it?

Interesting argument. I agree with the part where Obama and the dems to all those things much more than their opponents. Not sure I agree with the part where we should ignore it.

Monkeytoe on September 20, 2010 at 2:58 PM

maverick muse on September 20, 2010 at 2:15 PM

Yes, and that is why she is still a TWIT! As long as you see things through her glasses, you are fine and have the correct perspective. She is more interested in people thinking SHE is the intellectual and is much smarter than the rest of us. People like her need to get a real job and become like the rest of us.

belad on September 20, 2010 at 3:42 PM

The only national leader in the world who believes all property is evil (as you seem to), currently runs North Korea. Every night the nation is almost entirely without lights… it’s a true eco-socialist paradise. Perhaps you should consider it.

theCork on September 20, 2010 at 11:23 AM

You really are a buffoon. So if anyone says that lowering the deficit is more important than lower taxes, they’re a socialist who needs to move to N. Korea?

I’d recommend that you stay where you aware because you clearly lack the intellect to travel outside the US.

bayam on September 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM

So you admit the democrats lie, call their opponents the most evil since hitler, and claim victomhood? But that everybody knows this so we should just ignore it?

I thought that Glen Beck did those things practically every day.

bayam on September 20, 2010 at 4:02 PM

So you admit the democrats lie, call their opponents the most evil since hitler, and claim victomhood? But that everybody knows this so we should just ignore it?

I thought that Glen Beck did those things practically every day.

bayam on September 20, 2010 at 4:02 PM

And? I don’t watch Beck, so wouldn’t know. But, go back to my point. If the point is that both parties do it, why the Brooks op-ed in the first place. If the argument is that only the tea party does it – I believe that was the refutation by Patterico in the original post.

And, it is possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes. I know that such is news to the left, but it is entirely possible. Indeed, it is preferrable.

Monkeytoe on September 20, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Re.ladyhawke53

Excuses are for democrats.

Boxy_Brown on September 20, 2010 at 11:55 AM

I see…. so you are pure enough to run for a political office?

I sincerely doubt that.

ladyhawke53 on September 20, 2010 at 4:42 PM

No mention of Christine O’Donnell “dabbling in witchcraft” and dating a satanist?

Gee… Guess that isn’t news.

Boxy_Brown on September 18, 2010 at 8:44 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that the standard we should judge candidates by, from this moment forward, is by pointing out questionable judgment that they used during high school?

If that’s the standard, I’m pretty sure that almost everyone is going to have something that it at least this questionable… and probably far more so!

At least she admits to it.

VekTor on September 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

And, it is possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes. I know that such is news to the left, but it is entirely possible. Indeed, it is preferrable.

Monkeytoe on September 20, 2010 at 4:34 PM

Point to the years when this effectively occurred, without the backdrop of debt spending that provided a very short-term lift to the economy and tax base. I’m just trying to be rational, not religious, about taxes. And I don’t see any evidence.

bayam on September 20, 2010 at 7:11 PM

Brooks is a non-consumate liar. Along with hie marxist boss, BO.

proconstitution on September 20, 2010 at 9:06 PM

And, it is possible to lower the deficit without raising taxes. I know that such is news to the left, but it is entirely possible. Indeed, it is preferrable.

Monkeytoe on September 20, 2010 at 4:34 PM
Point to the years when this effectively occurred

, without the backdrop of debt spending that provided a very short-term lift to the economy and tax base. I’m just trying to be rational, not religious, about taxes. And I don’t see any evidence.

bayam on September 20, 2010 at 7:11 PM

I’m not sure what your point is? Is it that it is impossible to reduce the deficit by cutting spending? If so, you need a math refresher course.

If your point is that it hasn’t happened – then that is a political argument. That is the exact problem. Congress, both parties, are addicted to spending. Unfortunately, it is the dems who are worse. We need to cut spending, cut the size of government, get rid of entire agencies, cut federal employee pay and benefits, cut the number of federal employees, etc.

If your point is that revenues have never increased because of tax cuts – you are wrong. Revenues have increased every single time taxes are cut.

So, again, not sure what your point is, but whatever it is, it is wrong.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 8:19 AM

And, talk about “not being religious about taxes”

Why do libs ALWAYS argue for higher taxes? And never for spending cuts?

Isn’t that the definition of religion? Always arguing the same point even though it has never worked? This time high taxes and spending will work!!!! this time socialism will work, it’s never been tried correctly before!!!! Cuba, the USSR, China, N. Korea – they all did socialism wrong.

Monkeytoe on September 21, 2010 at 8:25 AM

Are you seriously suggesting that the standard we should judge candidates by, from this moment forward, is by pointing out questionable judgment that they used during high school?

VekTor on September 20, 2010 at 4:47 PM

I wasn’t involved with satanists in high-school, were you? Her performance hasn’t been all that great since.

Boxy_Brown on September 21, 2010 at 9:34 AM

If she votes to cut taxes, spending and the size of gov I don’t care if she’s a raelean

Sonosam on September 21, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3