Sen. Harry Reid explains difference between violent anarchists and Tea Party

The bad news is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compared the Tea Party to anarchists today on the floor of the Senate. The good news: the Senate was debating sequestration cuts and not terrorism, so the comparison is not quite as offensive as it could have been. Reid even let the Tea Party off the hook for damaging buildings … directly.

So, how are Tea Party members like anarchists? Both groups want to get rid of the government, but the Tea Party is better at hiding it rather than being so openly violent about it. The bonus lesson: government is inherently good.

Reid apparently has the Tea Party on the brain today.

  • AmyKot

    Check his brain. He’s starting to sound a lot like Ted Kennedy before he was diagnosed.

    • SlimWich

      First, they’d need to check FOR a brain. If one was actually located inside that pinhead, I’m confident a special microscope would need to be developed to actually study something that small and insignificant.

  • Jules

    The Tea Party, Conservatives, or Republicans….whatever you want to call them are NOT against government. Quite the contrary. They are for limited government that allows for the freedoms and liberties our forefathers fought and died for. Our Constitution, which has made us the greatest nation in history, allows for limited government and individual freedoms. Unfortunately, the Democrats are for big government, high taxes, big spending, control, and a loss of freedom. I would call the Democrats the “anarchists” in that they are attempting to overthrow the government as we have known it.

    • CR

      Reminds me of a very apt quote:

      “Our founding fathers would have never tolerated any of this crap. For God’s sake, they were blowing peoples’ heads off because they put a tax on their breakfast beverage. And it wasn’t even coffee.””

      • David Arbuckle

        very aptly put sir!

      • Robert Patrick Moscato

        Dennis Miller is spot on with that one.

      • blder

        I believe the line was “no taxation without representation”, not “no taxation”

    • sue

      I couldn’t have said it better myself, Jules!

    • WWMD

      well except for the things you dont like people having their individual freedom thats ok.

      • John (it true me am)

        Oh please. Let’s go down the list your type loves to bring up regarding supposedly limiting individual freedom…

        1) Abortion. Your rights end where another person’s begins. Limiting and hopefully stopping abortion is stopping murder. It isn’t about limiting a freedom, it’s about preventing a heinous crime against another human. Even if you disagree when life begins, that doesn’t magically change the opposing argument.

        2) Gay marriage. First, marriage isn’t a right. Religious freedom is a right. Marriage is a religious ceremony. The government interference in marriage, regardless of whether the couple is straight or gay, has obfuscated the issue entirely. Civil unions(a specifically legal and not a religious act) are an entirely different issue and many people aren’t against them. Government coopting of the religious ceremony of marriage leading to forcing churches to perform marriages that go against their beliefs is an infringement on freedom of religion. In other words, protecting personal and religious freedom against arbitrary infringement in the name of protecting something that isn’t a right to begin with.

        3) Hard Drugs. Similar to drunk driving, these drugs create an altered state of mind that results in danger to the public(be it someone on PCP going berserk or a heroin junkie robbing a liquor store to feed their habit). Again, your rights end where anothers begins. (Marijauna is not included in this, which is of course where the major debate lies and I’m not going to get into here.)

        Meanwhile you have Democrats and progressive idiots under any other name as a rule calling for restrictions on everything from what car you can drive, what food you can eat, what size softdrink you can buy, whether or not you can use disposable grocery bags, buy bottled water… etc, etc, etc, etc. Meanwhile the right(again as a rule) is iffy on the issue of pot and that’s about it. … So, who is against personal choice and freedom again?

        • Jules

          You are spot-on, John. Thank you for that.

        • WWMD

          1: not a person with rights. Supreme court has ruled on that. VIABLE is the key. unless you are willing to pay the women you cannot force them into it. and of course abortion rates are less than half of what they were 20 years ago. This comes from education/ birth control but so many are trying to limit that and as they have in many southern states…where are the highest teen pregnancy rates? give you one guess. Fetus not a human. definition of human is a living breathing entity.

          2. you are mixing up the 2 issues AGAIN. Marriage is only a religious ceremony for SOME people. I love that when you people scream about taking rights away you change the definition of what you dont like to suit you. Marriage has NOT been anything resembling what it is today. even in different cultures its not all the same. ALL the government does is Civil Unions they have not obfuscated anything. You have. the argument is and only is over the legal aspects. they must be the same. and they are not in anyway the same from gov legal perspective. I will ask you is Marriage a law on the books? can you go to any state and find legal code discussing marriage? yes in every state. as the 14th amendment of the constitution states clearly:
          ALL PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; NOR SHALL ANY STATE DEPRIVE any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS

          This is the crux of the issue. Government has NOT coop the issue. You have turning it into something its not. Because unless you ban all non religious weddings your argument fails. Where you get the religious act from in regards to government is obtuse at best. If the justice of the peace marries you its not a religious ceremony if the elvis in vegas marries you its not a religious ceremony and no person that is gay is going to grow up thinking some day i want to be civil unionized. every couple straight or gay think marriage not C.U. for every couple it should be “Our day our way” be it in a church synagog park beach or where ever. Once you get that paper from city hall which most consider a formality, everything else is what matters the gathering of family and friends and loved ones which ever location is chosen its still meaningful to those involved.

          so when it becomes legal you need to think the license is the CIVIL UNION part. or civil marriage. because it is a CIVIL thing. the rest is YOUR DAY YOUR WAY if it makes you feel better to think of your marriage as super powered then so be it. that is your right. and last note on that NO WHERE in this country has ANY church nor WILL any church be forced to perform ANY wedding they choose not to and you need to stop propagating that myth because its a lie. every state that has gay marriage has very specific wording stating that. its worked for the catholic church for quite a long while now. you cannot get married there unless you are CATHOLIC. if you are not catholic try going to one and tell them you want to get married in the church. aint gonna happen. your fiancé may have her heart set on getting married in ST PATRICKS CATHEDRAL in NYC as her dream but unless you are catholic and convert it is not happening;. you see that is an establishment of religion. but, a public business that serves the public cannot proclaim they are a religious establishment and select gays not to sell to… and I cannot imagine any business turning away a customer. Same goes for others in the public arena like Pharmacists cannot decide arbitrarily to not fill a prescription for birth control when its a legal prescription from a doctor.. it is not their job or place to decide what is prescribed.

          this will give you a good overview of biblical marriage with bible quotes supporting each point.

          you are entitled to any religious belief you want but it does end when it infringes on the rights of others. see thomas jefferson on that. as proven in the prop 8 trial when the proponents could have any witness they wanted not one can say on a stand that a gay marriage harms the marriage of another person other than they dont like it. that does not pass legal muster in any way.

          you said it when you said similar to drunk driving. why dont people rob liquor stores in general for money to buy liquor? legal price the crime comes from the illegal trade and inflated price not the drug in general… if have seen the most berserk drunk people so again you can say i can have this cause i use it but he cant have that just cause he may go nuts. England proved years ago that providing heroin to users caused crime to evaporate. the users even were productive and worked. and of course not high. over ten years ago Portugal legalized ALL drugs.

          very conservative CATO institute

          forbes. abuse down by half

          and certainly John Stossel from fox news:

          on last point. what food are you being limited to? last I looked people were pretty well fed or over fed obesity is a huge problems driving health care costs sky high and that affects all of us. compare that to drug issues and there is no comparison obesity is the heavy weight champ. and on the car what are you prevented from buying? only thing is tax breaks for buying green cars and thats perfectly dont have to buy bottled water as your faucet works i bet…well if you are near colorado near certain fossil fuel pipelines or mines, flames may come out of your tap
          the right is iffy on the pot as they use it. and they see it does not cause the situation in refer madness. There are mass raves where people dance all night using various drugs and there is not the danger to the public because statistics dont back it up.

          every year Burning man an art and dance festival occurs in the High (no pun intended) desert of Nevada. major caveat NO MONEY ALLOWED PERIOD. one of the most amazing life experiences ever

          In the middle of a dry flat, a functioning city of 50,000 is erected. 50,000 people.
          drugs are prevalent but the problems from it are nil. the police have more domestic violence calls there and 9/10 times its alcohol related. not ecstasy it is on Federal land. the one motto of everyone is leave no trace. everyone packs up, takes every bit of trash they had, they even push broom the desert floor and when its over you could not tell anyone was there. crazy for a bunch of druggies huh?

          • John (it true me am)

            (Replying via tiny disqus dashboard window so posting a little piecemeal.)

            1) Again, your opinion on when life begins doesn’t magically change the opposing argument. The supreme court is a group of humans. Falliable humans. They proved that courtesy of Roberts for the millionth time with Obamacare. Or are liberals just giving up the 2000 election whining here and now forever? Because somehow I doubt that. Bottom line: The pro-life position is not about limiting freedom, never has been, but protecting life. Nothing you say can change that.

            2) Wow, what a lot of nothing. Marriage IS a religious ceremony. It has ALWAYS been a religious ceremony. You are making my point for me regarding the clouding of the issue. Laws from days long before anyone even thought up seperation of church and state established the legal benefits and requirements of marriage, often for the sake of things counter to the very nature of most liberal arguments(such as to establish a standard against which to enforce adultery and fornication laws). The continued coopting of the religious ceremony of marriage for legal purposes continues to this day, only now used for “positive” reasons such as tax breaks, inheritence, etc. Civil Unions are a distinctly different entity.

            I don’t even know where you get this laughable superfluous idea of banning all non-religious marriage, being a position anyone has ever taken anywhere nor that applies to the discussion in any reasonable form.

            I’ve said this before, but the left loves to ignore alternative solutions such as the common libertarian refrain of Civil Unions across the board with governemnt out of the marriage game entirely(supposedly this position being one that even Obama embraced years and years ago according to a liberal friend of mine I was discussing it with, but that’s pure hearsay).

            Anyway, most of what you said is just batshit crazy. Superpowered marriage? Where does that even come from? And bringing up the justice of the peace is just plain hilarious since that is just more proof of the government coopting of marriage.

            Oh, and just would like to point out regarding my previous statement of forcing churches to perform marriage against their beliefs… See: Obamacare contraceptive mandates.

            Bottom line: You have allowed yourself to create an ill informed hybrid idea of what Civil Unions are and what a marriage is. They are two different things, one purely legal in nature(which I do believe that as per equal protection under the law all people should have access to) and one purely religious in nature that has been abused by legal entities for millenia and is now being used as an idiotic talking point by you and your ilk.

          • John (it true me am)

            (Reply part 2, stupid disqus is making editing previous one a pain. I should have just done this from twitchy.)

            3) Drugs. Starting off by saying Cato is libertarian, not “conservative” in the way you are implying. Second, you mention berserk drunks. Fun fact. That actually IS ILLEGAL. So the comparison still stands and your point is invalid. Drunk and disorderly, public intoxication, etc. Overconsumption of alcohol leads to problems, but drinking responsibly does not. In comparison, there is no such thing as shooting up black tar heroin into your scrotum responsibly because it instanteously develops a massive chemical addiction that obscures rational thought.

            Going from there, no one robs a store to buy liquor because a drunk’s addiction isn’t anywhere near strong enough to drive them to it. Example: You don’t see anyone performing sexual favors in an alley for booze or pot.

            Then there is this England thing you mentioned that is laughable, of course they aren’t stealing shit and killing people for drugs if you are giving it to them. That doesn’t change the underlying problem. The very fact that you HAVE TO GIVE THEM DRUGS proves that. Besides, you’ve never heard of a methadone clinic have you? Managing an addiction is hardly novel.

            Ok so I admit at this point I didn’t bother reading the Brazilian link and all you provided because I noticed the bit about Burning man. Really. You’re going to bring up burning man. Wow. Just… wow. Smearing your shit on a wall and calling it art then having ecstasy fueled sex with a stranger doesn’t equate to being productive in society. Burning Man is a bunch of stoned kids playing, with a completely sober batch of EMTs sitting 2 feet away and firefighters and police there should something go wrong. If you think that translates into anything productive, all hope is lost.

            Bottom Line: While there is room for debate, and certainly is active debate, in the middle of the road areas of pot and excessive alcohol consumption, the hard drugs have one result and one result only: Hopeless addiction that destroys lives. Even super-liberal Bob Beckel due to his experience with cocaine is solidly against it. 99% of recovering drug addicts and people over the age of 30 know the score, and the fact you brought up Burning Man tends to tell me you don’t fit that bill.

            “4”) Other freedoms – Wow. So then you outright admit you want to control people’s freedoms? Because you are saying clearly you want to limit what people choose to eat and how they buy water. So there goes that whole liberals are for personal choice thing. GOOD ON YOU TO ADMIT IT.

            A little extra bit, topic by topic. Cars: There has been excessive and cumbersome legislation passed that calls for virtually unmeetable fuel standards. The cost of meeting these standards falls solely upon the consumer. This translates directly into undermining personal choice. Combined with the green car tax credits, it shows a direct government intervention into the market in order to shift consumers to be fiscally required to purchase a specific product or literally pay an undue price as established by federal whim.

            Bottled water: Nothing you say here matters. It’s personal choice plain and simple. Your reasons why not don’t matter, that we have faucets doesn’t matter. None of that matter. If there is a perfectly legal and viable product, in this instance specifically bottled water, that the government says you may not purchase because of some arbitrary whim, that is a limitation of personal choice and freedom.

            That little dig about the flaming faucets? Proven to be complete bullshit. I love that you are so behind in your propoganda you are still bringing it up. Every instance of “flaming water” brought to light has been investigated and dismissed as a pre-existing(to the random events enviro-idiots claim cause it) and completely natural issue with the region in question. You don’t even get the context of the complaint right since it’s one that people threw against frakking in an attempt to make something stick, not common pipelines and mining.

  • TDWilson

    I could write an eloquent rebuttal to Sen Reid’s comments, but I think I will just call him a jackass instead.

    • mickeyco

      works for me

    • Judy B

      Hat tip! He is indeed.

    • blder

      How is his statement any less ridiculous then calling Democrats socialist or communist?

      • ChillaKilla

        **How is his statement any less ridiculous then calling Democrats socialist or communist?**
        @bider — are you kidding me? If you think there is any correlation between the Tea Party and anarchists you have scrolled quickly enough through the previous posts to avoid getting even a whiff of reasonable description of their MO and their tactics.
        Now, if you have any verifiable facts to the contrary list them of STFU.
        On the other hand, the evidence that democRATS and socialists are joined at the waist is obvious, plentiful and in painful evidence!

        • E Quilibrate

          Earth to bider…….Earth to bider…Never mind.

    • David

      It’s difficult to smile or laugh with the fool Obama in the white house, but you succeeded. thanks

  • Gloves Donahue, Jr.

    The Tea Party wants to rid the government of mealy mouthed, nasty, lying little twisted worms from Searchlight, Nevada who think they are rulers, not public servants.

    Know anybody like that, Harry?

    • Todd Glotfelty

      We forgot ‘vile’!

      • angeleyez

        Aren’t Obama’s … Occupy Wall Street Sheep … the anarchists ?
        ▲ YES
        ▼ NO

        • lraivala

          No they are hard working average american citizen’s that like to crap on police cars, rob, steal, rape and destroy. Nothing like an anarchist.

          • AlmostaCowboy

            (chuckling while clicking the “up” button)

    • BlueGood

      YES…Tea Party all but caused riots in Toronto G-8 & G-20 meetings a few years back….they also were the leaders in all those Anarchist Occupy riots, rapes and property damages across North America….BIG PERCUSSIVE SNORT-a-ROONEY!

      Next thing “Harry Those Aren’t My Alien KId’s Reid” will be claiming it was the Catholic Church who caused 9/11………..

      His mouth has room for not only a dozen socks, but socks with the feet still in them…

      We’re keeping an eye out for you Harry…..especially when you go swimmin’ in Florida….

      • aliwilcox

        Best line of the week. “His mouth has room for not only a dozen socks, but socks with the feet still in them…”

        • BlueGood

          Why thank you Ali…. :o)

        • E Quilibrate

          Pretty much explains the breath.

    • Elaine

      Maybe we should explain the differences between Communists and Harry Reid? There’s not many….

    • Abiss

      Are you talking about ‘alleged’ pederast Harry Reid? From Searchlight NV? That one?

    • E Quilibrate

      To whomever might you refer, Gloves?

    • David Criola

      will said !

  • operanerd1986

    Harry Reid apparently does not know the difference between wanting no government and wanting smaller government.

    • Clayton Grant

      To him, it’s tomato tomatoe.

    • Judy B

      What Harry Reid doesn’t know would fill the Grand Canyon, & every sports arena on earth.

      • Peyton

        It already fills the whitehouse.

    • SpinMeNot

      He’s just a bit senile .. tomorrow we will be told he confused the Tea Party with OWS … just like the rest of the left.

      Can’t really blame him, it’s tough being old and leftist — you start to live in a fantasy world where truth is more important than power, and country is more important than party.

      Wait … oh, nvm. I’m still pissed at MurphTestical …

      • WWMD

        for a second I thought you were describing Michelle Bachmann. She being the expert at living in a fantasy world. Facts certainly are not her strong suit

        n a January speech the Tea Party activist invoked her love of the Founding Fathers who “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.”

        Many of the founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were, in fact, slave owners. And as every middle school history teacher will tell you, the founding fathers virtually ignored the issue of slavery. It was not until the mid 1800s that slavery became a contentious issue in American politics.

        This all comes from the Congresswoman who organized Constitution classes for her fellow members of the House. “We’re going to practice every week, if you will, our craft, which is studying and learning the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights,” Bachmann said in an interview with Lou Dobbs. She said the classes were intended to help members of Congress “wrap our minds around this magnificent document.”

        no one at any of her speeches were bothered by the lack of accuracy
        no surprise there

        • Evelyn Zerfas

          “And as every middle school history teacher will tell you, the founding fathers virtually ignored the issue of slavery. It was not until the mid 1800s that slavery became a contentious issue in American politics.”

          Then every middle school history teacher is misinformed. The founding fathers did not ignore the issue of slavery and it was very contentious. Jefferson, even though he was a slaveholder himself, tried to get an anti-slavery statement into the Declaration of Independence and failed. Jefferson, the slaveowner, spent his career trying to do away with slavery. Benjamin Franklin, who also owned slaves, pushed for the abolition of slavery. There were many people at the time of the founding of our country who saw the hypocrisy of our continuing to allow slavery, while sending King George the Declaration of Independence. The Civil War was the culmination of over a hundred years of controversy over slavery and the slave trade. Bachmann is more accurate on this matter than you are.

          • WWMD

            you are absolutely wrong on Jefferson. If he spent his career as you put it, and dont get me wrong Jefferson was brilliant on many thing mainly his writings on keeping religion out of civil government. trying to abolish slavery, then, why do we have a man who articulates one things and does something quite different. I mean he talks about freedom and liberty and he continues to deny freedom and liberty to other people. I’ll give you one example of this. During the Revolution Cornwallis comes through and runs away with a bunch of Jefferson’s slaves. Jefferson later writes and complains that he only got five of these slaves back and that many of the rest died of smallpox in the British camp. Jefferson says, “If Cornwallis had taken the slaves to free them, he would have done the right thing.” But what Jefferson never realizes is that he gets five slaves back and doesn’t free them. He keeps them in bondage the rest of their lives. There’s a tremendous contradiction, a tremendous hypocrisy between Jefferson’s words and his deeds when we look at his articulation of human liberty and when we look at the fact that he is a tenacious slave holder, going after his runaway slaves throughout his life, holding onto his slaves and, of course, using his slaves as a source of ready capital whenever he needs money. Jefferson goes to France and seems to buy everything in sight: over 80 crates of everything from dishes to furniture to books to sculpture to paintings. It goes on and on and on. They recently found bottles of wine still in France that Jefferson forgot to bring back with him. How does he pay for all this? He pays for it in part by the labor of his slaves. He pays for it in part by selling slaves. He sells over 80 slaves in just the decade alone from 1785 to 1795. sell not freed. Franklin did so at end of his life. When they wrote all men are created equal they were not referring to slaves sorry.
            Bachmann is not more accurate on this matter than I am. For one I know John Quincy Adams was not a founding father. But to say The founding fathers worked tirelessly till slavery was no more” is a little well incorrect

            When the story was going around that the British were offend about US representation on Thatchers funeral claiming Obama did not send a delegation which is a lie, they really were talking about the house of representatives sending their delegation lead by Michelle Bachmann

            Here’s the transcript:
            Stephanopoulos: Sarah Palin in Iowa, President Obama in Iowa, one step ahead of them – Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. She made it official in Iowa yesterday. This morning she is in New Hampshire. Thanks for joining us congresswoman.

            Bachmann: Thank you George, it is great to be with you this morning.

            Stephanopoulos: In your announcement you said ‘my voice is part of a movement to take back our country.’ From whom?

            Bachmann: Well, from the people all across the nation. The voice that I learned growing up in Iowa was a very reasonable common sense voice and that is one that I’ve learned, that I’ve taken to – very successfully to the halls of Congress. And now I want to take that to the White House so that we can get the country back on the right track and get job creation going. That’s the message that’s resonating with people and that’s why so many people have been going to my new website that we launched, They are joining up on Facebook and Twitter. It’s really a growing movement, we’re in New Hampshire today and we’re on our way down to South Carolina to start our bus tour so we are very excited with the response from people all across the country.

            Stephanopoulos: You have been making a lot of progress, also getting a lot of scrutiny. I am not going to get too deep into the “flake” flap from Sunday. But as you make progress in this campaign everything you say is going to get more scrutiny. And the Pulitzer Prize winning website, Politifact, has found that you have the worst record of making false statements of any of the leading contenders. And I wondered if you wanted to take a chance to clear up some of your past statements. For example earlier this year you said that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence worked tirelessly to end slavery. Now with respect Congresswoman, that’s just not true. Many of them including Jefferson and Washington were actually slave holders and slavery didn’t end until the Civil War.

            Bachmann: Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world.

            Stephanopoulos: I agree with that…

            Bachmann: That’s what people want…they realize our government is taking away our freedom.

            Stephanopoulos: But that’s not what you said. You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.

            Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….

            Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?

            Bachmann: Well, John Quincy Adams most certainly was a part of the Revolutionary War era. He was a young boy but he was actively involved.

            Stephanopoulos: Well let me move on to another one of your statements on the issue of jobs which is so central to this campaign. You said back in 2005 that taking away the minimum wage could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment. Where is the evidence for that?

            Bachmann: You know I think what we need to do is, again George, focus on job creation. I’m a former federal tax litigation attorney. I worked for years in the federal tax court system and watched how devastating high taxes are on business and individuals and farmers. And I’m also a job creator. My husband and I started from scratch a successful small business. That’s really the focus that I’m hearing today in New Hampshire. People are very upset that the president has us at 9.1 percent unemployment. That is not acceptable. He promised us that we wouldn’t see unemployment go above 8 percent. We’ve lost millions of jobs, people are suffering, they are hurting and I feel their pain and I want to make sure that what we do going forward is actually to address this and turn the economy around and get it on the right track because that’s really what people care about – that’s what they’re talking to me about all across the country.

          • John (it true me am)

            I personally couldn’t care less about Bachmann. This is just basic redirection. Her failings on phrasing history hardly excuse Reid’s failings on everything. Though for the record, while Bachmann certainly did a poor job of communicating what she was getting at(and the word tireless was pure hyperbole), slave ownership was most definitely a contentious issue that founders sought to end. Unfortunately while it is true that it often fell to the back burner in the name of building up the new country, it never stopped being contentious.

            Even prior to the civil war Presidents and legislature from both the Democrats and Whigs(and their various offshoots and predecessors) walked a fine line on the issue, often coming out against it but not acting on it forcefully for fear of breaking the Union. (Something Jefferson in particular was fearful of.)

            The issue of the founders and slavery also willfully ignores the importance they placed on state rights, which was viewed as being far more important than the federal government.

            Ultimately, to say that many/most founders didn’t work to abolish slavery is a falsehood as they actively did just that piece by piece, leading to the fact that many states became free even prior to the Missouri comprimise.

            History has been unfair on the issue in that no President prior to Lincoln waved their magic pen and declared slavery over(so to speak). It doesn’t mean that earlier men didn’t work against slavery, simply that they did so in keeping with the laws of the new land they had molded and feared that acting unilateraly on even the most righteous issue would lead to future catastrophe. Which it turns out, they were right. The Civil War of course being the biggie, but also every failure of an executive action taken without a second thought and Presidents who think themselves more a king since. (And no that isn’t an Obama jab, that goes back way before Obama and includes Republicans.)

          • WWMD

            nevada is a conservative state and i doubt he would be re elected if he failed at everything

          • Guest

            He was probably re elected by the mexican voters

          • WWMD

            balancing the gerrymandering? mexican voters fine as long as they are citizens there are many you know

          • John (it true me am)

            You’re right. Apparently he’s really good at identifying and conning gullible Nevada voters. That’s something he didn’t fail at I guess.

          • WWMD

            When you guys stop putting people like Michelle Bachmann in office then we can talk

          • John (it true me am)

            As opposed to great examples of Democratic voter choices such as Al Franken or Anthony Weiner?

          • WWMD

            really? ill match either against michelle bachmann any day of the week

          • WWMD

            When you guys stop putting people like Michelle Bachmann in office then we can talk

          • Julie Gannon

            Did the world have slaves before America? Does America have slaves now?

          • SpinMeNot

            I really like the fact the WWDM rants about slavery and fails to acknowledge that some 95%+ of the slaves sold out of Africa into the Americas were sold by Muslims … there Arabic word for slave, black man and Africa are the same … ‘Abd’

            Where is MurphTesticle to pile onto this and tell us we need to better understand the Jihadi so we can further the cause of democracy …

          • WWMD

            ZERO to do with the topic of thread but your point? I was responding to the lady who said Jefferson was anti slavery etc which is not true while she was trying to vindicate Michelle Bachmanns ludicrous comments about “founding fathers worked tirelessly till slavery was no more” and “John Quincy Adams was a founding father”

          • Kathy McKiernan Lang

            so as early as the founding of our country, leaders have had a do as i say, not as i do mentality…interesting.

          • WWMD

            they never told people NOT to have slaves 2 diff things. Jefferson wanted to send them out of america which he thought for society would have been better. Africa and west indies.

          • SpinMeNot

            So, what delegation did Obama send to Baroness Thather’s funeral .. who represented the office of the POTUS and where is the release stating they were the official representative of the president.

            We’ll wait for you to find that …

          • WWMD

            you are serious? he sent 2 men who worked with her, knew her, friends with her, well respected men who were 4 th in line to the presidency both who served during Thatcher’s reign James Baker III and George Shultz Both secretaries of state for Reagan and Bush 1
            David Cameron, conservative Prime Minister GB said it was an excellent thoughtful choice. of course I can imagine the snickers when he heard the house, who sends their own, sent Michelle Bachmann bahahahaha Why didnt Boehner go? Since she was so beloved? Obviously Obama couldnt have gone anyway. neither did Bush 1 or 2
            ok here. not that you can’t find this in 30 seconds. also if you review my comment to trixiewoodbeans i listed everything and do not come back at me that it was added later or some junk like that. I saw it the day it was released




            I got responses of he could have done at least what he did for Chavez uh i former congressman from MASS and a unknown congressman from NY who have had dealings with Venezuela with whom we would like to get some relations back with.

          • SpinMeNot

            I missed that announcement, thanks for that pls note it was also last minute. She was buried the next day. Analysis, he got heat so he did something.

          • WWMD

            The note of rememberence was 9 days before and the announcement was 2 days before not one. announcement april 15 funeral april 17 Boston- April 15

          • WWMD

            and he got heat from who? Fox news corp/NY POST? come now. which is where the “disappointing”comment came from. and Guardian same thing england…2 newspapers that have a bent on things. I go by what people who matter say like the head of state of England

          • WWMD

            ahh and i see my opinions are not allowed in this “free country of Twitchy” ive been banned for simply expressing my opinion. i have been called horrific names but i bet they are still allowed.

        • AlmostaCowboy

          At least pretend to try to stay on topic, will ya, Dizzy?

          • WWMD

            oh its right on topic.

    • TugboatPhil

      But in his defense, Harry does know a lot about pomegranate trees and cowboy poetry. Er…well he knows about spending OUR money on those things.

      • r_coplin2001

        The Tea Party wants the federal government to stop paying for Cowboy Poetry that Harry Reid wants in his state of Nevada its no wonder that Harry Reid is upset.

    • grais

      He knows the difference, just like he knows that Romney DOES pay his taxes.

      Harry Reid lies for a living.

    • Pat Loudoun

      Of course he does. He also knows you can tell an Obama voter that grass is blue and they’ll agree as long as you have a D next to your name.

  • Clayton Grant

    It’s Harry that needs to fear a tea party revolt.

  • Jared Mucha

    For the tea party being dead, he sure seems to think that they’re relevant enough to talk about.

  • Jared Mucha

    In harry reid’s case, even when you’re extremely stupid, you are still wrong. A LOT.

  • Adela Wagner

    What Difference Does It Make?! Everyone knows Nancy told us, “The Tea party? They aren’t a grass roots movement, haha They’re Astro Turf”…
    Now how in the world can astro turf make any kind of difference? Much less having a Congressional influence…..>snort<

  • hosss

    The man does not even have a clue what the Tea Party is about. He says Gov. is good!! Then why in the Hell do we have a $16,000,000,000,000.00 debt on our children.

    • Billie Slash

      He might get a clue in 2014.

    • WWMD
      • AlmostaCowboy

        WHOA! ZFACTS & Time magazine. Two bedrocks of accurate information. I like that you can imply an entire annual debt increase of $144B somehow is to blame and ignore something like The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which accounted for $787B in crony give-aways out of the $1.4 TRILLION deficit of 2009. OBTW – that $1.4T in Obie’s first YEAR is equal to Reagan’s 2-term increase.

        • WWMD

          you can spin it anyway you want. so for approx 1/8 of what was spent on unnecessary wars, well a necessity for those it enriched talk about cronies. state governments are not “cronies” if you look through what it was spent on it is solid needed things to SPEND HERE IN AMERICA not some desert dust bowl where we handed out palettes of million dollar piles no tracing needed. here is Texas accounting for the money they received. certainly not a liberal government. I loved how all the congressmen who bellowed against it sure lined up for the money. 1/8 of the wars not a bad investment. certainly not “cronies” as was done in the wars with no bid contracts.

          and from FORBES certainly a conservative journal a link many here gave me to prove their point but this one

          you wont like it so you will find a way to dismiss it unfortunately. Do you know that the first 9 months are bush’s budget as fiscal years for government are what is used oct-sept. Yes as much as you will hate it< Obama is the slowest spender since Eisenhower

          these facts released by CBO OMD and Haver analytics a very well respected economic data org numbers are numbers you cant pick one without taking the whole thing into view.

    • WWMD
    • blder

      That debt will be passed to your children’s children and so forth, as it was to us. It isn’t a big deal, either.

  • Kevin

    For the minions watching the state controlled media, there is no difference.

  • Peyton

    We have a constitution because government is inherently bad and must be reined in.

    • SpinMeNot

      Stop with the logic … you’ll confuse the lib/progs.

    • blder

      This is where you are wrong. “Government” is not inherently bad. It is that people are the ones running the Government, and power corrupts. There is nothing inherently evil about people making collective decisions on certain matters. Obviously, the decision-making should be limited to matters that involve the whole of society, such as defense and environment protection, though.

      • Jules

        You can make collective decisions as long as they don’t interfere with an individual’s freedom. Our government, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights is designed to protect the “individual” not the “collective”. That is why we are a Representative Republic and NOT a Democracy where a simple majority rules. The founders were very smart here. You cannot have a transitory majority rule over the minority. For all those who were upset with the requirement of 60 votes (vs 51) in the Senate (to pass the unConstitutional Gun Control Bill), the reason it was important and the right thing to do, is so that the transitory majority doesn’t rule over the minority especially on a Constitutional Protected Right like the Right to Bear Arms.

        • blder

          How could the constitution protect the individual without protecting the collective? If the collective falls, then so do the “rights” of the individual recognized by it. I’m sure you understand that no one has any “rights” if we all lived isolated lives, as what’s mine is what I can take and what’s yours is what you can defend. What law will you appeal to regarding your “rights” when a random marauder raids your house, if you are not part of a society? Also, you are so far off on your understanding of a Republic compared to a Democracy. They both imply majority rules, but in a Republic the atomic pieces are collective groups, not individual people. Your belief that there is a 60 vote requirement in the Senate also shows your misunderstanding of basic civics, since it is in fact majority rule, however the filibuster requires a super-majority to break, yet the filibuster has not always been so common. Your understanding of our system is shockingly off base.

          • MissDiane47

            Oh. My. God!!! You’re a “collectivist!” I certainly hope you don’t have children; if you do, they don’t belong to you!! But please, stay away from me & my family!!

          • blder

            Since you do not belong to any collective, or believe in one, please stop calling yourself an American, if you have been doing so.

          • MissDiane47

            The only “collective” I belong to is my family and friends of my own choosing!! My family is NOT yours!!! So, shut. up!!!

          • blder

            As long as you’re not an American.

          • MissDiane47

            Now you’re just trolling … move along, scumbag!!

          • blder

            How could you possibly be an American, which is a Nation and therefore a “collective”, if the only “collective” you belong to is your friends and family? This is a very specific question, which I hope you can offer a direct answer to.

          • MissDiane47

            I don’t believe I owe you anything; And I do NOT have to subscribe to your collectivist ideology!!

            For the final time: Buzz off!! Don’t make me say it again!

          • blder

            You’re just a fool with no mind of your own if you can’t even grasp the concept that by being American you are part of a collection of people, also known as a society. It is sad you how deeply committed you are to an ideology you can’t even defend.

          • MissDiane47

            Do you get your jollies off by insulting people and defaming their character just because they disagree with you??

            Just because I am an American (born and raised), doesn’t mean I am a part of a collective majority – according to your sick, communistic-way-of-thinking. As long as I am not causing harm to another person, I have the freedom to live my life as I see fit to do so. That’s all I am going to say about this. Now LEAVE ME ALONE!!

          • SpinMeNot

            I answered your question above … and I spent 18 years in the military, shut your pie hole with regard to telling people they aren’t American. If they are a citizen, they are an American. We don’t have any further qualifications than that in this country.

            Go back to humping your coconut … your handlers are not going be pleased with your pathetic efforts.

          • blder

            Tell that to her. She is the one insisting she is not a part of any sort of collective, which would imply she is not an American.

          • SpinMeNot

            No it implies no such thing. It implies that she is not a collectivist and she actually understands that the US political and economic system is not currently based on collectivist theories.

            Collectivism is any philosophic, political, religious, economic, or social outlook that emphasizes the interdependence of every human being in a society or civilization. Collectivism is a basic cultural element that exists as the reverse of individualism in human nature.

            The US was founded on the concept of the meritorious capability of motivated individuals. It is only recently that progressive have begun to shift the US towards collectivist theories. We are not talking about just words here … its political science.

            You and WWDH are a nice pair of poorly informed bookends.

          • blder

            I’m not referring to any particular philosophy when I say collective. We are a group of individuals, working together for mutual gains, which have formed a society. We are not atomic individuals, and absolutely have obligations to each other.

          • E Quilibrate

            If you gain about 100 I.Q. points you could qualify
            as a moron.

          • blder

            What exactly do you disagree with that I said? Try and be specific.

          • E Quilibrate

            I have never been less than specific.

          • blder

            I’m assuming you aren’t being serious, since you posted “If you gain about 100 I.Q. points you could qualify as a moron”, to which I asked you to specifically explain why you said that, and your answer was, “I have never been less than specific.”

            A waste of time.

          • SpinMeNot

            Do us all a favor and crawl back into what ever institute of progressive indoctrination left the door open for you to sneak out.

            Jesus, Mary and Joseph — MurphTestical, WWDH, and now this clown … can somebody call Orkin pls?

          • SpinMeNot

            You don’t get it that America is founded on the strength of individuals working together for mutual gain, where some will benefit more than others, but where opportunity is equal and outcome dependent on the individuals. There is nothing collective about that. We are a Representative Democracy organized as a Constitutional Republic. We are not a collective …

            And watch who you ask to stop calling themselves an American … I’m thinking TXLadyPatriot is more of an American that you will ever be.

          • blder

            And what exactly would you call “individuals working together for mutual gain”?

          • everythingispolitics

            You are better than me. You make perfect sense and I don’t think they understand what it means to be apart of a collective.

          • gjsmith_62

            A collective is forced. Lenin was right about propagandists being useful idiots.

          • blder

            A collective, by definition, is not necessarily forced. A collective is literally a collection of people or entities working together. You are assigning a particular philosophy to the word, while I am using it in the general sense.

          • gjsmith_62

            LOL, right and you’re not using the term collective as a tweak, either, right? While the term collective in and of itself isn’t strictly forced, it is known when used for people to have been forced.

            Nice attempt at word games. If you’d been trying to identify Americans, you’d have used the word nation.

          • blder

            “There is nothing inherently evil about people making collective decisions on certain matters”, was my original statement, and then I said “How could the constitution protect the individual without protecting the collective? If the collective falls, then so do the “rights” of the individual recognized by it.” – Taking my words out of context to fit with your prejudices doesn’t put me at fault.

          • gjsmith_62

            Don’t like “prejudice”? Stop using loaded words. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child.

            And collective is associated with Marxism, which is inherently evil.

          • blder

            This is why the Republican party can’t get anything done. You’re ideology that ideas like Marxism are “inherently” evil is irrational. How is communism “inherently” evil? Stupid and ineffective in practice, yes. Evil? No. “Evil” requires intentional action against “Good”, neither of which are a fundamental property of ANY economic system. You can argue all day that communism has led to “evil” outcomes, and you will be right. Communism is “the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity”, which I fail to see the evil in. It is an impossible ideal, but again, we should not be in the business of using “evil” as a means of demonizing ideas, but instead using logic to prove why certain ideas are ineffective at producing a free and prosperous society.

          • gjsmith_62

            The GOP can’t get things accomplished because the democrats want Marxism and the GOP doesn’t. ObamaRxCare is socialist.

            “Communism is “the idea of a free society with no division or alienation, where the people are free from oppression and scarcity””

            LOL! Too damn funny. A “free society”? Controlled by the “pigs”.

            “no division” … utopia

            “people are free from oppression and scarcity”

            What a bunch of drivel.

            “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

            And who decides “need”, why the state of course.

            Marx, “Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property”

            Yeah, just a little despotism,
            Lenin 7 million dead
            Stalin 30 million dead
            Mao 50 million dead
            Pol Pot 10 million dead

            Ah, what’s a couple hundred million dead matter when the goal is a “prosperous society”?

            “The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property”

            Yep, pigs with sheets and some are more equal than others.

          • blder

            Man, you are so, so, so, so, so stupid. I tried to be nice, and I clearly mentioned that communism has led to evil outcomes in all its implementations. I was trying to explain to you there is a difference between ideas in theory and in practice. But you’re just too stupid to have a discussion with, and instead just want to drone on with your talking points.

          • gjsmith_62

            Ah, ad hominem, the last resort of a liberal. Stick to YOUR collective.

          • blder

            It is only an ad hominem attack if I was trying to discredit your argument through attacking you. We weren’t even having a discussion, because you were so off the rails and talking out of context. I was just calling you stupid because you were being stupid and not even trying to be rational by actually responding to my points.

          • gjsmith_62

            Oh ok, you’re an ignorant moron who believes “his” words are special and should not have any connotation other than “his” meaning.


          • Jules

            I strongly suggest you go back and retake that US History course and a course in Constitutional Law. The Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) protects the INDIVIDUAL. And, our Republic, not Democracy, is NOT majority rule. That is why we have only 2 Senators from each state regardless of population in each state. That is why there is an electoral college that determines Presidential Elections, not the popular vote/majority. Your ignorance is astounding. But, then again, you are the low-information voter that the Democrats nurture and depend on.

            PS The 60 vote required for the Gun Control Bill was forced by the filibuster / cloture and is allowed to prevent a “transitory majority” to rule the minority. You’re lucky that was even allowed. Because the Gun-Control Bill was unConstitutional and should never have hit the floor of the Senate as it infringes on the 2nd Amendment which specifically states “shall not be infringed”.

          • blder

            Thanks for the lesson, but please read what I said. Our Republic is majority rule. The Senate is composed of representatives voting on behalf of each State. The House votes on behalf of the people. In both cases, bills are passed by majority rule. Electoral votes are allocated based off the total number of representatives a state has, but since presidents do not pass laws I fail to see the relevance. Finally, the Bill of Rights does protect individual rights, but I don’t understand why you are bringing it up out of context here.

            As far as the gun control bill being unconstitutional, you are apparently forgetting that the Supreme Court has ruled that certain restrictions can be put on the 2nd Amendment. If you don’t understand, consider how the 1st Amendment does not protect all speech, as you cannot threaten to murder someone.

          • Jules

            @blder Here’s a lesson for you……


            In its pure form, democracy is simply majority rule. Every person in a political unit gets together to decide every issue of government and to pass every law. There are no protections for minority rights. The decisions of those participating made by 50% + 1 are final and binding. Often, pure democracy is referred to as “mobocracy” in that decisions can be made by a simple majority of a mob and enforced on all society.

            Representative Democracy:

            This is an evolution over pure democracy to allow larger societies to function when it becomes impractical for all members of society to participate in every decision. Representatives are chosen and simply again, 50% + 1 results in law. There are no permanent minority protections absent those which the majority wishes to grant and such protections may be taken away at the whim of the majority. This is principally the system of Great Britain, in that there is no written constitution and Parliament is the ultimate arbiter of everything. While English tradition has grown around respect of certain rights, there are no legal limitations upon Parliament changing the law in any way it desires.


            A republic (like the United States) has a variety of characteristics that define it. First and foremost is the existence of a written supreme law, or constitution. The constitution contains both guarantees and systems to protect the rights of minorities and individuals and to place limitations upon the power of transitory majorities. Another characteristic includes the process of selection of representatives to pass laws pursuant to powers granted by the constitution. The source of authority in a republic is the people as a whole, and the people as a whole ratify a constitution before it becomes effective. A republic does NOT operate under the 50% + 1 rule because of the components that limit the government’s power and the legal protections afforded to what are considered “natural rights” for the individual and the minority.

            Confusion of Republic and Democracy

            Over time the terms republic and democracy have come to have meaning by inaccurately blurring them together. This may stem back to President Woodrow Wilson’s characterizing World War I as an effort to make the world safe for democracy. President Wilson was mistaken.

            Hope that helps you :-) Class is over for the day.

          • SpinMeNot

            Our Republic is not majority rule … majority rule is a characteristic of democracies. Our country is representative form of government and it is rule by the majority of the representatives. Given the fact that we no long have a Congress that is structured as the Founding Father’s wanted … we have no representation of the state governments in Washington (17th Amendment) we have even bigger problems. Representatives and Senators regularly vote to favor themselves and not their constituents.

            With regard to threaten to murder, actually you can. It is all about intent. If you have no intent to actually do the deed, you can’t be arrested, with the notable exception of our new Thought Crimes “making a terroristic threat”, but that requires you actually threaten to kill a large number of people. A radical Imam in a radical mosque can say pretty much anything they want, unless it can be proven that someone acted on their incitement, there isn’t much the law can do.

            You really don’t understand politics very well. I’d recommend you go back and take those classes that were recommended to you.

          • blder

            Ugh, what is so hard to understand that a Republic is still majority rule, in the sense of requiring a majority of representatives. For the senate, those representatives are representing the people of the States who elected them. Do you understand that? Can you get that through your head?

            The concept of intent isn’t mentioned at all in the 1st Amendment, so your argument is completely ****ing stupid and irrelevant.

          • SpinMeNot

            Really? Majority rule? Please show me the majority of US voters that believe the elected members of the legislative branch of government should not be held to insider trading laws.

            No, this country is not about majority rule at the federal level. This is why we have an electoral college, and the senate was intended to represent the states equally. At the state, county and municipal levels yes, we are majority rule.

            There is nothing in the first amendment that prevents a person from threatening to murder someone. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that prevents a person from yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. That was the POTUS and intent is in the US criminal code with regard to being able to prosecute someone for any crime. A threat to kill must represent a potential of immediate harm coupled with present ability and intent.

            You really need to learn a bit more before proving that for you facts are irrelevant.

            Try again junior.

          • blder

            Please GOD learn how to read. I have said it over and over again. I am not saying that we are majority rule by individual voting, but by representation. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that concept?

            The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from creating any law “abridging the freedom of speech”, which is much more clearly phrased than the 2nd Amendment. Who cares what the US criminal code says, the 1st Amendment says NO LAW shall abridge the freedom of speech. Please explain to me how libel laws are constitutional.

          • gjsmith_62

            By your “logic” if a bill is passed in Congress and signed into law, outlawing guns, there would be no legal recourse. While the Courts often fail in their interpretation of the Constitution, they are supposed to check the power of Congress and the president.

            Hence a Constitutional Republic, not majority rule.

          • ThatConfused1

            A federal republic is not ruled by the majority, it is ruled by laws in place to protect the minority from power rampant majorities. Seems you are not familiar with the 5th amendment then. Example: the ignorant public wants Mr. Zimmerman of Florida to fry without any court hearings or a ruling. However, by law he is to be given a fair trial. The majority collective in the liberal sphere wants him dead, however the law is protecting his rights against the collective you are willing to bend over for.
            Nazi Germany is a classic example of the collective or the Majority flexing its power over the minority, so think a bit more into what you’re advocating.

          • blder

            Ah yes. Such a liberal thing. That is why the Conservative right is standing up for the Tsarnaev brothers and eagerly awaiting the results of a fair trial before judging them.

            You are in a bubble, my friend.

      • MissDiane47

        Yes, I know this is kinda off-topic, but I’m going to say it anyway: First of all, leave the “environment protection” out of this argument!! Didn’t you get the memo? The “environmental protection” issues (also known as Climate Change/Global Warming) … that has been debunked by many, MANY scientists. The leftists still insist on spreading the lies and demanding control of everything we do in our lives.

        • blder

          First, to say that those issues are debunked is ridiculous. Second, get your head out of the bubble because those aren’t the only environmental issues that exist. What does climate change have to do with dumping mercury into rivers, deforestation, overfishing, or the thousands of other issues that arise when you can understand what those of us who get economics call the “tragedy of the commons”.

          • MissDiane47

            I’ll stab deforestation for you … let’s go in the direction of “wildfires.” Those happen naturally, because that’s how nature works. You get dead trees, they burn down under hot temperatures, called “spontaneous combustion.” And then after awhile, trees *DO* come back; I’ve known this since I was a kid!

            Overfishing – that’s a load of crap and has been for years! And the dumping of mercury in the rivers is not the fault of the American people; nor should we be held liable in any way for that! Blame that on companies like Monsanto!!

            You must be an “evangelist” for Agenda 21. Well … sorry, blder … I ain’t buyin’ it!!

          • blder

            What exactly is the difference between corporations and people? Corporations are owned by people, and act for the ultimate benefit of people. Do you really not believe the Government should be responsible for passing regulations that prevent corporations, or people, from dumping toxic waste into our waterways? What about oil spills? How do you suggest we prevent those things without Government?

          • MissDiane47

            Uh-huh!! Yep!! Keep it up, bleeding-heart, tree-hugging “Chicken Little!!” Blah, blah, blah!!! It’s the same tired LYING argument (from those who wrote Agenda 21) over trying to protect the earth while demanding that we shut our water off because the earth will dry up if we don’t!

            BULL-hockey-pucks!!! Preach it to some other idiot who doesn’t know how to think for themselves. As for me … I’m done w/your false-flag!

          • SpinMeNot

            Really? Did you see the study from NASA that refutes their previous study and declares CO2 a coolant rather than a green house gas? Let me guess, you think we need to take steps to keep people from having children until we reach that mythical sustainable 500M human mark?

          • blder

            Let me guess, you believe in Agenda 21 and the Illuminati.

        • ChillaKilla

          This is an interesting take on the “Global Warming Hoax” perpetrated by the guv’mint. In addition to the writer’s credentials, the following paragraphs are quite credible, in view of the totalitarian tendencies of ‘the ruling class’:
          ** Three years before Dr. James Hansen and colleagues had made a presentation to a Joint Committee of Congress saying we were entering an ice age. They yawned, “How do we tax a glacier?” He came back in 1988 with “man-caused global warming.” They saluted on a “We can tax carbon!” realization.

          I had completely different ideas on man and the atmosphere; that it was a hoax, but one with a potential of more tax money and power than anything the elected ruling class has ever seen and they would push it to the gunwales. I am still not sure they won’t win.**

          • MissDiane47

            I’ll read it, but if you’re trying to push the same thing as blder, I’m not interested. I’ve known for many, many years that the entire issue has been a fraud to control every single man, woman & child on earth! They’re nothing but “Enviro-Nazi’s!

      • E Quilibrate

        I guess you have a different constitution than the one I
        grew up with. Fortunately yours was never ratified.

        • blder

          Would you care to explain that statement? We have a Constitution, which establishes our government and says nothing about government being bad, because government is inherently bad?

          • E Quilibrate

            The explanation lies in reading the 2nd amendment and not concluding that it refers to hunting or target practice. No?

          • blder

            I’m not really sure why you think that I interpret the 2nd amendment that way.

          • SpinMeNot

            You need to go back to school. The Founding Fathers had nothing but distrust of a strong federal government? Try reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers … this is why we have the Bill of Rights.

          • blder

            You may not understand nuance, but there is a difference between being uneasy about a strong federal government and believing that government is “inherently” evil.

          • ThatConfused1

            You’ve never studied what happened to Lenin’s most devout followers then or did you ever read about the Night of the Long Knives in Germany in the 30’s? Those who thought government was their friend and benefactor ended up in Gulags, firing squads or butchered in their own home when the leadership was done with such people.

          • blder

            As I have tried to explain, the enemy in all of the cases cited is not “government”, but a particular government. Government is an idea, where a group of people with similar interests come together to make decisions that effect them all. Government is the only way human beings can peacefully live together, as government is nothing more than a contract between parties to act in accordance with certain rules, and by adhering to these rules certain “rights” are acknowledged and protected. Obviously, a bad government is a bad thing. However, there is nothing inherently bad about contracting with other people else for mutual gain, which is what government fundamentally is.

          • ThatConfused1

            You’re living in a fantasy world and bringing forth a lie to someone that tutors college students in political science and United States History. You are a moron to believe anything you just typed up.

            May whoever has you as a political sciences student have mercy on you as they run down the vastly different forms of a Republic, of which none are ruled by the majority.

          • blder

            What did I lie about? Also, how are laws passed then? 40% of the votes, 60% of the votes?

          • ThatConfused1

            You have lied about everything. You also do not know how senators are appointed, how congress is to be formed nor how a Federal republic is formulated by the various State or providence Governments. Laws must make it past the congress, the senate and survive courts. It takes individuals to vote on the laws and even if the majority strikes it down, such as Democrats’s two attempts to kill Civil rights bills Ike endorsed, there are means to put laws in effect protecting the minority against the majority.

            Bub, I’ve been in the USSR when it was still operational and trust me you do not want what you think you want. It ends up with some military police shoving a baton in your face if at full speed if you do not comply to the leadership of your, “collective.” You will lose all your rights and be subjected to the whims of the mob and ultimately the man or woman who ends up leading the mob. Never has a collective survive more than 80 decades peacefully internally or externally.

          • blder

            I am still baffled that you think I am a communist. I explained multiple times that I use the word “collective” not to refer to communism, but to a collection of people or entities working together for mutual gain, which is what America is.

            Show me one sentence that I have written that would make you think I am promoting communism. A single sentence. Again, the word “collective” can mean more than “communism”, especially in the context I’ve used.

      • Peyton

        And what government doesn’t have people?

      • ThatConfused1

        You never been in a theocracy, military totalitarian dictatorship, or an oligarchy then. Government though out human history has never put the well being of the subject or citizen first, especially nations with socialistic economies. The United States was one of the first attempts of having the Government answer to the Citizen instead of the of the Progressive notion that the Citizen must submit to the Government.

    • AlmostaCowboy

      I would only argue that it isn’t government which is “inherently bad”, but those who are in it are “inherently human”.

      • Peyton

        Find me a government that doesn’t contain humans.

      • SpinMeNot

        George Carlin covered this pretty well, something along the lines of “what if the politicians aren’t worthless, what if the people that elected them are worthless” and then goes on to wonder why there are no quality people that will stand for elected officials. I don’t think the problem is quality people not standing for election, but rather the worthless masses voting for the worthless politicians that will bankrupt society morally and financially to give said worthless voters lots of free crap.

  • Grace656

    Reid is an abhorrent old man who can’t even recognize his own decay. Power, money, and vice has seduced his soul – God help him.

  • Jim

    Last week the Tea Party wanted to bring back segregation, now they want anarchy. Anything to avoid talking about the real issues.

    • Billie Slash

      …all this while we were blowing up Boston…

  • mahaffy

    Gosh, if we’ve been controlling the government for the last two years, why in hell is Obama still in office?

  • Rob Jones

    Harry seems to forget there hasn’t been a budget passed in the last four years including the two when his party held both houses. He might want to concentrate on talking smack less and doing his job more. Just a thought.

  • capisce

    There’s no fool like an old fool – especially when that fool is a US senator.
    The last time he made a credible, reasoned argument, senators wore togas.
    Veni, vidi, vomitus.

  • David Arbuckle

    The lengths this guy will go to portect his own self interest is absolutely amazing. I wonder sometimes if he even believes the nonsense that he spews. .

  • Jess Ayers

    Like my grandpa used to say” he’s a blithering idiot”

    • lillymckim

      Your Grandfather was a very smart man!

  • J.N. Ashby

    “That government is best which governs least” – Henry David Thoreau

    Also, did I just hear this dick say the words “Government is inherently good. That’s why we have the Constitution?” Government is inherently BAD THAT’S why we have the Constitution!

    • blder

      So then guns are inherently evil, too? Your logic is completely off.

      • J.N. Ashby

        What? My logic is nothing like the word “off.” Guns are neutral. Guns don’t function by extorting funds from others. Guns can’t do neither good nor evil. They perform only their function. Government can’t do good. It can do bad, or it can do nothing (i.e. not bad).

  • Billie Slash

    Dingy Harry looks like he just crawled from a sack of mothballs.

  • RedSoloCup

    Harry wouldn’t know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground.

  • Kevin Long

    Good thing he didn’t make any rash generalizations about Islamists.

  • Rusty Jewell

    To use an Anthony Weiner analogy, Tea Party would favor a Harry Reid = small penis over Barack Obama = no penis

  • Garth Haycock

    Okay, Senator Reid, now tell us the difference between progressives and communists.

    • Eric Hutchison

      There is no difference.

      • Garth Haycock


        Somehow, I doubt Reid understands this simple fact.

        • blder

          So then you understand that his comparison of the tea party to anarchists is accurate then?

          • Garth Haycock

            ummm, no. You’re wrong. That was a horrendous attempt at trolling.

          • blder

            Um, well, if one can say that believing Government can sometimes improve society is tantamount to communism, what is wrong with saying that believing there should be no Government regulation is tantamount to anarchy?

          • Garth Haycock

            Again, you’re wrong. The Tea Party is not about deregulation.

    • gjsmith_62

      Nuking the frog vs boiling. Same result.

      • Garth Haycock

        Now, I don’t like them either, but we’re better off if we continue to ignore the French.

  • bullsihtter

    Lets hope the Tea Party ruins how congress is works, because how it as worked in the last 6 years is ruining the country.

  • TTownHustler

    Harry Reid says that government is not inherently bad but is instead inherently good and that that’s the reason we have the constitution? The constitution was literally (and I mean that ‘literally’ literally) written as a way of constraining the government because the founders of this country recognized that governments are inherently bad. what a moron…

    • blder

      The Government isn’t some tangible entity. It is the people in power that corrupt the Government, and that is what is necessary to control through constructs such as the Constitution. The Government is no more inherently evil than a gun is.

  • W Randall

    Did he also mention that the only difference between Progressive Liberals and Communist, Marxist, Nazis is… well there is no difference.

  • tjp77


  • Utahlady

    I love Tea Party’s! The only place in town where there are no big mouth, lying Democrats.

  • tessaprn

    Reid and his kind do not like the tea party simply because he knows they want his old butt gone.

  • Janice McKenzie Dillard

    As Joe Biden says, “This is a bunch of ‘malarky’!!” Reid and Biden are both senile!!! Pelosi is just purely stupid and that is one of those things you just can’t fix!!!!

  • sb36695

    I thought the tea party was violent?!
    Liberals lack logic. If you vote for one, you are brain dead.

  • carti

    Reid is so senile, he still thinks it’s 2010 and Sharron is coming for him.

  • kim

    and yet, how many of you that do not belong to a tea party group, will bother to flood Capital Hill with a demand for an apology?
    My guess? ZERO.

  • Todd Glotfelty

    How does this ‘nut job’ – ‘buffoon’ – ‘ding bat’ keep getting reelected?

    • Robert Patrick Moscato

      Ask the Buffoon Citizens of the Great(??) State of Nevada.

  • Mark81150

    Democrat rabidly hyper partisan civility at work…. again..

    and the LSM will act as if he never said it, just as they averted their eyes and ears when he accused Romney of tax fraud for ten years.. and paid no price in the media for that bald faced lie.

    Crazy hate spewing on the right is just saying.. “hold on there.. That isn’t Constitutionally accurate”…

    and according to the media, left wing lies and hate spewing don’t exist.

    We’ve been called, terrorists, felons, unAmerican, anti-American, racists, misogynists, homophobes, theocratic, Nazi’s and hate spewing liars.. all by ranking democrats..

    and the media says nothing..

    One of ours just refers to the 47% who pay no federal taxes as lost votes because they are dependent on democrats keeping them excluded from paying their fair share..

    and he’s a criminal?

    They paint us as the worst kind of people, them demand we completely ditch our principles and submit like sheep.. all for the one sided ideal of “unity”?

    sure.. when the left stops lying, cheating, stealing and abusing half the country.. then, we’ll talk… till then.. they can go.**** themselves/

  • gjsmith_62

    So the choice is leviathan or anarchy? Absurd!

    How about adhering to the Constitution and it definition of the role of the Federal gov’t. Absurd stuff like suing folks who sell raw milk?
    Trying to tax Co2?
    Forcing folks to buy insurance?

  • Mark81150

    “revolt”?…….. no Harry you lying cockroach.. it’s called the bases telling the GOP leadership, to man the F up and not cave for the umpteenth time to that lying demagogue Obama.

    as for civil.. I’ll be civil to ranking democrat politicians, when they stop lying about conservatives. I have plenty of democrats married into the family, we get along fine, but their party is scum, from their leadership down to their precinct ballot box stuffers.

  • john1gun

    How is it that Tea Partiers who support the Constitution and the rule of law are labeled “anti-government”, but the Occupiers, who were actually anarchists, aren’t?

    • mike_in_kosovo

      The same way that ‘abstinence won’t work’ is the reasoning behind sex-ed, but ‘zero tolerance’ regarding *anything* that may be gun-related (anyone want a pop-tart?) will *totally* keep the kiddos from thinking about guns.

      In other words…typical Liberal expediency.

  • Richard Jefferies

    Wow, talk about paranoid. Are these the clear thinkers that are telling us that we are delusional? Yeah, thought so.

  • Kingofthehill

    So the Tea Party is dead for how long? Then they don’t get their way and now its alive and well.

    Then the NRA is a “Toothless Paper Tiger”and then they lose and now the NRA is some superpower again.

    STFU losers. Im so sick of these idiots

    • Ben Bollman

      Exactly, they think whatever they say becomes truth but the tide is turning. You can only bullsh-t people for so long before they wise up.

    • Orpheus75

      “STFU losers. Im so sick of these idiots”
      and that line right there sums up my feelings for them as well.

  • Kingofthehill

    Oh and you SOB, Don’t you dare mention the Constitution in a way that you hope it helps your agenda you anti gun POS.

  • Anyone00

    Sen. Reid you do not understand Anarchist nor the Tea Party:
    While neither the Tea Party nor the Anarchist are monolithic groups in terms of ideology in general Anarchist are against the concept of the right to personal property and especially right to personal property enforced by the Rule of Law; the various groups of the Tea Party beliefs depend on the concept of the right to personal property enforced by the Rule of Law.
    Wanting something to be smaller or to expand at a lesser rate than you want does not mean the same thing as wanting it to blink out of existence. If someone wants a 520 pound man that’s only 5’2″ to loose a few hundred pounds does not mean that person wants the death of the fat man: in fact the opposite is true.
    The Tea Party in general desires to stop the collapse of this Constitutional Republic before it buckles under it’s own weight and stops being a Constitutional Republic.
    I really do wish Tea Party bashers would decide if the Tea Party is a totalitarian movement or an anarchist movement; you cannot have both.
    Also, Sen. Reid’s comment on the US Constitution is one of the dumbest and most historically illiterate (or possibly delusional) things I have heard from an elected official.

    • mike_in_kosovo

      Outstanding post!!


      Also, Sen. Reid’s comment on the US Constitution is one of the dumbest
      and most historically illiterate (or possibly delusional) things I have
      heard from an elected official.

      Democrat – ‘nuf said.

    • blder

      Right, so now explain how liberalism is equivalent to communism.

      • MissDiane47

        It’s not really communism in its truest form; it’s more along the lines of Socialism. With that said, here’s something that might help you understand:

        “The American people would never vote for socialism, but under the guise
        of liberalism will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.” ~Norman Thomas

        • Anyone00

          Also most Communist philosophies advocate that the totalitarian state is a temporary thing and that the state will be able to recreate man into a condition where the state becomes obsolete.

  • usnavy83

    Harry DINGY Reid is a SOS. Sickening.

  • Hildebeast

    Harry is an idiot.

  • dunst43

    “Government is inherently good and that’s why we have a Constitution.” That’s the most frightening thing I’ve ever heard. Government is inherently bad. That’s why we have a Constitution.

    • camnpat

      Well said.

  • Chico Escobar

    Know that Dems are making every move with an eye on 2014 elections. There is no action they take for any other reason at present. Help or harm to the USA isn’t part of that equation.

  • Red Fred

    NO! The tea party does NOT want to get rid of governement. What the tea party wants is responsibility and representation when we send men and women to Washington. Has Harry forgotten it’s US taxpayers funding their salary and the entire government?

    • Orpheus75

      no, he hasn’t forgotten, he just doesn’t care. His power is all he cares about.

  • WWMD
  • neoface

    Teaparty is wanting to get rid of Reid and Pelosi, maybe illegal aliens will abduct them. Don’t care much regarding to who or where.

  • PatriotRG

    government is inherently stupid as its paid this hobbits salary for decades

  • Seriously?

    Wait. Tea Partiers are anarchists without the violence? What is that called again… oh yeah. Patriots!

  • cmdorsey

    I’ve said before – WE need BACKGROUND CHECKS on the BACKGROUND CHECKERS. Harry Reid is a CROOK – he is USING the Tea Party to cover his FILTHY TRACKS

  • sickofitall1096

    Oh you mean anarchists like the left wing Bill Ayers and Weather Underground who have committed far more atrocities than the Tea Party ever will? Thought so…

    • Bob Galasso

      But those are liberal anarchists. See the difference?

      • sickofitall1096

        Oooohhhh yeah…thank you for clarifying. I often forget the depth of the liberal double standard.

  • Big Ed

    Tea Party is so good at hiding their violence.. It’s almost like it NEVER happened!

  • Bob Galasso

    The Tea Party doesn’t want to get rid of all government. Just the 99% that is unnecessary.

  • Bob Galasso

    Earth to Harry Reid, Earth to Harry Reid.

  • Dennis E. Amnott

    Harry Reid is Anti American! His Democratic Dream is to tax the people into total reliance on the government that is their great provider. That’s what fu%&ing Joe Stalin did.
    Maybe a lot don’t remember when was the greatest country in the world.Obama snd the Democrats, along with some assistance from Republican, have destroyed that country. We need term limits, and a total turnover in our Congress. They no longer work for America, but now work only for themselves.

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    Earth to “Dingy Harry” Reid-Open mouth, insert foot, repeat… If you knew what the Tea Party was really about, you’d STFU! Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Orpheus75

    really, who are the freaking MORONS that keep voting this absolute jack@$$ in?!?!?! Over and over and over, The Progressive Left keep showing just how utterly contemptible and stupid they are, and how much they hate the REAL America, but rather want total power and control under their version of Socialism.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      Elvis stuffs the ballot boxes in Las Vegas..That’s how… Jawamax 8<{D}

  • notenoughtime

    What highlights the ineffectiveness of our government more than Reid explaining the mindset of the Tea Party. Is there no other pressing issues that need address – maybe jobs or national security. Just sayin….

  • Hajjster

    “Government is inherently good” = Harry Reid is inherently insane.

  • tops116

    The difference between anarchists and the Tea Party? Democrats make excuses and offer praise for anarchist violence, while condemning the Tea Party for peaceful protests.

  • JustLikeAnimals

    By the late Harry Reid’s logic the Founding Fathers were a bunch of anarchists!

    Dear Senator Reid: Please sit your dumb, old, white ass down and STFU!

    • Elaine

      Feel sorry for him. He’s really senile and demented. He and Nancy need to retire to rocking chairs.

      • JustLikeAnimals

        Far from feeling sorry for him, I’d really love to punch him in his smarmy, wrinkled mouth, then point him west and kick his stupid, sorry ass all-the-way back to Nevada.

  • jo3

    They all need to go, however we can get rid of them, i dont care!

  • disqus_eric

    The Searchlight Strangler is still on the loose, I see…

  • blder

    And his analysis is false… because? If Democrats and Obama are “communists”, then the tea party is absolutely anarchist.

  • JR48

    Desiring a smaller and more effective government, focused on the issues that government is SUPPOSED to be focused on: law enforcement, infrastructure, potholes…as opposed to ‘whatever we can think of to stick our noses into’ isn’t anarchy.
    Following basic Constitutional principles (which is absolutely law abiding) and being fiscally responsible with the people’s money…

    If Reid thinks that is anarchy, he’s just frankly brain damaged.

  • goldwater89

    If it hadn’t been for Sharron Angle this guy would be at home sitting in a rocking chair twiddling his thumbs. Now we have to wait until 2016 to get rid of this guy.

    • DurkaDurka

      The government would last that long.

  • Nadine Faber

    Instead of blaming the Tea Party and others who aren’t in Reid’s or the President’s camp, deal with the overlapping waste, programs and agencies before they talk about taxes or whatever. Look at Murray’s budget proposal and the president’s, no talk of making the government more efficient and cost effective. The government has become an employment agency for rejects, corrupt individuals, massive abuse and misuse of our tax dollars and supporting anti-Americans in office and trying to remove all our traditions religions by supporting others not from within, but foreign radical groups through appeasement. We need a government on the people’s side, not of corrupt politicians and self-serving at the expense of our Country and our Citizens.

  • Silenttype78

    The difference between Harry Reid and a child molester is …. nothing….both molest kids!

  • Gallatin

    dingy harry if wanting to send you back to Nevada is anarchy then so be it.

  • $27789750

    Guys like Obama, Reid, Schumer, McCain and Graham have been part of government for so long they have lost perspective on it’s inherent penchant for growing and growing until it smothers everything around it. It feeds on itself after a while and we have reached that point.

  • FreedomFighter

    Why doesn’t Reid ask his supreme leader why ZERO of his budgets have passed both houses of congress????

  • liberalssuck

    Yet we have a constitution as the founders understood how Governments are inherently bad ,lol. This dude is a moron!!

  • Richard Wayne

    Let’s go in the way back machine and see what ideology the anarchists more closely resemble from the early 20th century:

    A pamphlet from the 1919 bombings: “War, Class war, and you were the first to wage it under the cover of the powerful institutions you call order, in the darkness of your laws. There will have to be bloodshed; we will not dodge; there will have to be murder: we will kill, because it is necessary; there will have to be destruction; we will destroy to rid the world of your tyrannical institutions”

    Take out the advocating of violence and you have an Obama stump speech.

  • Marcy Cook

    I’m impressed by The Tea Party. By doing nothing but speaking up and waving flags they have put so much fear in the democrats that they spend all their energy demonizing them. The Tea Party must be doing something right.


    Yes, Sen. Reid lives the white greedy guilt for O…

    …“It is this world, a world where cruise ships
    throw away more food in a day

    than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a

    where white folks’ greed runs a world in need,

    apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another

    That’s the world! On which hope sits!”-Barack

    “Dreams From My Father” page 158 of
    235 PDF Form

  • David Criola

    government is inherently bad, and needs to be keep in check !

  • Robert Cohen

    Reid has it wrong about political government being inherently good, our founding fathers believed political government is inherently bad, hence the checks and balances and what each branch can do and not do. There is a difference between government and political government. The declaration of independence and articles of confederation charted a government because they had no taxing clauses. The Constitution charted a political government because it gave it the power of taxation. Politics involves the use of coercion because it legalizes theft. Politics is just war by other means. There are only two ways to make a living, one is ethical and the other unethical. The ethical way of living is though production and trade called the economic means. The unethical way of living is stealing the production and trade of others called the political means. Our founding fathers hoped they could create a political government with limitations by specifying what each branch cando and not do and doing a separation of powers.