Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

McCain Decries "Hobbits," Accused of Ringbearing

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the 7-rings-for-the-legislative-branch dept.

Lord of the Rings 722

Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "Senator McCain decried Tea Party 'Hobbits' on Wednesday for their failure to support the GOP's debt deal, at times reading from a WSJ editorial that began the analogy. The Tea Party fired back, with a prominent member noting on CNN that McCain had been corrupted by the ring of power. The full text of his floor remarks should be in the Congressional Record later today."

cancel ×

722 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well ... (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#36908274)

... if the US Government had the same budget as a Peter Jackson movie we wouldn't be in this fiscal mess, now would we? ;-)

Re:Well ... (0, Troll)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908354)

... if the US Government had the same budget as a Peter Jackson movie we wouldn't be in this fiscal mess, now would we? ;-)

Well, we couldn't really afford anything then could we. I mean, that doesn't even cover congress's salary.

Re:Well ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908412)

way to suck all the air right out of the room, fignuts.

Re:Well ... (1)

rwven (663186) | about 3 years ago | (#36908424)

You apparently don't know satire when you see it.

Re:Well ... (1, Troll)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908510)

I don't? Could you define it for me? I'm sorry, I'm quite horrible with these esoteric words. Perhaps a chart and graph or a video could better explain it.

Re:Well ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908564)

I don't? Could you define it for me? I'm sorry, I'm quite horrible with these esoteric words. Perhaps a chart and graph or a video could better explain it.

We could put that together for you but you'd probably whoosh on that one, too.

Re:Well ... (3, Funny)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about 3 years ago | (#36908974)

Well, it's a series of tubes...

Re:Well ... (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about 3 years ago | (#36908520)

that doesn't even cover congress's salary

That's the main point!

Easy enough (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908524)

If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.

And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

Too bad government isn't voluntary, or the national debt would be a small fraction of GDP.

Re:Easy enough (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 3 years ago | (#36908574)

If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.

Re:Easy enough (5, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about 3 years ago | (#36908906)

If you hate government so much, move to Somalia. Seriously.

If you love water so much, why not move to the middle of the Atlantic?

The problem is not government in general. The problem is TOO MUCH government, and too much CENTRALIZED government. You have much more power influencing your local and state government than you will ever have trying to influence the federal government. This should be obvious when you consider that 48/50 US Senators don't care about you or your state.

If we had more local control over our lives, your argument would carry much more weight. You could say, "If you hate government so much, move to Mississippi. Seriously." and you would know that the person you are talking to could truly move to Mississippi. Of course, if they are already in MS, you could tell them to keep their noses out of your state's business.

It's all clearly explained in the 10'th Amendment. Unfortunately, all three branches of our government seem to ignore it, even though they've all taken an oath to defend it. Clearly, the 10th Amendment means SOMETHING. I mean, the founders wouldn't have put in there for nothing. It's not like they had nine amendments and said, "Let's make up one more to make in an even 10."

Re:Easy enough (1)

medcalf (68293) | about 3 years ago | (#36908934)

This is an utterly stupid argument. Some level of government is necessary for collective action. The small government argument is not that there should be no central government, or that society should be so fractured that each faction has its own government and laws and otherwise lives in a state of nature with the other factions. Instead, the small government argument is that our government does too much, and has so extended its authority as to be destructive of its primary end of protecting our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your strawman is frequently-repeated, and utterly inane.

Re:Easy enough (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 3 years ago | (#36908724)

This is one of those forwards that your crazy uncle sends you all the time. Unlike "Lets not buy gas on 9/11", this one actually makes a bit of sense.
-
1. No Tenure / No Pension.
  A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office. [You are paid X for being in 'full session'. If you show up to 50% of sessions, you get 50% pay.]

  2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.

  All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

  The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
-
I like the way that Indiana does it. "The Senate convenes its annual session the first Tuesday following the first Monday of January every year. In odd numbered years the senate must meet for 61 days (not necessarily consecutive days), and must adjourn no later than April 30. This is typically called a long session. In even numbered years, when elections are held, the Senate must meet for 30 days (not necessarily consecutive days) and adjourn no later than March 15."

There should be no such thing as a "career politician".

Re:Easy enough (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908742)

If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.

Nah, you'd just see people get a realistic idea of how gov't programs work and realize that they've got to spread funding out across services that cover the country. While that would be a good, informative thing, it would ruin many a pundit's argument that the welfare state has taken over.

And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

Just looking at the ongoing debt that the average citizen carries from month-to-month, this would just lead to the gov't spending most of its time and money merely trying to collect. While I would love a "pay once a year" system personally, it wouldn't work worth a damn if most folks can't save a penny to begin with.

Re:Easy enough (2)

Rude Turnip (49495) | about 3 years ago | (#36908760)

The price of civilization is a bitch, isn't it. I read that Pakistan is closer to the libertarian ideal than Somalia, btw.

Re:Easy enough (2)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#36908822)

There are some things that we need that you cannot trust the individuals to properly fund... Most of us doesn't really understand how expensive stuff is or why it is so expensive, and just assume that someone is ripping us off.
If you want the government to run a lot cheaper, be prepared for a very scary government where corruption is very common. A lot of the government funded money goes into making sure that it isn't abused. Managers on top of managers all making sure each other isn't abusing their own power, or getting secrete deals making sure no mistakes are made, and workers who are afraid of making mistakes will avoid being innovative. We can cut a lot of this overhead and things will still run... However there will be groups running illegal deals and giving money to corrupt officials for service. However it will be cheaper, but not better.

Re:Easy enough (1)

medcalf (68293) | about 3 years ago | (#36908984)

Actually, it's the other way around. If there's less money available to be handed out to political allies and cronies or to buy votes, the amount of graft and corruption generally goes down. The layers of overhead and oversight and management generally do not serve to reduce graft and corruption, despite the best of intententions, but they do increase cost by orders of magnitude. I've been working with the Federal government for years as a contractor, and I assure you that there is no way in which managers abusing their own power, or secret deals being made, or mistakes being made, or innovation being promoted could possibly be attributed to the government. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Re:Easy enough (4, Interesting)

Jawnn (445279) | about 3 years ago | (#36908952)

If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.

And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.

No. It would not, unless, of course, you have some facts to back up this remarkable assertion. No? Didn't think so. Please stop parroting stuff you've heard parroted by various Fox News personalities. Simplistic "solutions" like this sound attractive until one spends more than ten seconds thinking about them. Then their absurdity becomes obvious. And no, I don't mean fiscal responsibility is absurd. I mean that it's absurd to suggest that the government we want can operate on a tiny fraction of it's current revenue. Not even close. So this suggestion, one that is near and dear to Tea Bagger hearts everywhere, is nothing but an absurd distraction from the critical process of meaningful reform, reform that actually has a chance of solving the very real problems we are facing. It is the folly of indulging this absurd distraction that Senator McCain refers to, and (I can't believe I'm saying this...), he's absolutely right.

Re:Well ... (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36908720)

They do. They just went over the budget because they decided to do the war scenes with real extras instead of much cheaper CGI.

Silly McCain... (5, Funny)

TehCable (1351775) | about 3 years ago | (#36908294)

One does not simply walk into Metaphor.

Re:Silly McCain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908576)

One does not simply walk into Metaphor.

You are awesome.....

Re:Silly McCain... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908894)

One does not simply walk into Metaphor.

You sir... are a genius. You know the drill, diet coke thru nose...new monitor, new keyboard, your fault.

Re:Silly McCain... (5, Insightful)

RavenChild (854835) | about 3 years ago | (#36908950)

Sir, please remove that 1 from your UID. You have been promoted.

hairy feet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908300)

better a hobbit than an old, worn out battle axe. I wonder if Senator McCain gets to ride one of them bit ole winged lizard thingies? That would be cool.

Fuck that false Ringbearer shit! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908302)

I'm the one true Ringbarer, bitches!

FIST SPORT FOREVER!

Well That Does It (0, Troll)

Lifyre (960576) | about 3 years ago | (#36908306)

Tolkien is officially no longer cool. When stuffed up pretentious windbags are using his works to insult each other it's time to move on.

So with Tolkien done and Superheros on the way out what's next?

Re:Well That Does It (1)

rwven (663186) | about 3 years ago | (#36908454)

Congressmen?

Re:Well That Does It (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | about 3 years ago | (#36908468)

So with Tolkien done and Superheros on the way out what's next?

Krispy Kreme the movie?

Re:Well That Does It (1)

hsmyers (142611) | about 3 years ago | (#36908562)

Bullshit---that fact that idiots and assholes misquote and miss-characterize a work of literature has nothing to do with the literature. Your assumption that it does is right in there with their misuse. Now if this was meant in jest, your hints as to such use are really hard to see---use darker ink next time...

Does whatever a Saru can (4, Funny)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36908640)

So with Tolkien done and Superheros on the way out what's next?

Crossovers! "Saru-man, Saru-man, does whatever a Saru can"

LolzSec? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908322)

Ok, which one of you hacked his teleprompter?

Gross Ugly Old Man (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908324)

Let's please not compare Tea Party members to sex icons like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin.

Now you're just being plain disrespectful McCain.

Re:Gross Ugly Old Man (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about 3 years ago | (#36908388)

Yeah! I mean where would we be without without gems like "Huck Fin" and "The Goonies"?

Re:Gross Ugly Old Man (1)

couchslug (175151) | about 3 years ago | (#36908944)

Tea Party as Lemon Party?

Don't picture that.

It's OK (3, Funny)

glueball (232492) | about 3 years ago | (#36908326)

McCain was the last Democrat I voted for in a Presidential election

Re:It's OK (1)

Svartalf (2997) | about 3 years ago | (#36908622)

Heh... You got that right McCain's nothing more than a Republican In Name Only.

Re:It's OK (1)

JustOK (667959) | about 3 years ago | (#36908666)

I thought McCain was a brand of very popular french fries and other assorted wholesome meals like pizza. I was very confused, and hungry, during the last election.

Re:It's OK (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36908804)

It's pretty much the same. Looks great on the cover, but once you took a bite out of it you wonder why you chose it and you'll suffer for a long time afterwards and wish you never touched it.

Re:It's OK (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | about 3 years ago | (#36908916)

McCain is a moderate republican. We don't have many of those out there any more... What happened in the last election was during the primaries he had to seem like he was far right, after he did that he failed to move to the center very well. Oboma had the advantage of being after Bush, If Donald Duck won the Democratic primaries he probably would have been president, and he made the shift from Far Left to Center very gracefully.

We have a hole society who thinks that Moderates are week minded. They are not, they can hold strong to their convictions however they are not stupidly just holding onto Redirect and take each issue as it comes up. We need to demand more moderates, but the ext reams on both sides have us believe if we elect a moderate the ideals of the party will be compromised away, which isn't true.

Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (5, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#36908356)

The Tea Party aren't Hobbits by any stretch of the imagination - hobbits are more like 1970's back-to-the-land hippie organic farmer types.

No, the Tea Party seems to be much more like the Easterlings, who's society has been thoroughly corrupted by promises of power regardless of the decency or lack thereof of the individual members. And Obama seems to be playing the role of Denethor, trying to hold back the tide but not really being able to do so and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908390)

[...] and kinda ambiguous about where he's loyalties really lie.

Wow. I've seen flagrant abuses of apostrophes before, but you, sir, have shown me an entirely new level of disrespect for the concept of communication.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (1)

Lifyre (960576) | about 3 years ago | (#36908434)

It was so bad that my mind auto-corrected it inline... Thank you for pointing it out.

If someone's English is better than your Quenya (1)

tepples (727027) | about 3 years ago | (#36908624)

you, sir, have shown me an entirely new level of disrespect for the concept of communication.

If we had respect for the concept of communication, we'd all be speaking dialects of Quenya [wikipedia.org] . But alas, men have made up thousands of mutually unintelligible languages in which to communicate. So when someone makes an error in what might not be one's native language, please don't use such tone when pointing it out.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#36908842)

Yes, I forgot to change "he's" to "his" at some point over the course of rewording the sentence. I realized that mistake somewhere in between clicking "Submit" and the post going up.

My apologies for any confusion that might have caused.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (4, Interesting)

XJHardware (809439) | about 3 years ago | (#36908512)

Disagree. In Tolkien's narrative the Hobbits were clearly an analog for simple English villagers that he grew up around. They want to live life without the bother of the ambitious and the power hungry. The Tea Party are those same simple folk, transplanted into our modern era, who have reluctantly decided to get involved. A few years back they were being denigrated as the inhabitants of "flyover states". Nobody cared about them and they didn't matter, until they decided to get involved and upset the status quo. Because both parties represent two faces of the same shit mountain. Choosing between Democrat and Republican is like choosing between Saruman and Sauron.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36908740)

And picking the Tea Party is like picking Melkor.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36908846)

The problem is, it seems when picking their leader they rather went with Saruman and Sauron rather than Gandalf.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (3, Informative)

MontyApollo (849862) | about 3 years ago | (#36908898)

I think claim is that while the Tea Party see themselves as hobbits, the reality of modern politics and finance does not lend itself to fairy tale endings no matter how much the "hobbits" believe their righteous cause and unwillingness to compromise will prove themselves reluctant heroes. The Wall Street Journal was in fact claiming that they were clueless to reality and will greatly harm the Tea Party and Republican cause.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908602)

Uh... Not really. And you clearly don't understand the story either if you used that particular analogy there. Obama's no Denethor, save maybe the nut that ordered his own execution to avoid the Doom that he saw coming from the Palantir. The TEA Party's more akin to the Founding Fathers of this Country than anything else- and if you don't see that, perhaps you should lay down the Alinski or Marx (Which is what Obama actually follows...).

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908750)

The TEA Party's more akin to the Founding Fathers of this Country than anything else

I think you're missing the point of the game. We're drawing analogies from LOTR. You can't bring outside characters in.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (4, Informative)

MontyApollo (849862) | about 3 years ago | (#36908706)

It was a sarcastic remark - he was quoting the Wall Street Journal who was saying that the Tea Party rather simplistically see themselves as being heroic good little hobbits out to vanquish the obviously evil Mordor without regard to reality. Basically, the Wall Street Journal was saying the Tea Party worldview was rather fucked up, and McCain was emphasizing this.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (1, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | about 3 years ago | (#36908784)

There are Hobbits and then there are Frodo and his friends. The Hobbits pretty much kept to themselves, eating six meals a day, drinking, doing the minimal work, not really advancing the world is what we would call a productive manner. This is pretty much the Tea Party, whining because thier entitlements as white americans are going away.

This is really about entitlement. The US was founded based on the idea that birth did not define one's future. This was basically started in England with the Civil list and the Magna Carter in which the lesser aristocrats said the the King and his family did not deserve all the money and control simply by the fact they were born royal, that god did not in fact endow them with special privileges. This continued to the Americas where wealthy briton living here diid not think there were inferior to the aristocrats in England, and set up a new country to prove it.

And now we have a new aristocracy, people who think by birth they deserve a job, and toys, and a cool place to live, and a big car. They don't want to take the time to educate themselves, or work for it. Look at the Tea Party whining that the government won't give them jobs. This is not the party of Reagan and the welfare queen, where if one didn't have a job that was a personal failing, not a government problem. No, we have Hobbits that are used to six meals a day, and now that times are rough, they do not blame themselves for being uneducated and lazy, they do not leave the shire and take risks to better themselves, no they sit there and cry.

This would be easily solved if the entitlement of birth were taken away. Every child in this country should have equal access to education and housing and food and health care. But maybe adults who don't want work should not receive citizenship. Maybe the US would be better off if those like the tea party who don't want to work, don't want support their children [chicagoist.com] , don't want to part of the political process of the US, would not earn the right to be American. It is a complex issue, this entitlement. Look at Romney. His great grandfather emigrated to mexico. His grandfather basically lived as mexican, his father lived in mexico, but because the family travled back to the US so their kids could be born, they are not considered mexican, and Romney is eligible to be President. Now, these are hard working people so I have no problem with them pretending to have allegiance to the US, but the Tea Party is not based on work, it is based on perceived entitlement of the white race. Obama, whose mother is a US citizen is not qualified for president, but Romney who is for all intents and purposes a Mexican is?

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908972)

Please. Democrats and Republicans are warring factions of Easterlings. Stop giving your party of favor so much credit. They're both rotten to the core and neither one of them has your best interests in mind.

Re:Obviously McCain doesn't understand the story (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about 3 years ago | (#36908988)

If any LOTR character is a good match for the Tea Party, I would have to go with Tom Bombadil. Completely fucking nuts, make absolutely no sense, have an annoying tendency to speak in song, and (hopefully) forgotten by the end of the first book.

Smeagol (4, Insightful)

vawwyakr (1992390) | about 3 years ago | (#36908368)

I think we have to admit that McCain does bare some resemblance to Smeagol. I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing. I understand their perspective and conviction but I think the issue is that they want to do it ALL at once. No compromise, every vote they make must include everything they think has to be done for the next 20 years of government. I think the problem is if we do it their way the whole economy is going to come crashing down. People complain about government spending but then seem to forget that a large % of the US is employeed (directly or indirectly) by the government. You YANK that out all at once and I think we'll be reminiscing about the good old days of only 10% unemployment.

Re:Smeagol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908546)

Sometimes you just have to rip the band-aid off....

Re:Smeagol (2)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 3 years ago | (#36908614)

And sometimes you don't. Sometimes it's not a band-aid, but a society. I know there is a fraction of you vocal keyboard commandos that would love to go back to the early 1800's, but it's not going to happen. If you actually hate this society so much, just move. We won't miss you.

Re:Smeagol (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908796)

By 1800s, you mean the year 2000 right? Spending 18.2% of GDP as opposed to the current 25%. Because the government has added so much in the past 10 years that we just can't live without now.

Re:Smeagol (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#36908568)

The lack of compromise is one thing but my issue with most if them is an apparent lack of sense. Yes we all hate raising taxes but they don't seem to understand simple economics where cutting costs can only do so much without increasing revenue.

Re:Smeagol (4, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36908792)

We're seeing what was predicted two or three years ago. The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's pretty clear that Boehner is at maximum frustration level, and I think it's beginning to dawn on mainline and moderate Republicans that the Tea Party tail is now wagging the GOP dog. There's a level of hysterical irrationality about the Tea Party that is now coming into full view. They're not interested in governing at all.

I'm sure the White House has a long list of contingencies in place just like Clinton did when he was up against the Gingrich mob, and is probably quite content to watch the Republicans and the Tea Party wing battle it out. I think 2012 is pretty damned safe for him.

Re:Smeagol (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#36908854)

Good thing that we don't need tax dollars to pay for Medicare and Social Security and other private services...

Re:Smeagol (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about 3 years ago | (#36908584)

I think the problem with the Tea Partiers is that they see it as being their way or nothing.

Isn't that the party line that got them elected into office in the first place?

Re:Smeagol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908638)

When our economy is plagued by the cancer of debt then compromise is not the best idea. Lets wait a few more years for the tumor to grow, or just chop tiny parts off it. Either you deal with it or let it consume you. The Tea Party movement is just the rationalization of that fact, after years of denial the populace is finally accepting the situation and urgently want it dealt with.

Hearing McCain complain about peoples actions inadvertently re-electing Obama is just hilarious. After his amazing run fro the presidency last time I thought McCain was Obama's number 1 supporter.

Re:Smeagol (1, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36908850)

Forcing a default on the US government, sending massive shockwaves through the global economy, which is already trying to deal with a potential partial Eurozone meltdown, that's not a sensible solution. That's the solution that self-destructive nihilists would take. It's almost like a financial Armageddon cult has taken over Congress.

And Obama, well, he gets the chance to do a number of things, including the 14th Amendment stunt, and look like the calm, collected rational president, just like when Bill Clinton outmanoeuvred House Republicans. I'm sure Clinton has told Obama that if he gives the Republicans enough rope, they'll hang themselves.

Re:Smeagol (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36908930)

We have to deal with it fast, but if you deal with it the TEA party way, what we'll end up is exactly what the US founding fathers rebelled against: A thin layer of rich aristocracy with poor peasants underneath them to shove around as they deem fit. This is essentially what you end up with if your solution is to reduce tax to next to nothing and thus take away the government's ability to actually govern. If you want that, ok. But unless you are one of the thin layer, I definitely doubt that you really want that.

Re:Smeagol (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908670)

I think the Tea Party is upset that no one is actually cutting anything though. It's not like this is a legitimate plan that either side is presenting that puts us on a path to a balanced budget. Both plans don't even come close to balancing the budget within 10 years and still ad tons of money to the deficit and even the cuts that they do make are years down the road when there's no guarantee they happen. Personally, I'm a huge advocate for cuts. Even though I am a pure federalist and advocate any downsizing of the federal government, I would be perfectly willing to compromise and approve tax increases and a steady 5 year plan that balanced the budget, but none of these plans come even remotely close to doing that. Any plan that doesn't actually cap spending and include a balanced budget amendment or tie spending to under 19% of GDP is a complete load of crock. (Average budget under Clinton was 18.5% with 18.2% in 2000, so it's not archaic like some people claim)

Re:Smeagol (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36908862)

The Tea Party has made it damned clear they won't tolerate tax increases. Despite Boehner's whining about compromise, the people he can't convince to make a compromise aren't the Democrats, but the Tea Party. That bunch of crazies is fucking the GOP over seriously.

Re:Smeagol (1)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#36908834)

Smeagol is actually Joe Lieberman, I forget who pointed that out, I think it was probably the Daily Show back a couple years ago when he switched parties to keep his Senate seat.

Re:Smeagol (1)

sheehaje (240093) | about 3 years ago | (#36908844)

The thing is, if the Tea Party gets everything it wants, and the whole economy does come crashing down, they will still blame the Democrats.

Re:Smeagol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908914)

That's actual a key reason we have many problems that we do. The government should never be a majority employer for any society that seeks stability. There's no difference between Walmart employing the majority of the population vs the government doing so. They are both corporations, they are both driven by public opinion only to a point with majority power laying with the investors.

Did everyone forget the old adage about eggs and one basket?

Tired of stories (1)

John Guilt (464909) | about 3 years ago | (#36908386)

People live on narratives, and this makes them susceptible to magic, that is the use of patterned sounds and images to alter their brain-states. People say that it's too much to expect them not to do, that they are 'only human'...this is why I'm a trans-humanist.

Typical politician (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 years ago | (#36908422)

He is not aware that Hobbits are the good guys (at least in LOTR)

Re:Typical politician (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 3 years ago | (#36908572)

but maybe he is aware that Hobbits are the filthy guys (at least in BOTR)?

Oh McCain (1, Insightful)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908426)

Right, the Tea Party is the "Villain" here when the plan you support only cuts $1 Billion from this years budget and still adds $7 Trillion to our debt over 10 years. Anyone that thinks republicans are being extreme here in wanting cuts doesn't realize that no one is actually cutting anything. All of their cuts come years down the road after congress has completely changed and the successors have no obligation to keep the word of the predecessors. This whole Reid vs Boener plan is one of the biggest bunch of garbage smoke and mirrors dance we've ever seen in the US. It's just people yelling about ideals that no one actually backs up.

Re:Oh McCain (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908464)

Gawd I miss Clinton.

Re:Oh McCain (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | about 3 years ago | (#36908730)

You think you have problems. I miss Carter, an engineer who may have been the last actual truthful president we ever had. Truth, however, doesn't win elections. We preferred the happytalk mythology of a has-been B-Actor in the beginning stages of Alzheimers who was little more than a shill for the financial industry in the person of Don Regan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Regan [wikipedia.org] .

Me? Bitter?

Re:Oh McCain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908754)

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Re:Oh McCain (1)

redemtionboy (890616) | about 3 years ago | (#36908848)

Oh, I know, I'm just saying in contrast to Obushma. He at least left office with a (for all intensive purposes) balanced budget. He didn't pass the buck off to a successor. He actually got things balanced. He never ran the surplus people claim as he just stole the money from SS, but his last budget was balanced.

Re:Oh McCain (0)

hedwards (940851) | about 3 years ago | (#36908886)

The Tea Party is the bad contingent here because they turned down a much bigger package over $100bn in loophole closures and I think right now the biggest deal that anybody is proposing is in the $2-3tn range, a significantly smaller deal than what they could have had with a bit of compromise.

What qualifies the Tea Party as the villain here is how they're so focused on getting their way that they're prepared to screw over the entire country to get it. That sort of spoiled, bratty attitude has no place in politics.

In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908430)

The estate of J.R.R. Tolkien announced a copyright infringement lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal, Sen. John McCain, the Tea Party Express, CNN, and Geeknet.

Darth Cheney = Sauron (1)

jsepeta (412566) | about 3 years ago | (#36908456)

that is all.

Re:Darth Cheney = Sauron (0)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 3 years ago | (#36908888)

No, actually - Cheney is more like one of the Nazgul, a symptom, not the cause.

The Hobbits won... (1)

cirby (2599) | about 3 years ago | (#36908534)

Sorta forgot that part, didn't ya?

Re:The Hobbits won... (1)

spiffmastercow (1001386) | about 3 years ago | (#36908618)

Sorta forgot that part, didn't ya?

Did you RTFA? His point is that, much like LoTR, the tea bagger plan is pure fantasy.

Congressional/Confessional (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908536)

I initially read "Congressional Record" as "Confessional Record". Is that a bad thing?

This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! (2)

cvtan (752695) | about 3 years ago | (#36908558)

I thought Hobbits where the good guys. He meant to say trolls. Yeah, that's it. A big ugly mountain troll. Hobbits aren't real anyway.

Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! (2, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 3 years ago | (#36908870)

I think a better analogy is, the Tea Party is like the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels.

For the most part, they are earnest and mean well but not too bright. In the end, they will win. And only then will they realize they've been working for the dark side the whole time. Only then will they realize the disastrous conclusion of their campaign.

And of course, by then it will be too late.

If it makes you feel any better, just like the younglings at Jedi HQ, the Tea Party folks will be the first up against the wall when the time comes.

Re:This is an insult to Hobbits everywhere! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908946)

Hobbits smoke weed.

Nobody likes filthy Hippies, and that smells like some Hippie Shit to me...

Secret Weapon (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | about 3 years ago | (#36908594)

The Tea Party is the best thing that could happen to Democrats. It's their secret weapon. By the 2012 elections, the Republican party will be down to only a handful of nutcases that can pass their litmus test.

Re:Secret Weapon (2)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 3 years ago | (#36908820)

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.

McCain should look in the mirror. (0)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 3 years ago | (#36908644)

Which campaign propped up, and played to the teabaggers? It was John McCain's campaing. For crying out loud he put the teabagger queen Palin in as his running mate. Now he wants to complain about the Frankenstein monster he helped create? Piss off!

Re:McCain should look in the mirror. (1)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | about 3 years ago | (#36908790)

I'm pretty sure McCain's campaign pre-dated the "Tea party" by a long shot. If I remember correctly, The Tea party movement began after Obama took office and started working on universal health care. They focus on cutting government spending as a way to keep dark-skinned people poor without appearing racist.

Re:McCain should look in the mirror. (1)

Espresso2xshot (2416248) | about 3 years ago | (#36908878)

Except that Palin is not a true Teabagger. This whole tea party thing is as much smoke and mirrors as any of it. Palin jumped on the bandwagon when she saw it as a real way to align herself with a group of people that would pay attention to her and get her to appear on all those cable "News Channels" (and I use the term news loosely). I have lost complete faith in the system as a whole. They're all crooked, every last one of them Repub, Dem, Libritarian (who are they anyways), Teabaggers etc, ALL crooks.

Damn politics has reduced me to a fecking TROLL!

I don't believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908688)

Congress is now down to the point of crafting LOTR styled insults at each other rather than actually doing anything about the real problem in this country - unemployment. That place is entirely dysfunctional since the last election.

Re:I don't believe it (1)

mswhippingboy (754599) | about 3 years ago | (#36908764)

That place is entirely dysfunctional since the last election.

No really unexpected. Republicans can't afford to allow Obama to be successful, even if it means destroying the country in the process.

Re:I don't believe it (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 3 years ago | (#36908982)

When they get to address unemployment, I guess we'll be down to "Your mom" insults.

Gollum (1)

cmdr_klarg (629569) | about 3 years ago | (#36908690)

We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!

Dunlendings duh (1)

mirability (2308172) | about 3 years ago | (#36908948)

Everyone knows that Tea Partiers are Dunlendings, simple mountain folk experiencing economic hardship who are being manipulated by Saruman/Boehner.

Pulling an economic Boehner (1)

chemindefer (707238) | about 3 years ago | (#36908980)

Do Hobbits have sex?

link to original WSJ editorial? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36908994)

Does anyone have a link to the original WSJ editorial to which McCain is responding?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>