Redefining Unbelievable

Texas Governor Rick Perry, after he addressed a tea party protest:

Perry told reporters following his speech that Texans might get so frustrated with the government they would want to secede from the union.

“There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.” 

Unbelievable.

I’m not sure what else I can say..  Which doesn’t involve screaming.  I haven’t been shy about criticizing Obama, but to have a sitting governor of one of the largest state’s in the Union talk of secession — secession! — before Obama has been in office for even 100 days is fucking ridiculous.  Especially since Obama is reacting to the mountain of problems handed to him by the previous president.  Apparently, that previous president is from the State of Irony.

When some wingnut loonbags on the internet talk about secession, that’s one thing — one thing to generally be laughed at, ridiculed, and summarily ignored.  But when these statements are made by a Republican governor, against a president who hasn’t been in office for four fucking months, that’s something completely different.  This is just psychotic.

10 Responses to “Redefining Unbelievable”

  1. A.Political says:

    Hunting of the President Part 2: The Psychotic Breakdown

    They saw an opportunity to start the hunt early and so they did, it’s just at this juncture the only troops to marshal are the fringe elements. It’s disturbing to watch this develop.

  2. tas says:

    Wow, Hotair accuses yours truly of hypocrisy by ranting about crazy secessionists in Vermont. Apparently, even though though they quoted me, they can’t fucking read what I said. To repeat myself:

    When some wingnut loonbags on the internet talk about secession, that’s one thing — one thing to generally be laughed at, ridiculed, and summarily ignored. But when these statements are made by a Republican governor, against a president who hasn’t been in office for four fucking months, that’s something completely different. This is just psychotic.

    Apples, meet oranges. As I stated quite clearly, when wingnut loonbags — or people who are essentially political nobodys — talk about secession, that’s one thing. But when a sitting governor talks about it, it’s completely fucking different. The former is the lunatic fringe, and the latter is the lunatic fringe going mainstream.

    Nothing pisses me off more then people who can’t be bothered to place a modicum of critical thought into what they read, then place words in my mouth. In academia, this kind of misattribution is called plagiarism. In blogtopia, it’s apparently called being a Republican.

  3. Dakan says:

    I am sure that your sentiments were echoed in Trafalgar Square as the Declaration of Independence was delivered to England.

    A few colonists grumbling, who cares, but landowners, high ranking officers and officials of the colonial governments actually defying the King! What an outrage! These silly colonists should be put down. Their leaders hanged in the towne square. We’ll teach them to defy the King.

    Does that sum up your observation and opinion?

  4. tas says:

    Dakan, I’m not sure if I should delete your comment for being off-topic or not. Either way, I have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.

  5. Dakan says:

    “But when a sitting governor talks about it, it’s completely fucking different. The former is the lunatic fringe, and the latter is the lunatic fringe going mainstream.”

    To call a sitting governor, the “lunatic fringe going mainstream” is to give no validity to the sentiment behind it. My point: mainstream well educated men declared independence from Britain. They were ridiculed by the King and declared traitors to be executed. Yesterday, a mainstream educated man declared that such an event could happen again. And the response is the same: Ridicule.

    It took 5 years and a large amount of British casualties, lost treasure and prestige for the King and the British people to realize the error of that initial response of “ridicule”.

    Pres. Obama is not the only reason people want redress. Read or listen to Perry’s words. Washington (either Republican or Democrat) have “instructed” the states for far too long. It is Pres. Obama’s unfortunate luck that he is at the helm when the people demand a change. His plan (and that of the Democrat congress) is to tax more, spend more, and demand more of individuals and states. Wait … isn’t that what King George did? History repeats itself.

  6. tas says:

    His plan (and that of the Democrat congress) is to tax more, spend more, and demand more of individuals and states. Wait … isn’t that what King George did? History repeats itself.

    And how exactly is this Obama’s fault? It was President Bush how came into office and passed tax cuts that everybody on the left screamed that we couldn’t afford — we were right. Obama wants to raise the taxes — of some — to levels that are lower than the Reagan years. So why is there outrage? Some people might be taxed at 30% ? Oh, the horror! Whereas if they flee to any European nation, they’ll be taxed at a rate over 50% (albeit receiving health coverage for those costs). And what happens of Texas secedes… US embargo driving the rest of the world away from it, for one.

    You know, we’re all in this together. You have to understand that. Now I don’t understand why people are so opposed to helping this nation. Like I said, I have not been shy about criticizing Obama’s policies concerning the bailout.. But this protest against taxes is ridiculous. Sit down, shut up, pay some of the lowest tax rates enjoyed by any citizen in the western world, and feel lucky.

  7. Dakan says:

    Thank you, that was more articulate than previous posts.

    Taxes:
    Most people don’t like taxes. Some people use taxes as their charitable giving. I have heard this from more than a few liberals. It is not just the amount people pay, but what Washington does with it. Bailouts, permanent increases in programs, and much of that spending financed by debt that will require higher taxes latter. Many Conservatives/Republicans raised hell in October over the Bush bailout. They also screamed about how a Republican congress betrayed their principles for eight years.

    Reagan decreased the marginal rates significantly. The GDP more than doubled in 8 years. Revenue also increased drastically with a lower percentage collection because the total personal income increased.

    Obama’s fault:
    I don’t blame Pres. Obama specifically, because this was actually at least 20 years in the making, but more like 90 years. There has been a push since the founding of the country to centralize power in Washington rather than the States, just look at 1798 and 1832. During FDR the Washington built an enormous bulwark that was impossible to remove. Slowly we rely on Washington rather than our State capitols to solve our issues. Now we have a Washington beast (Democrat or Republican) that seeks to tell States and individuals what must be done, and to collect as much power as possible.

    We are in this together, but that does not mean the we all should row the boat in “his” direction. If we see the waterfall ahead, and he and his supporters don’t, then those of us who do either have to change your minds, or jump out of the boat. In the end, this year, next year, we will see who is right and who is wrong. But whoever is wrong, is in for a unpleasant surprise. Like I said, the British thought they were right. They wanted the colonies to do their part for King and country. Ultimately they were proved wrong. Now, the British Empire is a shell of its former self and America, those “ridiculous” colonists, are the most powerful, prosperous nation on the planet and in human history.

    Oh, as for Texas. Texas has the most self contained economy of the 50 states. If any State could go it alone, it would be Texas. But also remember that a very large portion this nation’s domestic and foreign oil enters and is refined in Texas. A large portion of this nations imports transit through Texas ports, roads and railways. Those who think Texas should go ahead and leave should consider these points. We want to help, but not in a way we know won’t work.

  8. gcotharn says:

    The odd thing, and the thing few outside Texas think about, is: if Texas left the U.S.A., we Texans would be even better off economically. We would instantly be one of the powerhouse economies amongst nations of the world. We would be freed of Washington DC bureaucracy and regulation which currently is a drag against our prosperity. Texas would be better off if Washington DC at least believed we might secede.

    A note about Tea Parties (I’ve listened to the Tea Partiers so you don’t have to): the protests are primarily about expenditures, and partially about taxes. These are the signs which best express the sentiment: “Stop Spending Our Money!” Those signs would most accurately read: “Stop overspending our money.”

    The protesters were fed up with expenditures under Bush and recent Congresses, and now are horrified at the latest budget, i.e. the Porkulus. The Tea Parties began after the Porkulus passed. Again and again, Tea Partiers reference the future debt burden upon their children and grandchildren. Tea Partiers were already pissed off about Bush spending, and flatly do not believe the nation/economy can handle the exponentially higher Obama/Reid/Pelosi level of spending.

    Of course, at any protest (and especially one cobbled together in such unfocused fashion), you’ll see signs protesting many issues. But, the main sentiment driving suburban housewives to the Tea Parties, without doubt, is: “Stop Spending Our Money!”

  9. tas says:

    Dakan,

    I would be difficult for the US to survive without Texas. Hell, based on gross state product, Texas ranks second in the nation; and if it become a nation, it would rank either second of third in North America. This isn’t Mississippi or any other shitty southern state (or northern, to take Hot Air’s point about Vermont) that I would laugh at if they tried seceding. But if such a situation were to happen, Texas would be in worse shape. Not only would the world wonder what kind of state separates from a superpower, but Texas would also be reasonable for its own border security at that point — as well as Texan national defense. If Texans think the taxes they pay are bad now, just wait until they need to establish their own military, arms industry, and border defense.

    As for taxes being charitable giving, fahf. I’d disagree with liberals on that one. The way I view taxes is hey, who’s going to pave the roads and build bridges? We need them. I wouldn’t pay them if I didn’t have to, but if I got everything I wanted then I’d be the ace starting pitcher for the Red Sox. That’s not happening anytime soon, so I’ll just pay my taxes.

    Getting to the heart of the matter, though:

    Slowly we rely on Washington rather than our State capitols to solve our issues. Now we have a Washington beast (Democrat or Republican) that seeks to tell States and individuals what must be done, and to collect as much power as possible.

    The way I see it, Obama is in a unique situation. On the point of facing financial crisis while coming into office, historically the only president I can compared Obama to is FDR. Maybe Reagan fits the mold, given the high oil prices and high unemployment of the early 80s, but Obama is facing a foreclosure crisis, banking crisis, insurance crisis… I mean, if you value the assets of our major banks at market prices (mark to market), they’re broke. They’re more than broke. I’ve disagreed with the fundamentals of Obama’s bank bailout package (I can provide links if you want, but in short, I think it’s a bullshit Wall Street handjob that won’t work), but sending money to states I don’t have a problem with. Since FDR, all presidents (and Congress) have given federal aid to states. And in this instance, the states really need it. I pick up my local paper here in Massachusetts and it has a list of state services that are set to receive budget cuts. Now whether having these state services is right or wrong can be debated at a local level, but Obama is looking to shore up the social safety net now to make sure the recession doesn’t dip further. I think that’s a smart plan.

    As for the taxes themselves, Obama’s plan (or anybody’s plan, for the matter) stops the slide and increases GDP growth, we won’t need to worry about higher taxes covering the costs because the tax base will be broadened. As well it should and needs to be, since increasing populations call for constant job growth.

    As for the British, whether or not they thought they were right or had nefarious intentions in mind, the cause matters not — it’s the results which are paid attention to. The British taxes on colonists unfair, and they reacted. But to call Obama’s tax increases unfair when he’s suggesting moving them to levels of the 1980s — one of the tenets of these tea parties — is pretty ridiculous in my mind. Why not follow that to it’s logical conclusion and, say, complain about Eisenhower’s tax rates in the 50s being higher? Or Nixon’s in the 70s? To me, the complaints against Obama’s taxes or consolidating Washington power (like Bush didn’t do enough of that.. And I’m sorry, I know I’m biased and I shouldn’t let that get the best of me by slighting our previous president when he’s not the topic of this conversation, but Jesus Christ, that guy did more to grow government than most other presidents, and while I was at CPAC in 2007 and can agree with you that many conservatives had that exact complaint about Bush, in fairness to the complaints I have to say “Too little, too late”) (anyways..) or higher taxes, strikes me as overtly partisan attacks. I’ll attack Obama, but it’s when I think his plans don’t make any sense. The tea parties strike me as incredibly disingenuous because of the rank partisanship — which boils down to Governor Perry’s secession comments. It seems like conservatives are acting out simply as sore losers, since they lost the White House, instead of trying to help the country. Disagreeing for disagreement’s sake. And I, for lack of a better word, disagree with that tactic.

  10. Dakan says:

    TAS,

    Ah, a well seasoned response. Thanks. You are one of the few liberals willing to chew on the meaty topics rather than digress to name calling.

    First and perhaps most important with regard to Perry and the Tea Parties, it is not just about taxes. Ostensibly it started with Rick Santelli and anger over bailouts. Then the huge stimulus and budgets, the sky rocketing debt which places an enormous burden on future generations. And finally all this leads to a realization that the government in Washington be it Democrat or Republican has another agenda other than the welfare of the people.

    The question becomes focused on what is done with the money and what is done with our lives even more than the fact the money is collected. If you peruse the Declaration of Independence most of the charges against King George had to do with his neglect of legislative issue of concern to the colonies, his disregarding of their laws, his rigged justice system, his forced conscription of the colonies young men, and his complete disregard for the colonies liberty in general. And the actual war began not with the Boston Tea Party and taxes or the arrests and shutting down of dissenting pamphlet printers, but when the British moved to remove the firearms of the colonists. The colonists knew their last chance for liberty lay with the firearms they possessed. To lose them would be to live under tyranny forever. All of this is what people at these Tea Parties see, a government bent on controlling our lives.

    You cannot deny that they are in the process of doing so. Example, they (under Bush) forced healthy banks to take bailout money. Then (under Obama) they add strings like executive pay, hire/fire CEOs. Then at G20, agree to allow the IMF(European) to set guidelines for executive pay (but not explicitly limited to management only). Now, when the banks want to give the money back, they won’t let them, and as they prepare to release stress tests, they decide they will convert the preferred stock to common stock which relives the banks of the dividend payout, but puts congress in controlling interest. Now, they can force loans to those who are not credit worthy, but their votes are valuable.

    The same can be said of healthcare, and other issues. The sense is that Washington is on a control binge. It is not exclusively Democrat. Bush laid the framework that gives Pres. Obama the power he now wields. This is why he did not shut down the warrant-less wiretaps. Also, it is becoming known that the FBI was conducting surveillance at the Tea Parties. Anyone who is opposed is watched.

    This is not a Republican/Democrat, Liberal/Conservative issue. It is a matter of Tyranny vs Liberty.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Leaning Straight Up » Massive Tea Party Link Round Up - [...] Tas / Comments from Left Field: Redefining Unbelievable — Texas Governor Rick Perry … [...]
  2. The Greenroom » Forum Archive » When Bush Was President, Secession Talk Was Cool - [...] Rick Perry: Texas Could Secede, Leave Union.” And the always cogent Comments from Left Field notes: When some wingnut…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook