FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Tea Party Protests





jmi256
There has been a lot of discussion about these protests in another thread, so I thought I'd start a new one dedicated to this topic.

(You can find the previous discussion here: http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-99883-5.html)

In summary, there are hundreds of protests planned for today (April 15, i.e. Tax Day in the US) that grass-root organizers and individuals have organized. People are getting sick of all the bailouts, tax increases, subsidies, etc. that are going to politically connected individuals and organizations, but end up being a burden on everyday taxpayers and businesses. The size of government is just too big and burdensome.

While Obama and the Democrats play a huge hand in this with a pork-filled budget and a massive increase in the scope of government, and I think people are finally beginning to get fed up. To be fair I also see fault in Bush’s past strategy. He worked on one side of the equation, lowering taxes, but failed to work on the other, limiting the size of an intrusive government. The left always hated Bush just because he was a conservative (or more accurately because he wasn’t a Democrat), but I think this was one of the reasons Bush saw diminished support from conservatives and libertarians. Despite all that, it was nothing compared to what Obama and the Democrats proposed and have passed.

Here’s a good summary from today’s Wall Street Journal.


Quote:

Tax Day Becomes Protest Day
How the tea parties could change American politics.

Today American taxpayers in more than 300 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies -- dubbed "tea parties" -- to protest higher taxes and out-of-control government spending. There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501(c) group like MoveOn.org.

So who's behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize. For a number of years, techno-geeks have been organizing "flash crowds" -- groups of people, coordinated by text or cellphone, who converge on a particular location and then do something silly, like the pillow fights that popped up in 50 cities earlier this month. This is part of a general phenomenon dubbed "Smart Mobs" by Howard Rheingold, author of a book by the same title, in which modern communications and social-networking technologies allow quick coordination among large numbers of people who don't know each other.

In the old days, organizing large groups of people required, well, an organization: a political party, a labor union, a church or some other sort of structure. Now people can coordinate themselves.

We saw a bit of this in the 2004 and 2008 presidential campaigns, with things like Howard Dean's use of Meetup, and Barack Obama's use of Facebook. But this was still social-networking in support of an existing organization or campaign. The tea-party protest movement is organizing itself, on its own behalf. Some existing organizations, like Newt Gingrich's American Solutions and FreedomWorks, have gotten involved. But they're involved as followers and facilitators, not leaders. The leaders are appearing on their own, and reaching out to others through blogs, Facebook, chat boards and alternative media.

The protests began with bloggers in Seattle, Wash., who organized a demonstration on Feb. 16. As word of this spread, rallies in Denver and Mesa, Ariz., were quickly organized for the next day. Then came CNBC talker Rick Santelli's Feb. 19 "rant heard round the world" in which he called for a "Chicago tea party" on July Fourth. The tea-party moniker stuck, but angry taxpayers weren't willing to wait until July. Soon, tea-party protests were appearing in one city after another, drawing at first hundreds, and then thousands, to marches in cities from Orlando to Kansas City to Cincinnati.

As word spread, people got interested in picking a common date for nationwide protests, and decided on today, Tax Day, as the date. As I write this, various Web sites tracking tea parties are predicting anywhere between 300 and 500 protests at cities around the world. A Google Map tracking planned events, maintained at the FreedomWorks.org Web site, shows the United States covered by red circles, with new events being added every day.

The movement grew so fast that some bloggers at the Playboy Web site -- apparently unaware that we've entered the 21st century -- suggested that some secret organization must be behind all of this. But, in fact, today's technology means you don't need an organization, secret or otherwise, to get organized. After considerable ridicule, the claim was withdrawn, but that hasn't stopped other media outlets from echoing it.

There's good news and bad news in this phenomenon for establishment politicians. The good news for Republicans is that, while the Republican Party flounders in its response to the Obama presidency and its programs, millions of Americans are getting organized on their own. The bad news is that those Americans, despite their opposition to President Obama's policies, aren't especially friendly to the GOP. When Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele asked to speak at the Chicago tea party, his request was politely refused by the organizers: "With regards to stage time, we respectfully must inform Chairman Steele that RNC officials are welcome to participate in the rally itself, but we prefer to limit stage time to those who are not elected officials, both in Government as well as political parties. This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around."

Likewise, I spoke to an organizer for the Knoxville tea party who said that no "professional politicians" were going to be allowed to speak, and he made a big point of saying that the protest wasn't an anti-Obama protest, it was an anti-establishment protest. I've heard similar things from tea-party organizers in other cities, too. Though critics will probably try to write the tea parties off as partisan publicity stunts, they're really a post-partisan expression of outrage.

Of course, it won't be the same everywhere. There are no national rules, and organizers of each protest are doing things the way they want. And that's the good news and the bad news for Democrats. It's not a big Republican effort. It's a big popular effort. But a mass movement of ordinary people who don't feel that their voices are being heard doesn't bode well for the party that positioned itself as the organ of hope and change.

Will these flash crowds be a flash in the pan? It's possible that people who demonstrate today will find that experience cathartic enough -- or exhausting enough -- that that will be it. But it's more likely that the tea-party movement will have an impact on the 2010 and 2012 elections, and perhaps beyond.

What's most striking about the tea-party movement is that most of the organizers haven't ever organized, or even participated, in a protest rally before. General disgust has drawn a lot of people off the sidelines and into the political arena, and they are already planning for political action after today.

Cincinnati organizer Mike Wilson, a novice organizer who drew 5,000 people to a rally on March 15, is now planning to create a political action committee and a permanent political organization to press for lower taxes and reduced spending. Tucson tea party organizer Robert Mayer told me that his organization will focus on city council elections in the fall as its next priority. And there's lots of Internet chatter about ways of taking things further after today's protests.

This influx of new energy and new talent is likely to inject new life into small-government politics around the nation. The mainstream Republican Party still seems limp and disorganized. This grassroots effort may revitalize it. Or the tea-party movement may lead to a new third party that may replace the GOP, just as the GOP replaced the fractured and hapless Whigs.


Source = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html
psleang
Thanks for starting this thread, jmi256!

I just attended the Tea Party in Washington, D.C. The weather was miserable: 45F and raining. But some estimates I've seen claim that 2000 people showed up. That seems reasonable to me. It was basically closed down at 2:00pm because someone threw a box or bag of tea at the White House. It's not clear whether the person was affiliated with the Tea Party demonstration.

All in all, I think things went well. I've never been to a protest and I was worried that it would be dominated by nut-cases, but that wasn't the case. There were a few people there spouting oddities. There were also quite a few signs there that focused on Obama. I think that was a bad idea and somewhat counter-productive. A protest like this would be more effective if it stayed apolitical. Everyone needs to remember that both parties are responsible for the mess that is the current political system.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that the event was scheduled to take place in BOTH Lafayette Square and outside the Treasury Dept., but the permit for the Treasury Dept. was cancelled at the last minute because the Secret Service had concerns about security. (That's the story we were told by event organizers, at least.)
ocalhoun
I went to mine! Rapid City is tiny and isolated, but still, well over 200 people showed up, despite the weather. Seeing that many people in one place is very unusual way out here. Hopefully a few politicians will get the message.

And no, there weren't any wackos... Except for me, perhaps.

psleang wrote:
A protest like this would be more effective if it stayed apolitical.

Quite so. As a libertarian, I was glad that it didn't end up as a republican party rally.
gandalfthegrey
I applaud their efforts, but sadly the sentiment of most people are like that of Jon Stewart reporting on the Daily Show about the Tea Party protests.
deanhills
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I applaud their efforts, but sadly the sentiment of most people are like that of Jon Stewart reporting on the Daily Show about the Tea Party protests.
I think this is a wonderful positive step in the right direction. Hopefully this will ripple into more and more.
Moonspider
I attended the protest in Modesto, California. It lasted from 11:00am to 6:00pm. I was there for about 90 minutes late in the day and about 200 or so were in attendance at the time. However a lot of people were coming and going. I spoke with a woman collecting signatures on letters to senators and representatives and she claimed to have collected 4,000 signatures since she started at about 10:30am.

I was pleased to see ours was not related to any political party, just a lot of Americans upset with the course of our government.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
I attended the protest in Modesto, California. It lasted from 11:00am to 6:00pm. I was there for about 90 minutes late in the day and about 200 or so were in attendance at the time. However a lot of people were coming and going. I spoke with a woman collecting signatures on letters to senators and representatives and she claimed to have collected 4,000 signatures since she started at about 10:30am.

I was pleased to see ours was not related to any political party, just a lot of Americans upset with the course of our government.

Respectfully,
M
This is awesome! Nice to know that people are not passive any more.
Moonspider
deanhills wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
I attended the protest in Modesto, California. It lasted from 11:00am to 6:00pm. I was there for about 90 minutes late in the day and about 200 or so were in attendance at the time. However a lot of people were coming and going. I spoke with a woman collecting signatures on letters to senators and representatives and she claimed to have collected 4,000 signatures since she started at about 10:30am.

I was pleased to see ours was not related to any political party, just a lot of Americans upset with the course of our government.

Respectfully,
M
This is awesome! Nice to know that people are not passive any more.


I agree. I actually struggled with the decision to attend, considering I'm a commissioned officer of the U.S. Navy. But I figured one, I'm on personal time and not on duty. And secondly, I swore an oath to defend the constitution of the United States. So, in my mind, attending the protest amounted to upholding my solemn oath.

Respectfully,
M
handfleisch
First of all, good luck exercising your rights, even though 1 million protesters against the Iraq War before it even started had little effect. On the other hand you have FOX news, the richest 2%, the Christian Right and lots of neocon think tanks funded by the rich who on your side this time.

Matt Taibbi compares Tea Partiers to peasants protesting whatever their masters tell them to protest. How many protest signs against Harvard CEOs who ran the companies into the ground did you see?
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8coz1/matt_taibbi_the_peasant_mentality_lives_on_in/

More about the CEOs here
Quote:
Want to know what your CEO made last year? The Executive Paywatch site offers three user-friendly ways to find out. And if you want to have a little fun at the CEO’s expense, play the “Boot The CEO” game and kick the money out of the greedy CEO’s hands.

Their arrogance knows no bounds:

In 2008, despite the worst economic meltdown in over 75 years, U.S. chief executives continued to take home over 300 times more pay than their workers. That’s a gap ten times wider than the gap between top execs and workers that existed just a generation ago.

Corporate boards of directors seem determined to keep this massive gap intact. Most corporations are refusing to make even symbolic gestures toward more common-sense executive compensation.

Remember last fall’s firestorm over executive jets? In 2008, over half America’s big corporations — 104 of the 200 the Wall Street Journal tracked — continued to foot the bill for the personal air travel of their top executives, only three fewer than the year before.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/dont-look-at-light-by-digby-i-know-we.html

Here's a good one. No signs against the CEOs, but Obama is... well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2baxw_YScxc
Tea Partier: He's a fascist.

Roesgen: Why do you say he's a fascist? He's the President of the United States. Do you realize how offensive that is?

Tea Partier: I think he's a fascist.

Roesgen: Why?

Tea Partier: Because he is.

FOX News goes fair(ly nuts) and unbalanced: "When are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating the country?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jBOqEHrFZ0

Lastly, where do these Tea Partiers get off calling the Commander in Chief during wartime a fascist, a communist? They used to say that was "pandering to anti-American elites" and "attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason" while Bush was presiding over the collapsing economy:

Quote:
"The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm's way and undermine their commander in chief while they're at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong."

—Sean Hannity, 10/18/06

"He’s the Commander-in-Chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats – you have undermined our president..."

—Sean Hannity, 03/19/06

"You know, Norman, those comments while we are at war, while troops are in harm's way, while he is the commander in chief, do you not see the outrage in that?"

—Sean Hannity, 11/12/07

"I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war..."

—Sean Hannity, 11/05

"You don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale."

—Bill O'Reilly, 04/04

"Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?"

—Michelle Malkin, 11/23/05

"On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief..."

—Tom DeLay, 04/11/07

"And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."

—Pat Robertson, 12/07/05


http://crooksandliars.com/bob-cesca/convenient-patriotism
bigt
gandalfthegrey wrote:
I applaud their efforts, but sadly the sentiment of most people are like that of Jon Stewart reporting on the Daily Show about the Tea Party protests.


I don't care to watch Jon Stewart much. He's not a journalist, but people take him for one every day. I guess I'm also now considered one of those "Right-Wing Nuts" b/c I love the USA and think we should follow the Constitution. And I believe like the Founding Fathers. Haven't found my name in that crazy report.....yet Smile

And, yes, I went to a TEA Party yesterday. There were several hundred people there. No, they're not Republican or Democratic "things". TEA Party's are about stopping the government waste on both sides. Bush did not stop the over-spending and Pres. B.H.O. has increased spending by many times Bush's. But, the ultimate root of the problem is still going strong....Congress. It's the policies of Congress that got us into all this mess in the first place. They have not figured that out or owned up to it, and Congress keeps trying to spend everyone else's money!

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - W. Churchill
Voodoocat
I think that handfleisch completely missed the point: the protests were not organized to proclaim that Obama is a fascist, but to show that many hard-working Americans are tired of the government taking from their families to give to others. The American deficit is not in the trillions and someone will have to pay. Who do you think it will be? Us! That is the reason for the protests.
bigt
Voodoocat wrote:
I think that handfleisch completely missed the point: the protests were not organized to proclaim that Obama is a fascist, but to show that many hard-working Americans are tired of the government taking from their families to give to others. The American deficit is not in the trillions and someone will have to pay. Who do you think it will be? Us! That is the reason for the protests.


That's right. Really, Obama just happens to be the President right now. We should have already been speaking up about the financial situation because we didn't get here overnight.
Moonspider
handfleisch wrote:
First of all, good luck exercising your rights, even though 1 million protesters against the Iraq War before it even started had little effect. On the other hand you have FOX news, the richest 2%, the Christian Right and lots of neocon think tanks funded by the rich who on your side this time.


So be it.

handfleisch wrote:
Matt Taibbi compares Tea Partiers to peasants protesting whatever their masters tell them to protest. How many protest signs against Harvard CEOs who ran the companies into the ground did you see?
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8coz1/matt_taibbi_the_peasant_mentality_lives_on_in/


Okay. So he did. Why should I care about the opinion of Mike Taibbi’s son any more than I care about anyone else’s opinion?

I don’t care if “Harvard CEOs” ran companies into the ground. So what? I don’t hold them accountable. That’s the job of a company’s board of directors. I just care that our government bailed them out. If a CEO runs a company into the ground let it hit the ground instead of using my money to pick them up and dust the dirt off their bloody knees. That’s how the system works (if you let it). You make mistakes, you suffer the consequences.

handfleisch wrote:
More about the CEOs here
Quote:
Want to know what your CEO made last year? The Executive Paywatch site offers three user-friendly ways to find out. And if you want to have a little fun at the CEO’s expense, play the “Boot The CEO” game and kick the money out of the greedy CEO’s hands.


Once again, why do I care? It is not my responsibility to hold CEOs accountable. Nor is that the federal government’s responsibility beyond prosecuting people who break laws! The board holds them accountable. Employees hold them accountable. And the market holds the company ultimately accountable. If the company fails, it fails! If that means 10,000 people lose their jobs, so be it! Somebody else will come along and pick up the pieces and fill the vacuum in the market. And hopefully they’ll operate more efficiently and avoid the mistakes that put their predecessor in the grave.

handfleisch wrote:
Here's a good one. No signs against the CEOs, but Obama is... well:


What is this!? “We the people in order to form a more perfect corporation!?” Citizens are protesting the government’s actions because they hold the ultimate power in the government. They do not hold the ultimate power in companies. And running businesses is not the government’s business. Why should I or anyone else go out and protest against CEOs? If their board, stock holders, employers, customers, etc. are upset with how the company is being run or how poor their product is, then sure, protest all they want. However I have an obligation to the U.S. government, as did everyone protesting and every citizen of the United States.

handfleisch wrote:
Quote:
"The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm's way and undermine their commander in chief while they're at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong."

—Sean Hannity, 10/18/06

"He’s the Commander-in-Chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats – you have undermined our president..."

—Sean Hannity, 03/19/06

"You know, Norman, those comments while we are at war, while troops are in harm's way, while he is the commander in chief, do you not see the outrage in that?"

—Sean Hannity, 11/12/07

"I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war..."

—Sean Hannity, 11/05

"You don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale."

—Bill O'Reilly, 04/04

"Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?"

—Michelle Malkin, 11/23/05

"On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief..."

—Tom DeLay, 04/11/07

"And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."

—Pat Robertson, 12/07/05


http://crooksandliars.com/bob-cesca/convenient-patriotism


I’m not going to defend or condemn any of these comments. However you took them all out of context. I have no idea in what context these statements were made. However I assume that these comments (most if not all) were made in regards to the prosecution of the war. The “tea parties” are about economic policy. And not just President Obama’s economic policies, but about the policies of those who preceded him and those in the legislative branch over the years that have brought us to this position.

These protests are about economic policy, fiscal responsibility, taxation, and the role of government in our economy.

Respectfully,
M
psleang
I second what Moonspider just said. I'd also like to add that it's not just taxation in general that bothers us (we don't mind paying a reasonable tax). The main issue with the tax code is how it is used. It is used to redistribute wealth from the hard-working and responsible to the lazy and irresponsible. The tax code is used for stealth spending (Congress subsidizes favored groups through deductions). It's also used to hide the true tax burden. Do you have any idea how much tax is hidden in every purchase you make? Remember, Government can only tax individuals. Any tax applied to a company is handed down to the company's patrons.

Basically, all of this is unfair and unproductive. It hides the true cost of government and makes the entire economy less efficient. Such a tax code actually harms the people at the low end of the income spectrum, the very people it is meant to help! (If I have time I'll actually compile a more detailed post to back this statement up. But I'm really tired right now so I'll just point you all to a book called "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell. Everyone should read it, especially people who like to talk economics.)
handfleisch
Even if someone of good intent had some genuine interest in protesting, they wouldn't participate in a Fox-News propaganda fest which this whole Tea Party was from start to finish. Given the history of Fox, the chance that this is a non-partisan exercise is zero.

I looked at the pictures. I saw lots of posters and sentiment against raising taxes. Obama, after just a couple months in office, has already presided over the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Are these people confused? Ignorant? Masochistic?

It just looks like more right wing populism, a dangerous and ugly thing, the same mindless force that was exploited to support the invasion of Iraq.
bigt
handfleisch wrote:
....
I looked at the pictures. I saw lots of posters and sentiment against raising taxes. Obama, after just a couple months in office, has already presided over the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Are these people confused? Ignorant? Masochistic?

First, I would have to see some numbers to prove "the biggest middle class tax cut in history." The cuts made are a good start, but I think there have been larger cuts in history. And, those of us that can grasp the concepts of economics and government's want of power understand that all this debt has to be paid back by someone. Who's going to pay for all of these "temporary" programs in two years when the gov't loans are gone? Reagan said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! "

Ignorance is spending the next generation's money flippantly. The republicans and democrats are guilty of this and that is why we are protesting. And I thank God we still have the right to protest peacefully.
jmi256
bigt wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
....
I looked at the pictures. I saw lots of posters and sentiment against raising taxes. Obama, after just a couple months in office, has already presided over the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Are these people confused? Ignorant? Masochistic?

First, I would have to see some numbers to prove "the biggest middle class tax cut in history." The cuts made are a good start, but I think there have been larger cuts in history. And, those of us that can grasp the concepts of economics and government's want of power understand that all this debt has to be paid back by someone. Who's going to pay for all of these "temporary" programs in two years when the gov't loans are gone? Reagan said, "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! "

Ignorance is spending the next generation's money flippantly. The republicans and democrats are guilty of this and that is why we are protesting. And I thank God we still have the right to protest peacefully.



Exactly bigt. The sound bite "the biggest middle class tax cut in history" has yet to materialize and the overall tax increase to Americans will disproportionately affect the poor and those less able to take on the burden. The tax increases Obama and the Democrats have placed on small businesses and entrepreneurs will just be passed on to consumers in the form of higher costs and less purchasing power. At the same time the current monetary policy of printing more dollars will lead to inflation and even less buying power. In the end the poor and those barely hanging on will have to pay more with less.

And the tax increases and monetary policy still fail to pay off all these programs that Obama has laid out, and future generations will again be burdened with the costs for these pet programs. As I said before, the previous Bush Administration should take some of the heat because it failed to pull in spending, but that doesn't excuse the massive increase in current spending and waste. That's exactly why people have identified with this movement and are protesting. They’ve had enough.

To be honest I don't care if Democrats or Republicans are in office. I would rather have individuals who have sound policies from whatever party, and would rather have a Democrat who behaves conservatively (from both a fiscal and social policy standpoint) than a Republican who behaves as a liberal (again from both a fiscal and social policy standpoint). If you look back at my posts you'll see that I have been critical of Obama and the Democrats in power mainly due to their policies. This is because their policies just don' make sense. Increasing taxes during a time of economic hardship is foolish. And while I think it’s ok for the government to [b]temporarily[b] run a small deficit during those times, the deficit should be used to stimulate business and growth through incentives to businesses and entrepreneurs rather than the pork-filled bills that have been forced down our throats.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
First of all, good luck exercising your rights, even though 1 million protesters against the Iraq War before it even started had little effect. On the other hand you have FOX news, the richest 2%, the Christian Right and lots of neocon think tanks funded by the rich who on your side this time.

Matt Taibbi compares Tea Partiers to peasants protesting whatever their masters tell them to protest. How many protest signs against Harvard CEOs who ran the companies into the ground did you see?
www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/8coz1/matt_taibbi_the_peasant_mentality_lives_on_in/
So does this mean that you are against Tea Parties Handfleisch? What is wrong with Tea Parties, I thought you were living in a democratic country? Your own opinion please for a change! Rolling Eyes
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

I looked at the pictures. I saw lots of posters and sentiment against raising taxes. Obama, after just a couple months in office, has already presided over the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Are these people confused? Ignorant? Masochistic?

Middle class tax cut? Really, I don't care about cutting taxes on one group while raising them for another. The problem is he's causing government spending to skyrocket, which MUST either A) raise taxes dramatically or B) Greatly increase the problem of national debt.
I'm against it, even if I'm not the one paying for it!
I don't play selfish politics. If there was a movement that would make me pay no taxes, but raise everybody else's, I'd be against it.
Quote:

It just looks like more right wing populism, a dangerous and ugly thing, the same mindless force that was exploited to support the invasion of Iraq.

Small government, lower and simpler taxes?
Not a right-wing idea, and certainly not populist.
Dangerous and ugly? Only for those who survive by being parasites of the ever larger government.
Mindless? Hardly. It takes brains to figure out that middle class tax cuts are bad for you if taxes overall are going up.
Same thing that was expoited to support the invasion of Iraq?
Huh?
How does fear of WMD's = Desire for small, simple government?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

I looked at the pictures. I saw lots of posters and sentiment against raising taxes. Obama, after just a couple months in office, has already presided over the biggest middle class tax cut in history. Are these people confused? Ignorant? Masochistic?

Middle class tax cut? Really, I don't care about cutting taxes on one group while raising them for another. The problem is he's causing government spending to skyrocket, which MUST either A) raise taxes dramatically or B) Greatly increase the problem of national debt.
I'm against it, even if I'm not the one paying for it!
I don't play selfish politics. If there was a movement that would make me pay no taxes, but raise everybody else's, I'd be against it.
Quote:

It just looks like more right wing populism, a dangerous and ugly thing, the same mindless force that was exploited to support the invasion of Iraq.

Small government, lower and simpler taxes?
Not a right-wing idea, and certainly not populist.
Dangerous and ugly? Only for those who survive by being parasites of the ever larger government.
Mindless? Hardly. It takes brains to figure out that middle class tax cuts are bad for you if taxes overall are going up.
Same thing that was expoited to support the invasion of Iraq?
Huh?
How does fear of WMD's = Desire for small, simple government?

What about the 1.2-trillion loan? Does that not count for some sort of indefinite tax? To me this is daylight robbery, and the irony of course will be giving Obama accolades for this in the short term. Such as Handfleisch is doing all over with his quotes of his "good works". Technically the US is bankrupt and only surviving on the faith of its citizens in a future of the country. I still can't get over people not making a bigger issue out of the 1.2-trillion. Life is chugging on as usual, banks that could not manage their debt have been bailed out and are living in their ivory towers as before and their business is still completely untransparent as before. How much toxic debt was there, and why is there not a watch list on this?
handfleisch
Given this video of some proud Tea Partiers, we have to ask to what extent the Parties were just White Power, Anti-Obama rallies.

From the video:
Quote:

"He's not my president"
"He hates America. At least white America"
"Closet Muslim"
"I'd like to stick a knife in his eye"

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

During the anti-Islam hysteria a few years ago, Muslims were called on to denounce terrorism, in order to make it clear where they stood. With this week's anniversary of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombings in mind, the question has to be asked: Do you Tea Partiers denounce this White Power racism and the threats on the life of the President?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Given this video of some proud Tea Partiers, we have to ask to what extent the Parties were just White Power, Anti-Obama rallies.

From the video:
Quote:

"He's not my president"
"He hates America. At least white America"
"Closet Muslim"
"I'd like to stick a knife in his eye"

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

During the anti-Islam hysteria a few years ago, Muslims were called on to denounce terrorism, in order to make it clear where they stood. With this week's anniversary of the Oklahoma City terrorist bombings in mind, the question has to be asked: Do you Tea Partiers denounce this White Power racism and the threats on the life of the President?
Do you find your eye sight is still OK after all the YouTube shows you've been watching Handfleisch? Too much viewing can't be that good for you. You must have looked at thousands. Aren't you scared that maybe there is a conspiracy and YouTube is being used to brainwash you in specific thinking ways? Maybe in a year or two there will be a new Video supplier called Catch-the-Tube, giving background stories on how people like you have been mislead and how these videos have been filmed and edited to make you believe what you believe. Think they call it brainwashing and I for one am not a willing victim. Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Do you Tea Partiers denounce this White Power racism and the threats on the life of the President?

Duh! Of course we renounce the racism.
(Though the freedom to be racist should remain protected, only acting on it should be stopped.)
Threats on the life of the president? Probably not a good idea. Then, you'd just have Biden as the new president.


Also, I'd like to point out to you that the comments of a few wackos who have involved themselves don't invalidate an entire movement. Could you please pose an argument about the whole movement, its views, its methods, or what it does, rather than just pointing out the few bad eggs that support it? It is, after all, an open group, they're not going to exclude people just so that you can't say there are wackos in it.
psleang
handfleisch wrote:
Threats on the life of the president? Probably not a good idea. Then, you'd just have Biden as the new president.


Yeah, with Biden and Pelosi in tow, Obama should be pretty much invincible. I mean, can you imagine Pelosi as President? ................. I've been trying to come up with a way to finish this thought for about five minutes, but my brain refuses to enter this particular fantasy world....

I'm not a religious man, but I think I'll say a little prayer for the Obama's tonight. May they stay safe and healthy for many years to come.
deanhills
psleang wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Threats on the life of the president? Probably not a good idea. Then, you'd just have Biden as the new president.


Yeah, with Biden and Pelosi in tow, Obama should be pretty much invincible. I mean, can you imagine Pelosi as President? ................. I've been trying to come up with a way to finish this thought for about five minutes, but my brain refuses to enter this particular fantasy world....

I'm not a religious man, but I think I'll say a little prayer for the Obama's tonight. May they stay safe and healthy for many years to come.

I don't understand why people are referring to threats on the life of the President as though they are new. Threats were understood to be real during his Presidential campaign. He had to have more security than any of the other candidates who were running for President. It was one of the decisions he had to make before he ran for President. Why would these threats disappear all of a sudden?
handfleisch
Obama mentioned what he thought of the tea bag people in a speech yesterday.

Quote:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/C8E9F2C82D71B8D0862575A70060DEB8?OpenDocument

ARNOLD -- President Barack Obama took the stage at Fox High School to rousing applause, leaving about 90 minutes later with the crowd wanting more.
...
Obama was last in Missouri six months ago on the campaign trail, an effort that saw him lose the state's electoral votes by the slimmest of margins. Today's nationally-televised event offered Obama an audience in an area that has been hit hard by cutbacks at the near-by auto plants.

The first question he took focused on the future of Chrysler, whose plant in Fenton has shed shifts amid the economic slowdown. Later, he took a swipe at the "Tea Party" protesters who have organized rallies decrying the White House's stimulus package.

"You see folks waving tea bags around -- let me just remind them I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care cuts over the long term, how we are gong to stabilize social security," Obama said. "Lets not play games," Obama said, that the recovery act is the reason for the country's deficit.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
Quote:

"You see folks waving tea bags around -- let me just remind them I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care cuts over the long term, how we are gong to stabilize social security," Obama said. "Lets not play games," Obama said, that the recovery act is the reason for the country's deficit.

How could we cut health care costs?
1- limit lawsuits
2- completely overhaul the FDA and medicine patent process
3- prohibit employer healthcare plans, which gives everyone a level playing field to buy medical insurance with, and takes away the primary barrier stopping price competition between medical providers and between insurance companies.
Cost: wages for additional FDA staff... A few million a year.

How to stabilize social security?
Privatize it. However much you have invested in it already would be transferred into a private retirement account of your choice, and the system would cease to exist, saving the country hundreds of billions every year. I'd leave it up to Obama whether or not to force people to keep paying into these private retirement accounts, or to let them choose to do so or not.

Oh, look. I figured out how to do it without spending a trillion dollars! And I'm just a simple E-3. You'd think the commander in chief could do better. Rolling Eyes
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Obama mentioned what he thought of the tea bag people in a speech yesterday.

Quote:
Obama said. "Lets not play games," Obama said, that the recovery act is the reason for the country's deficit.


Well from the way that he has been playing with the "tax cuts" adding here and subtracting there to make it look good, I think Obama has perfected the art of playing games.

As for the recovery act being a reason for the country's deficit, I think the deficit has been growing in leaps and bounds since pre-Reagan years. However, with the 1.2-trillion bail-out, Obama has shown that he's into trillions and not millions anymore. Millions don't have value anymore in terms of borrowings and deficits. He is in the art of perfecting deficits.
handfleisch
ocalhoun
^What kind of point are you trying to make with that one?
Xanatos
^^I think it is saying that people shouldn't protest tax increases. It is trying to say that instead of protesting tax increases these people should have been working.

I for one disagree with this wholeheartedly.
Moonspider
Like most political image commentaries/satire, be it cartoons or "posters" like this one, the artist takes an issue or event and attempts to humorously convey his opinion, often making the issue or event as simplistic as possible.

In this case, I think the artist completely missed the point, or chose to ignore it because the point does not fit his paradigm or because the point is too complicated to deal with in a single image or statement.

The protests were not about a tax increase, or a budget increase, or a stimulus package. The protests were about a larger, more philosophical issue. What is the role of the U.S. federal government, particularly with regards to the economic system? How large should the U.S. federal government be? How much power should the U.S. federal government wield?

I'm a Southerner, a conservative, and a strong states rights advocate. I believe the federal government should be as small as possible. I do not believe states to be higher than the federal government because that issue was adjudicated by the sword more than 140 years ago. However the federal government's power should be very limited, it's intrusiveness into our affairs as individuals and as states extremely minimal, and its size commensurate with its minimalistic role.

It was about liberty, not a 4% tax increase, not the current president, not democrats, not republicans, etc.

Higher taxes, the notion that a benevolent government is there to take care of me, more government power, more government involvement in the economy, all will rob me of my liberty faster than any other government act because of its insipidness. Like a lobster slowly boiling to death, a republic may steal the very liberties it was created to protect before her citizens realize they are gone, so slowly the poison of good intentions works upon a society through a government.

Respectfully,
M
Xanatos
^^Could not have said that better myself.

I think that people should always have the right to protest the policies and actions of their government. When we start saying that it is wrong to question the government...... Use your imagination.
Moonspider
Xanatos wrote:
^^Could not have said that better myself.

I think that people should always have the right to protest the policies and actions of their government. When we start saying that it is wrong to question the government...... Use your imagination.


Thank you.

I agree. I find it ironic that the very people who cried "foul" when Republicans called some protesters "unpatriotic" during the Bush administration now have no problem calling people who participated in the Tea Party protests racists, idiots, unpatriotic, lemmings, and even Republicans.

BTW, I like the quote by de Tocqueville.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Agreed Xanatos's Signature Quote is really great, sort of right on:

Quote:
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville


Where would you place the 1.2-trillion bail-out package in the quote? I can't figure how it is really affecting anyone, who has been bailed out - the banks, or the people funding the bail-out? Twisted Evil
Xanatos
deanhills wrote:
Agreed Xanatos's Signature Quote is really great, sort of right on:

Quote:
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville


Where would you place the 1.2-trillion bail-out package in the quote? I can't figure how it is really affecting anyone, who has been bailed out - the banks, or the people funding the bail-out? Twisted Evil


Well I personally think that the bail-out hasn't helped as much as people would have lliked it too. In my opinion it was more about the perception of action rather than taking any real initiative. The government needed to say that it was doing something about the economy.

And when I think about it, I haven't heard much about the bail-out package for a while. I mean in the news anyways.

As far as the quote goes, The bail-out just shows how dependent this entire country has become on our government. We need it to survive, at least that is what they would like us to think.
deanhills
Xanatos wrote:
As far as the quote goes, The bail-out just shows how dependent this entire country has become on our government. We need it to survive, at least that is what they would like us to think.
I still can't believe people allowed the bail-out package to be passed through Government, especially with as little information as there was relative to such a huge amoung of money. Has anybody sat down to count 1.2 trillion dollars? If we go to our bank managers and ask for a loan, even for 500 dollars we would have to come up with collateral, and reams of paperwork and information. Yet all the Government had to do is a little fearmongering among people. No nitty gritty information. No Website with break-downs of accounts and toxic debts. No fundamental facts. Perhaps one can call this complacency too?
ocalhoun
Xanatos wrote:


As far as the quote goes, The bail-out just shows how dependent this entire country has become on our government. We need it to survive, at least that is what they would like us to think.

I think it sheds light on a disturbing trend of additional dependency on the government.

It shows that people these days believe that it's the government's job to make sure they're employed. Trying to make the economy better is one thing, but most of what I hear about focuses entirely on jobs gained/ jobs lost. This isn't the most efficient way to run an economy, and because of that inefficiency, it will only hurt everyone in the long term. On a related note, I also find the notion that the government should concern itself with, and attempt to control, the economy dubious.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Xanatos wrote:


As far as the quote goes, The bail-out just shows how dependent this entire country has become on our government. We need it to survive, at least that is what they would like us to think.

I think it sheds light on a disturbing trend of additional dependency on the government.

It shows that people these days believe that it's the government's job to make sure they're employed. Trying to make the economy better is one thing, but most of what I hear about focuses entirely on jobs gained/ jobs lost. This isn't the most efficient way to run an economy, and because of that inefficiency, it will only hurt everyone in the long term. On a related note, I also find the notion that the government should concern itself with, and attempt to control, the economy dubious.
Sounds like signs of socialism then. Obama is going for what people are needing? I.e. the majority of people have given their power to the Government. In a way they are already subscribing to socialism and Obama is popularizing what they are subscribing to. That really sounds scary, but perhaps we're getting closer to the truth?
handfleisch
I respect that some people had decent motivations for wanting to protest and that the cause of fighting the deficit-spending syndrome that has plagued the US federal gov't for many years is a good one.

But responding to a call by such an entity as Fox "News", for what amounted to anti-Obama rallies at best, really is lemming-like behavior.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
responding to a call by such an entity as Fox "News", for what amounted to anti-Obama rallies at best

Really? Is that all you can see in it? (most) People didn't go there because they love fox news or because they hate Obama. They went because they hate the idea of huge government.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
what amounted to anti-Obama rallies at best, really is lemming-like behavior.
I doubt people saw it as anti-Obama, although likely the thought would be one of criticism of his policies. I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact it is a very good sign if citizens look critically at what their Government does or doesn't do. Perhaps one can even argue that that is their civic duty, not to be passive but to participate in their Government and its affairs. Attending tea parties is one way to do that. And yes, the fact that Obama is working towards more regulations and bigger Government has to worry people, as that of course means greater cost, greater likelihood that he won't be able to balance the budget and spending that was already out of control when he became President, becoming even more out of control.
Libby
I hate taxes as much as anyone.

But if you don't want to pay taxes, don't pay taxes. Lots of people don't. If you're rich you can hide your money someplace, if you're poor you can use various techniques to come under "too poor to pay taxes" line without going hungry. Or you can just tell the IRS to shove it and go to jail, like hundreds of tax resisters have over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance

This website is really good:
http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=howto

Yeah, I know that paying taxes isn't what the tea parties are about because everybody involved with them is cool with taxes going to guns and bombs and corporate subsidies and pesticides and school vouchers and so on, just as long as they don't go to "lazy" people.

Just on the off chance that there's anyone reading who doesn't want any government, left or right, to have their money...
Moonspider
Libby wrote:
I hate taxes as much as anyone.


I participated in a Tea Party protest and do not hate taxes. Citizens should pay a certain amount of taxes to provide the operational funding for their government. After all, a government should only exist for to serve the collective needs of the people. Taxes provide the means by which the government meets those collective needs.

However, I disagree with the direction in which the federal government is and has been moving. It is collecting too much power and operating far beyond the limited role that I believe the U.S. federal government should play.

Libby wrote:
Yeah, I know that paying taxes isn't what the tea parties are about because everybody involved with them is cool with taxes going to guns and bombs and corporate subsidies and pesticides and school vouchers and so on, just as long as they don't go to "lazy" people.


So instead of debating the ideas, philosophies, and issues, you choose to call tea party participants names by classifying them as big business, gun crazy, anti-environment bigots.

Respectfully,
M
ocalhoun
Libby wrote:

Yeah, I know that paying taxes isn't what the tea parties are about because everybody involved with them is cool with taxes going to guns and bombs and corporate subsidies and pesticides and school vouchers and so on, just as long as they don't go to "lazy" people.

Red= not the government's business to be spending money on in the first place, no matter where they got that money.
Green=acceptable government activities

It isn't about 'how my tax dollars are being spent'. It is about this (please read carefully, and pay attention this time):
Small Government = Better Government
Moonspider
ocalhoun wrote:
Libby wrote:

Yeah, I know that paying taxes isn't what the tea parties are about because everybody involved with them is cool with taxes going to guns and bombs and corporate subsidies and pesticides and school vouchers and so on, just as long as they don't go to "lazy" people.

Red= not the government's business to be spending money on in the first place, no matter where they got that money.
Green=acceptable government activities


One could say, "required government activities," since it is one of the few things expressly required of the U.S. government by the constitution.

Respectfully,
M
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Libby wrote:

Yeah, I know that paying taxes isn't what the tea parties are about because everybody involved with them is cool with taxes going to guns and bombs and corporate subsidies and pesticides and school vouchers and so on, just as long as they don't go to "lazy" people.

Red= not the government's business to be spending money on in the first place, no matter where they got that money.
Green=acceptable government activities


One could say, "required government activities," since it is one of the few things expressly required of the U.S. government by the constitution.

Respectfully,
M

Where would the 1.2-trillion bail-out package fit in, especially given that the Democrats seem to have started a media campaign for asking more bail-out money. This just so much out of control! The bank stocks rallied. Wonder who own those stock, and who had access to these reports?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_banks_stress_tests
deanhills
Moonspider wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Libby wrote:

Yeah, I know that paying taxes isn't what the tea parties are about because everybody involved with them is cool with taxes going to guns and bombs and corporate subsidies and pesticides and school vouchers and so on, just as long as they don't go to "lazy" people.

Red= not the government's business to be spending money on in the first place, no matter where they got that money.
Green=acceptable government activities


One could say, "required government activities," since it is one of the few things expressly required of the U.S. government by the constitution.

Respectfully,
M

Where would the 1.2-trillion bail-out package fit in, especially given that the Democrats seem to have started a media campaign for asking more bail-out money. This is just so much out of control! Government now being in the business of testing banks. And then the bank stocks rallied. Wonder who own bank stocks, and who had access to those reports?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_banks_stress_tests
Xanatos
deanhills wrote:

Where would the 1.2-trillion bail-out package fit in


I think that should answer your question.
Libby
Dudes, I totally get what you're after, I was just being a snarky little bitch. haha You guys can have your parties and campaigns and whatever, I don't care. I just wanted to share that info about tax resistance in case anyone wanted to stop paying taxes altogether. (Even if it was just "until it stops going towards war" or "until it stops going towards welfare".)
handfleisch
Moonspider wrote:


The protests were not about a tax increase,


Hmmmm... they why have them on tax day? And why is the next one, here being pushed by the large right wing Christian extremist organist Focus on the Family (so much for the "grass roots" lie), being called "Taxed Enough Already"?

http://www.teapartyday.com/
Quote:
On Saturday, July 4th, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community. Help organize a local TEA Party.


It looks like the comical graphic had a point after all. As that one video showed, the Tea Parties are being attended by a lot of people too ignorant and FoxNews-addled to know their taxes have just been lowered.

jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Moonspider wrote:


The protests were not about a tax increase,


Hmmmm... they why have them on tax day? And why is the next one, here being pushed by the large right wing Christian extremist organist Focus on the Family (so much for the "grass roots" lie), being called "Taxed Enough Already"?

http://www.teapartyday.com/
Quote:
On Saturday, July 4th, be part of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) party rally in your community. Help organize a local TEA Party.


It looks like the comical graphic had a point after all. As that one video showed, the Tea Parties are being attended by a lot of people too ignorant and FoxNews-addled to know their taxes have just been lowered.


I can't understand why are you so against people standing up for their right to be heard. We still have freedom of speech, and we still have a right to protest against the government if we want. You keep raising this neurotic argument that some type of "vast right-wing conspiracy" is behind the protests, but in reality it’s real people who took time from work, used vacation days, etc. to let their voices be heard. Many protests occurred during lunch and/or in the evening (the one I went to in NYC was in the evening), but some people had to make sacrifices to attend. Trying to ridicule and belittle everyday citizens for exercising their rights is one of the very reasons citizens are protesting. There isn’t just one reason, but several.

It seems to me that you can't stand the idea of everyday people having a voice, unless of course that voice parrots the party line. Living in NYC I see protests all the time. Most are silly in my opinion, but I feel that if someone is passionate about an issue enough that they take the time and to organize and protest, they at least have my respect. I may not agree with the issue, but I don’t need to attack the people and attempt character assassination. Of course you don’t want to talk about the issues because you are either unable to or unwilling due to a weak position. You would rather try to shift the conversation to some meaningless attack on the people raising the issue rather than the issue itself.

And since we’re sharing images, here’s one for you. It would be funnier if it wasn’t so true:

handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
I can't understand why are you so against people standing up for their right to be heard. We still have freedom of speech, and we still have a right to protest against the government if we want. You keep raising this neurotic argument that some type of "vast right-wing conspiracy" is behind the protests, but in reality it’s real people who took time from work, used vacation days, etc. to let their voices be heard. Many protests occurred during lunch and/or in the evening (the one I went to in NYC was in the evening), but some people had to make sacrifices to attend. Trying to ridicule and belittle everyday citizens for exercising their rights is one of the very reasons citizens are protesting. There isn’t just one reason, but several.

It seems to me that you can't stand the idea of everyday people having a voice, unless of course that voice parrots the party line. Living in NYC I see protests all the time. Most are silly in my opinion, but I feel that if someone is passionate about an issue enough that they take the time and to organize and protest, they at least have my respect. I may not agree with the issue, but I don’t need to attack the people and attempt character assassination. Of course you don’t want to talk about the issues because you are either unable to or unwilling due to a weak position. You would rather try to shift the conversation to some meaningless attack on the people raising the issue rather than the issue itself.

And since we’re sharing images, here’s one for you. It would be funnier if it wasn’t so true:


As usual your post is too full of red herrings, oversimplifications, flamebaiting, willful ignorance and mistakes to bother with. Nice string of Limbaugh/FoxNews talking points and Freeperville tactics, though. Really, feel free to think you're letting your voice be heard (AKA be used like a tool by PR agencies hired by the mega-rich) in a grassroot protest (AKA astroturf rally promoted by FoxNews and large conservative Christian organizations) that either is or isn't about tax increases that didn't happen (you and Moonspider disagree, so why don't you two figure it out and get back to us with the amazing conclusion).
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
a lot of people too ignorant and FoxNews-addled to know their taxes have just been lowered.

Quit playing selfish politics!
They (and I) don't care that our taxes are lowered, if taxes overall are raised.
We will not be bribed as easily as you.

handfleisch wrote:

As usual your post is too full of red herrings, oversimplifications, flamebaiting, willful ignorance and mistakes to bother with. Nice string of Limbaugh/FoxNews talking points and Freeperville tactics, though. Really, feel free to think you're letting your voice be heard (AKA be used like a tool by PR agencies hired by the mega-rich) in a grassroot protest (AKA astroturf rally promoted by FoxNews and large conservative Christian organizations) that either is or isn't about tax increases that didn't happen (you and Moonspider disagree, so why don't you two figure it out and get back to us with the amazing conclusion).

As usual, your post dodges the issue entirely, and attacks people and groups instead.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
As usual, your post dodges the issue entirely, and attacks people and groups instead.
Good point.

Is it possible for Handfleisch to corroborate the following accusations with facts?
1. Red Herrings
2. Oversimplifications
3. Willful Ignorance
4. Flamebaiting
5. Mistakes

He was referring to the posting below:

Quote:
jmi256 wrote:
I can't understand why are you so against people standing up for their right to be heard. We still have freedom of speech, and we still have a right to protest against the government if we want. You keep raising this neurotic argument that some type of "vast right-wing conspiracy" is behind the protests, but in reality it’s real people who took time from work, used vacation days, etc. to let their voices be heard. Many protests occurred during lunch and/or in the evening (the one I went to in NYC was in the evening), but some people had to make sacrifices to attend. Trying to ridicule and belittle everyday citizens for exercising their rights is one of the very reasons citizens are protesting. There isn’t just one reason, but several.

It seems to me that you can't stand the idea of everyday people having a voice, unless of course that voice parrots the party line. Living in NYC I see protests all the time. Most are silly in my opinion, but I feel that if someone is passionate about an issue enough that they take the time and to organize and protest, they at least have my respect. I may not agree with the issue, but I don’t need to attack the people and attempt character assassination. Of course you don’t want to talk about the issues because you are either unable to or unwilling due to a weak position. You would rather try to shift the conversation to some meaningless attack on the people raising the issue rather than the issue itself.
handfleisch
(moved over from another thread) :

Why don't the tea parties protest these? Because FOX News hasn't told them to?

Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ieRhHYX-NosV0VEguc06fs15a4Jg

14 billion for one control tower in a field in Iraq for only two helicopters
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8969203

Another billion in equipment missing
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/06/iraq/main3584247.shtml

And why aren't the tea baggers celebrating a president trying to do something about it?

Obama signs new law to fight mililtary rip-offs and waste
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hJD6viIkt5qOCARZZrRTxQ1u9ejQD98BBII02

Can anyone show me or tell me about a single tea party sign that read "Stop Military Waste" or "Thank you Gates + Obama for Cutting Waste" or "Where Are the Mi$$ing Billion$ in Iraq?" or "Thank You Obama for lowering my taxes?" No is the answer, because the protests are just political warfare, not about any real issue or making the US a better place, and the participants mostly dupes.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Because FOX News hasn't told them to?
Looks as though you are playing a guitar with only one string Handfleisch. Are you trying to say Fox News organized the tea parties?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

Can anyone show me or tell me about a single tea party sign that read [...] "Thank you Gates + Obama for Cutting Waste" [...]?"

Actually, that pretty much started after the protests.

Though the billions wasted by the military is a large amount, it is easy not to notice it when trillions are being wasted.

As for 'thank you for lowering my taxes'... the act that this talks about is very much against the tea party's goals; it makes the government much larger, and increases taxes overall.

You can argue about who should pay the taxes for it all day, but the main problem is BIG GOVERNMENT.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Can anyone show me or tell me about a single tea party sign that read "Stop Military Waste" or "Thank you Gates + Obama for Cutting Waste" or "Where Are the Mi$$ing Billion$ in Iraq?" or "Thank You Obama for lowering my taxes?" No is the answer, because the protests are just political warfare, not about any real issue or making the US a better place, and the participants mostly dupes.
Moonspider is not a dupe. Nor are any of the other Frihosters who attended the Tea Parties. Twisted Evil

Perhaps it should have been the other way round, Obama thanking the citizens for the feedback of those who attended the TEAparties. Successful marketers do that, Obama would get more support if he welcomes criticism and at least acknowledge that he has taken note of the constructive ones.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps it should have been the other way round, Obama thanking the citizens for the feedback of those who attended the TEAparties. Successful marketers do that, Obama would get more support if he welcomes criticism and at least acknowledge that he has taken note of the constructive ones.
I don't think we can legitimately blame Obama for failing to acknowledge the protests, for the same reason that we don't blame other Presidents in the past for the same thing. Plenty of people protested Bush policies and Clinton policies without either President mentioning a word about it. It would be great if a President could bring it to light every time they get protested, but that's unrealistic. I'm sure Obama, like others before him, is fully aware of the protests and is taking them into account on his future actions. Even though we may never know about it.
handfleisch
Obama and the White House did reply to the astroturf romps, about as much as they deserved:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21870.html

Quote:
"Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

“But,” Obama continued, “let's not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act."

It’s the president’s most direct response so far to the protests that flared up in some locations around tax day, on April 15.

In his briefing that day, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters: “I don't know if there's a specific response to protests..I think you saw the president today talk about as candidate Obama promising to bring a tax cut to 95 percent of working families in America, and as president delivering that tax cut.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:


Quote:
I think you saw the president today talk about as candidate Obama promising to bring a tax cut to 95 percent of working families in America, and as president delivering that tax cut.

Again harping on the tax cuts while taxes overall go up...

I thought you would have realized by now, that's not the point.

What is Obama doing to fight big government, how is he reducing the bloated size and scope of the government?
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Perhaps it should have been the other way round, Obama thanking the citizens for the feedback of those who attended the TEAparties. Successful marketers do that, Obama would get more support if he welcomes criticism and at least acknowledge that he has taken note of the constructive ones.
I don't think we can legitimately blame Obama for failing to acknowledge the protests, for the same reason that we don't blame other Presidents in the past for the same thing. Plenty of people protested Bush policies and Clinton policies without either President mentioning a word about it. It would be great if a President could bring it to light every time they get protested, but that's unrealistic. I'm sure Obama, like others before him, is fully aware of the protests and is taking them into account on his future actions. Even though we may never know about it.
I think there is a difference here in that the TEAparties were legitimate gatherings, specifically regarding taxes. There were some good points that have been made. Obama does not need to acknowledge the good points, but perhaps it would have worked in his favour if he had rather than focussing on the idiotic parts with flippant remarks.

handfleisch wrote:
Obama and the White House did reply to the astroturf romps, about as much as they deserved:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21870.html

Quote:
"Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I'm not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

“But,” Obama continued, “let's not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act."

It’s the president’s most direct response so far to the protests that flared up in some locations around tax day, on April 15.

In his briefing that day, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters: “I don't know if there's a specific response to protests..I think you saw the president today talk about as candidate Obama promising to bring a tax cut to 95 percent of working families in America, and as president delivering that tax cut.

I believe you mentioned this before as well. The point that I was trying to make is that there have been constructive criticism that came out of the TeaParties and it would have been in Obama's interest to acknowledge those. There were some good people who attended the TeaParties too. He may have lost them with his flippant remarks and lack of positive acknowledgement.
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
I think there is a difference here in that the TEAparties were legitimate gatherings, specifically regarding taxes.
I think all sizable protests should be considered legitimate.
ocalhoun wrote:
What is Obama doing to fight big government, how is he reducing the bloated size and scope of the government?
I thought the protests were mainly about taxes. Also, even if he isn't saying it publicly, he may be trying to do something about big government. There is alot that goes on behind closed doors that we never hear about.

I'm only playing the devils advocate here... I would also like to know what he plans to do about big government. Unfortunately, it seems like expansion is built into our system of government, with no end in sight.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
I'm only playing the devils advocate here... I would also like to know what he plans to do about big government. Unfortunately, it seems like expansion is built into our system of government, with no end in sight.
Got it .... Laughing The "big government" plans perception comes from all the rules and regulations it would take for some of the "watch dogs" he has in mind, both internationally and in the United States.
Solon_Poledourus
Honestly, I don't think any President has ever actually wanted smaller government. They may say they do, but I just don't buy it. It's like doctors hoping that people don't get sick or injured. Publicly. it would be wrong to hope for people to get sick or injured, but they make a living off of the sick and injured. Our government is able to funnel more money into itself the bigger it gets, and downsizing itself for the benefit of it's slaves---- erm---- citizens, is a moral decision that would cause it to lose money. Government doesn't function within moral bounds, and it's primary solution to any problem is to create a new department, or expand an already existing one.
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
It's like doctors hoping that people don't get sick or injured.
Good analogy ... Laughing Laughing Thinking about it further, possibly politicians don't want the Government and economy to be in good shape either ... Laughing
Solon_Poledourus
deanhills wrote:
Good analogy ... Thinking about it further, possibly politicians don't want the Government and economy to be in good shape either ...
I think at some point early on in their careers they do want to make changes that benefit the people. But as they rise through the ranks, they become isolated from normal life, and begin living in that politicians bubble. They can no longer relate to people who they now only see as numbers and demographics, and their priorities change. It becomes a game of personal glory, greed and pandering to those who give them the biggest gobs of money.

Just like with the doctor analogy; doctors start out wanting to heal everyone and cure cancer. But after a while, it becomes a money game. They recommend expensive procedures that are unnecessary, prescribe drugs that people don't need, charge extortionate amounts of money for the smallest things and shortest visits. Insurance companies are partly to blame, but it's built into the system. Just as all the other things are built into politics.

I truly believe the only way to make any real changes to the political system is to completely overhaul it. It's very nature will prevent anything less.
handfleisch
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Just like with the doctor analogy; doctors start out wanting to heal everyone and cure cancer. But after a while, it becomes a money game. They recommend expensive procedures that are unnecessary, prescribe drugs that people don't need, charge extortionate amounts of money for the smallest things and shortest visits. Insurance companies are partly to blame, but it's built into the system. Just as all the other things are built into politics.

I truly believe the only way to make any real changes to the political system is to completely overhaul it. It's very nature will prevent anything less.

That's a very Ameri-centric view (apologies if you're not American). In much of the world being a doctor doesn't mean being rich. In some European countries they are more on the level of teachers, underpaid but doing good for people with no incentive to gouge people.

American politics is unfortunately based on money and donors and there has been little progress in changing that, since those with money have power under the system, and don't want it to change.

But "big government" is mostly a rote phrase, often meaningless, or often used by people who want to get rich privatizing something. Everyone likes "big government" for their own interests. I don't see anyone protesting the wasteful corruption of big government war spending, which has been out of control for decades, because all politicians have to be seen as "pro-military" or lose their jobs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090607/ap_on_go_ot/us_wartime_contracting_report

Quote:
APNewsBreak: Major problems found in war spending

In its first report to Congress, the Wartime Contracting Commission presents a bleak assessment of how tens of billions of dollars have been spent since 2001. The 111-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, documents poor management, weak oversight, and a failure to learn from past mistakes as recurring themes in wartime contracting.

The report is scheduled to be made public Wednesday at a hearing held by the House Oversight and Government Reform's national security subcommittee.

U.S. reliance on contractors has grown to "unprecedented proportions," says the bipartisan commission, established by Congress last year. More than 240,000 private sector employees are supporting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands more work for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

But the government has no central data base of who all these contractors are, what services they provide, and how much they're paid. The Pentagon has failed to provide enough trained staff to watch over them, creating conditions for waste and corruption, the commission says.


On the other hand, given the state of US infrastructure, health care, school buildings, etc, one could argue there hasn't been enough "big government" or at worst it's been big gov't in all the wrong places (see article above).
Solon_Poledourus
handfleisch wrote:
That's a very Ameri-centric view (apologies if you're not American).
Only until I firmly establish the island nation of Poledourustan - a benevolent dictatorship(name subject to change).
handfleisch wrote:
In much of the world being a doctor doesn't mean being rich. In some European countries they are more on the level of teachers, underpaid but doing good for people with no incentive to gouge people.
Until they find out how much they can make here. Which is why we have so many doctors and dentists and such coming from the Philippines and India and other places.
handfleisch wrote:
But "big government" is mostly a rote phrase, often meaningless, or often used by people who want to get rich privatizing something. Everyone likes "big government" for their own interests.
Exactly. Nobody bitches about American Socialism when they reap the benefits of unemployment compensation, workers comp, food stamps, college grants, social security benefits, veterans aid, disability compensation, etc. All of which are socialist programs.
handfleisch wrote:
I don't see anyone protesting the wasteful corruption of big government war spending, which has been out of control for decades, because all politicians have to be seen as "pro-military" or lose their jobs.
Partly, it's because of the "brownshirt label". If you say anything that may be taken as even slightly anti-military, you are branded a traitor. Even if you are right. The thing I think is funny, is that America only exists because of a bunch of traitors to the English Crown. So I don't mind being called a traitor so much.
handfleisch wrote:
On the other hand, given the state of US infrastructure, health care, school buildings, etc, one could argue there hasn't been enough "big government" or at worst it's been big gov't in all the wrong places
Now that last part is something I can agree with. Government is too big, I think we can all agree on that. But it's also big in all the wrong places. Like a girl with a few extra pounds, she just needs to relocate those rolls to an area where they look more attractive and have more function. *jiggle*
deanhills
Solon_Poledourus wrote:
Until they find out how much they can make here. Which is why we have so many doctors and dentists and such coming from the Philippines and India and other places.
Conversely Philippine and Indian doctors can be employed "CHEAP" in the United States and in other countries. They make more than they do in the Philippines and India, but they are not earning the same as other doctors in the United States. They are imported as "cheap labour". So are the nurses. I agree however with Europeans making lots of money in the United States. About a month ago I was introduced to a Heart Specialist from Austria who is earning lots of money in Los Angeles. Quite a number of the real experts from Europe earn big money in the United States. Depending on their field of expertise they are sometimes paid even higher than US qualified specialists. For some of course it comes at the price of missing the European culture. They would rarely give up their European passports. The Austrian has been out of his country for more than 20 years, but is still Austrian in every sense of the word.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

On the other hand, given the state of US infrastructure, health care, school buildings, etc, one could argue there hasn't been enough "big government" or at worst it's been big gov't in all the wrong places (see article above).

Or, we could see how government does a terrible job of what it does.

Of course, throwing more money at the problem will magically solve everything, right? That's Obama's solution after all...

The government is not a good thing to have involved in all parts of your life. I notice you get the very worst service from government monopolies... why? You have to go to them. One reason I'm a fan of privatization is because it introduces the concepts of consumer choice, it's much better to have an alternative place to get what you need if you don't like the first one you go to, and competition, which keeps providers interested in what their customers want, and promotes the best values.
handfleisch
Will your Tea Party be officially registered with the American Family Association as part of their fight against the "homosexual agenda" and the PTA? Yes, that PTA, the Parent-Teacher Association.

Quote:
The AFA sponsored TEA Party Day rallies were a smashing success! Hundreds of thousands attended approximately 3,000 rallies. Your AFA sponsored over 2,000 rallies. But the mainstream media and the "tax and spend" members of Congress still don't get it. So get ready for the American Freedom Day TEA Party rallies on July 4. Our goal is to double the number of cities in which AFA sponsors rallies.


More on AFA fighting the PTA and blaming gays for Nazism!

http://faq.afa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331&Itemid=35

Quote:

"But the National PTA continued right along, increasingly becoming a tool to promote a left-wing philosophy instead of helping the children with their educational needs. The latest project for the National PTA is the promotion of the homosexual agenda…Stop the PTA from using your children to promote their left-wing political agenda. "— Don Wildmon, AFA Journal, February 2001
...
California director for AFA was Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries and the Pro-Family Law Center. Lively is a long-time anti-gay activist who has written such books as The Pink Swastika which claims that "homosexuals the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities." Lively has also written 7 Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child and The Poisoned Stream: "Gay" Influence in Human History. Under his leadership, AFA California launched the "California Campaign to Take Back the Schools" to stop the "homosexualization of American public schools."


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/american-family-association

Sounds like the next Tea Party will be an even bigger kook show.
ocalhoun
^Really, you're going to rant about who was involved again? Rolling Eyes

Mind telling us what you (not a quoted source, you yourself) think about the issues?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
^Really, you're going to rant about who was involved again? Rolling Eyes

Mind telling us what you (not a quoted source, you yourself) think about the issues?

Agreed Handfleisch, that has been my point from the every beginning, this is a discussion forum and we need to discuss issues. The quotes are supposed to support out discussion, exactly what were you trying to say with the references?
handfleisch
The so-called conservative movement these days is only really concerned with stopping taxes on the rich and protecting the older and larger corporations like Big Oil and military corporations, and everything else is just pandering to causes (religion, race, anti-abortion etc) that will help achieve that end. It's why the right wing didn't do any Tea Parties while Bush was destroying the US budget surplus, engaging in wreckless deficit spending and starting a massive, wasteful war, because those things, on top of lower taxes for the rich, helped them. The Tea Parties are obviously a sham. The question is, are they a hilarious sham, or a dangerous one, because of their tendency to be part and parcel with the extremist groups and domestic terrorists that are increasing their violence lately?
ocalhoun
Of course the political right is owned by corporations... so is the left.
That's why I don't consider myself a part of either.
Solon_Poledourus
ocalhoun wrote:
Of course the political right is owned by corporations... so is the left.
That's why I don't consider myself a part of either.
Which is exactly why the whole political process is a farce. Both sides pander to the same corporate masters, but they do put on a nice show for the TV. The only place where Dems vs. Reps exists is in the minds of voters. After the politicians get done trashing each other in the public eye, they get right back into bed together.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
The so-called conservative movement these days is only really concerned with stopping taxes on the rich and protecting the older and larger corporations like Big Oil and military corporations, and everything else is just pandering to causes (religion, race, anti-abortion etc) that will help achieve that end.
I thought their greatest concern is how to get power and control to run the Government. All the stuff they say about taxes etc etc is just political rhetoric that is used to get support from people to achieve their objectives.


handfleisch wrote:
It's why the right wing didn't do any Tea Parties while Bush was destroying the US budget surplus, engaging in wreckless deficit spending and starting a massive, wasteful war, because those things, on top of lower taxes for the rich, helped them. The Tea Parties are obviously a sham. The question is, are they a hilarious sham, or a dangerous one, because of their tendency to be part and parcel with the extremist groups and domestic terrorists that are increasing their violence lately?
As far as I can see the tea parties were the only vehicle for US citizens to protest and since the tea parties were for protests about taxes, that would have been one of the main discussion points. If there were dinner parties, or any other vehicles, the rightests would have been there too. The problem is not the tea parties, but the extreme rightist groups. Obviously if they are going to threaten the security by planting bombs, they should be dealt with firmly. But it would be unfair to end the tea parties because of the gate crashers.
handfleisch
That grassroots and non-biased organization, the Fox News media corporation, has started their so-called countdown to the next Tea Party.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
That grassroots and non-biased organization, the Fox News media corporation, has started their so-called countdown to the next Tea Party.



Here we go again ^^. Another attempt to diminish the concerns of the protests by normal Americans by deflecting the focus to an individual broadcaster that liberals like to try to beat up on.

However, as you'll see below, many protests are being organized on a grassroots level.

Quote:

Local News

First Coast Tea Party Plans Another Anti-Tax Rally


Three months after attracting a few thousand supporters to the Jacksonville Landing for a Tax Day Tea Party on April 15, the First Coast Tea Party organization is hoping to draw another large crowd for an Independence Day week "Freedom Rally."

"We're gathering to oppose all this ridiculous spending," organizer Allison Golan says. "The government is actually trying to take over our lives and is not playing the role our Founding Fathers thought it should."

First Coast Tea Party chose July 2 for its "Freedom Rally" for a specific reason. While the nation celebrates Independence Day on July 4, it was actually July 2, 1776 that the Continental Congress voted to declare independence from Britain.

Golan says the 5:30 p.m. rally will focus primarily on national headlines and oppose the Climate Change bill and health care reform. She also says the tactic will be a bit different than the April 15th rally which featured a symbolic "tea dump" in the St. Johns River.

"We'll actually have big boxes that demonstrate the national debt and maybe we'll throw some of those boxes overboard," she said.

This afternoon's rally is the first in a series of Independence Day weekend events planned by local anti-tax crowds.

An Orange Park Tea Party is scheduled for noon at the Town Park near City Hall on U.S. 17 and Kingsley. The Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine will host a Tea Party from 2 p.m.-6 p.m. on July 5.

Golan expects more rallies in the near future aimed at slowing down rising taxes and fees locally.

"Our local taxes are rising also and between our local taxes going up and our national taxes going up, we will be taxed to death," she said.

Source = http://wokv.com/localnews/2009/07/first-coast-tea-party-plans-an.html
ocalhoun
Why does it matter who organizes it again?
Related topics
Warning on Tea Parties: KKK, neo-Nazis, White Supremacists
Right Wing Terrorism out of control and on the increase?
Left-Wing Extremist Media
Tea Party more popular than Republican Party
Anti-HCR protesters mock Parkinson's victim
Tea Party originator was lobbyist for Iranian terrorists
Tea Party: 4 in 10 are Dems, Independents
Black Tea Party Protesters
Tea Party Demographics
Is the Tea Party a Political Party?
USA Republican Tea Party Candidate Dresses as Nazi
From Egypt to Wisconsin? Anti-Tea Party Protest in WISCONSIN
Tea Party = Occupy??
Video: Tea Party hero Santelli freaks out
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.