Teabaggers upset with Perriello for agreeing with them.

Teabaggers are upset because Congressman Perriello agrees with them. Seriously. He met with some of them, and told them of congress that “balanced budget acts or pay as you go legislation or any of that is the only thing, if you don’t tie our hands, we will keep stealing.” He figure if congress doesn’t limit themselves, then their spending will keep growing. And they’re angry that he said this! These people are breathtakingly dumb.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

10 replies on “Teabaggers upset with Perriello for agreeing with them.”

  1. James, I have a personal “that’s just James being James” rule, but that means that the converse also has to be true. :) Either you believe that I’m a much better person than you, or you’re holding me to a standard to which you don’t hold yourself. Calling political opponents clever, insulting names is your stock-in-trade. That’s not a complaint on my part—that’s just James being James—but if you can do it, why can’t I?

  2. Okay, I acknowledge that I may not be “with it” or “hip” but what is wrong with referring to that group of scruffy scalawags as “teabaggers”?

  3. Perriello cares about a balanced budget? Seriously?

    So why did he vote for that unconstitutional health care boondoggle?

  4. Assuming you mean the healthcare reform bill, presumably because it’s estimated to cut the deficit. Even if you don’t like the bill (and there are certainly many reasons you might dislike it), the course we were on was obviously unsustainable in the long run, and the Democrats’ proposal was the only serious proposal on the table, since the GOP decided it was more important to try to make it Obama’s “Waterloo” than it was to actually address the problem.

    Given a choice between a shitty status-quo and a proposal which appears to significantly cut the deficit, I think Perriello did the only pragmatic and fiscally responsible thing and supported the bill.

    Of course, giving health insurance to 30 million people currently without might’ve had something to do with it too.

  5. Uh, Waldo, if it were original, I might buy it. And I don’t recall ever calling a political opponent by a “clever name” which implies sexual activity, deviant or otherwise.

    Or is “Barney Fag” now acceptable?

  6. You call Secretary of State Clinton “Hitlary.” You refer to gay marriage as “fag marriage” and to gays as “sexual deviants.” You describe all Democrats as “moonbats.” You repeatedly referred to F.T. Rea as “F.U. … er, F.T. Rea.” I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen you mention “Raising Kaine,” but only as “Ranting Kids… er, Raising Dough… er, Raising Kaine… er, “RK.” You have often referred to Governor Mark Warner as “Marky-Mark.” You referred to Jim Webb as “ThinSkin Gump.” You refer to the Democratic Party as the “Democrat Party.” Most of these are far from original (since that’s apparently important to you).

    I’m not clear on what the difference is here. Please enlighten me.

Comments are closed.