if you are against the tea-party protests...

[RanchGirl]

I know the other thread went off track and was closed so I hope folks will tread lightly if they are emotional about this. I don't see the tea party protests as against one party specifically, or about racism, or against Obama in particular. I thought the point of the protests was that some people in this country believe that politicians in Washington, on both sides of the aisle (and certainly not just in the last 9 months), are just going crazy with spending our money, and our children's money, and not being held accountable to the taxpayers -- or to the Constitution for that matter.

 

If you are uncomfortable with or offended by the tea party protests, is it because you perceive it as being just anit-Obama with no real point? Or is it because you are fine with the spending level in Washington? If you don't think things are out of hand, what is your limit?

 

And please let me reiterate, I am referring to republicans, democrats and independents here! The out of control spending didn't start with President Obama by any means. He isn't stopping it either, but he didn't start it.

[Julie in Austin]

I'll take a stab at this.

 

First let me say that I am not "against" the protests in the sense that I think they are immoral or should be illegal but just against them in the sense that I don't agree with them.

 

Next: I would find the "but we're not partisan" line much more believable if they had protested during Bush's administration.

 

Third: I am against deficit spending in general. However, I think the stimulus and some other recent spending was the lesser of two evils inasmuch as we may have ended up in a depression had the spending not happened.

 

As a subset to three: I think some fiscal conservatives can be penny wise and pound foolish--I think some govt spending can lead to a reduced need for govt spending in the long run and is therefore justifiable.

 

Four, an item you didn't mention: probably what I find most troublesome about these protests is the astroturf element. They are the product of certain right-wing media outlets who foment anger via inaccurate/biased reporting and then report on the results of that anger. It's a feedback loop.

 

Soph the Vet's comment this morning was a perfect example of that: she thought there were 2M people there and the MSM didn't cover it. Completely wrong on both counts. If one had any contact at all with anything other than extreme right-wing sources, one would know that.

 

The anger, by the way, is making me nervous. The phrase "take back my country" makes me cringe. We just had a free and fair election a few months ago and I think Obama has done just about what people (whether they like him or not) expected him to do, and this after he won the largest election victory for a first-term president in my life time.

 

What would "taking back my country" after a free and fair election look like exactly? I think the levels of anger, paranoia, some race baiting, conspiracy theories, etc., are being fomented by some media outlets because it draws ratings. But it may ultimately lead to violence. I know the protests were peaceful and many there were perfectly harmless, but there were also signs about how "this time" they were unarmed, or the tree of liberty needed the blood of patriots, etc.

 

I'm going to try to follow Laura's resolve and not say anymore. I think this is all I have to say on the topic.

[astrid]

Okay, I"ll jump in.

 

The concept of the Tea Party? Fine. Great. Freedom of speech, all that jazz. The actual EVENTS have been a bit disturbing, IMHO. There have seemed to be many people in attendance at them who were making a statement other than one about the level of spending, and more about racism, hatred and violence. Yes, I realize that falls under the First Amendment as well, but honestly, it does nothing to advance the dialogue or their agenda. It makes me wonder what their agenda really is.

 

What we need is meaningful, civil discourse between informed individuals, armed with FACTS, who above all else, recognize that while we may disagree, and disagree vehemently, the good of the NATION. Unfortunately, both sides are reacting to spin, and there seems to be little interest in fact-checking before opening one's mouth or dancing about with a placard.

 

Swastikas? Not helpful.

The governor of a state calling for secession? Ummm, not helpful.

Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck? Not helpful. You can't listen when you're screaming.

 

In short, I"m all for the tea parties. I'm glad so many people are interested in government, quite frankly. Yes, tea parties are a good thing-- with two lumps of respectful dialogue and hold the vitriol.

 

Astrid

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I'll take a stab at this.

 

First let me say that I am not "against" the protests in the sense that I think they are immoral or should be illegal but just against them in the sense that I don't agree with them.

 

Next: I would find the "but we're not partisan" line much more believable if they had protested during Bush's administration.

 

Third: I am against deficit spending in general. However, I think the stimulus and some other recent spending was the lesser of two evils inasmuch as we may have ended up in a depression had the spending not happened.

 

As a subset to three: I think some fiscal conservatives can be penny wise and pound foolish--I think some govt spending can lead to a reduced need for govt spending in the long run and is therefore justifiable.

 

Four, an item you didn't mention: probably what I find most troublesome about these protests is the astroturf element. They are the product of certain right-wing media outlets who foment anger via inaccurate/biased reporting and then report on the results of that anger. It's a feedback loop.

 

Soph the Vet's comment this morning was a perfect example of that: she thought there were 2M people there and the MSM didn't cover it. Completely wrong on both counts. If one had any contact at all with anything other than extreme right-wing sources, one would know that.

 

The anger, by the way, is making me nervous. The phrase "take back my country" makes me cringe. We just had a free and fair election a few months ago and I think Obama has done just about what people (whether they like him or not) expected him to do, and this after he won the largest election victory for a first-term president in my life time.

 

What would "taking back my country" after a free and fair election look like exactly? I think the levels of anger, paranoia, some race baiting, conspiracy theories, etc., are being fomented by some media outlets because it draws ratings. But it may ultimately lead to violence. I know the protests were peaceful and many there were perfectly harmless, but there were also signs about how "this time" they were unarmed, or the tree of liberty needed the blood of patriots, etc.

 

I'm going to try to follow Laura's resolve and not say anymore. I think this is all I have to say on the topic.

:iagree: I am also concerned about many of the objectionable signs IMHO that portray President Obama as a nazi, hitler, witch doctor, etc. I also feel that calling him a communist or socialist is uncalled for as well. IMO this sort of name calling is unhelpful and not conducive at all to solving America's problems. I believe in rational discourse:).

[tex-mex]

In short, I"m all for the tea parties. I'm glad so many people are interested in government, quite frankly. Yes, tea parties are a good thing-- with two lumps of respectful dialogue and hold the vitriol.

 

Astrid

 

I'm not on either extreme -- democrat or republican. Actually, more conservative Libertarian. (Anti-drug but like the right to bear arms. LOL) The concept of the tea party doesn't bother me. Heck, I do like to question authority to those in our government. However, what disturbs me are the fringe groups in the midst of upset folks with the occasional sign or shout-out that harkens back to the days of rounding up minorities and so on. So much anger can lead to a dangerous slippery slope.

 

For example, my dad's side of the family were rounded up back in the 1930's by angry depression-era townsfolk in Chico, CA -- and sent back illegally to Mexico. They had citizenship papers to prove my family relatives were born in the USA. But that didn't stop the backlash of whites blaming the mexicans for "taking their jobs". My dad was 5 years old when this happened. He still bursts into tears when the story comes up and cannot talk of the pain he went thru.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-04-04-1930s-deportees-cover_x.htm

 

http://calstate.fullerton.edu/news/2005/valenciana.html

 

My dad and his siblings went back to their grandparent's village. It was horrible. The villagers saw them as "gringos" and despised them. Later, my grandfather was shot by a villager due to the hatred of Americanos. My grandmother was left to raise 9 children. She soon died later of a broken heart and stress. The kids then were left to fend for themselves. The older ones signed up for WWII and served (ironically) for the USA with bravery and medals. Later, after the war, those who served the USA were granted citizenship (um... hello, they ALREADY WERE USA born citizens) again. Then they rounded up the younger siblings who were spread out in Mexico (my dad was homeless in Tijuana as a teenager) and finally "adopted" them to be brought back home to the USA. A real slap in the face for our family. But that was the mindset back then during the Great Depression.

 

Look at what we did to the Japanese during WWII -- put them in concentration camps. Now due to 9/11, we're profiling anyone of Middle Eastern descent. My fear is history will repeat itself once more by scapegoating another in a fear-frenzy mob to another people group. :confused:

Edited September 16, 2009 by tex-mex

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

 

I am not against tea parties but I think the above video highlights that not everyone going to the tea parties has all the facts. They use a lot of buzzwords yet don't know what they mean and there is so much hate. I never protested during the Bush administration but I do remember the conservative right talk show hosts mocking the protesters as un-american and wackos.

 

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with Julie, Astrid and Pricilla.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

The anger, by the way, is making me nervous. The phrase "take back my country" makes me cringe. We just had a free and fair election a few months ago and I think Obama has done just about what people (whether they like him or not) expected him to do, and this after he won the largest election victory for a first-term president in my life time.

 

What would "taking back my country" after a free and fair election look like exactly? I think the levels of anger, paranoia, some race baiting, conspiracy theories, etc., are being fomented by some media outlets because it draws ratings. But it may ultimately lead to violence. I know the protests were peaceful and many there were perfectly harmless, but there were also signs about how "this time" they were unarmed, or the tree of liberty needed the blood of patriots, etc.

 

 

 

I also am very disturbed by the anger as well since we did just have a fair election after all. It seems that some of the tea partier's (sp?) are almost suggesting taking up arms against their fellow Americans and brothers and sisters? This is a democracy and if they are unhappy then should try to get their representatives elected instead of implying insurrection is a good thing.

 

My 2 cents:)

[Dirtroad]

I am not against them but have been shocked that so many who truly believe in civil protests are having great difficulty with it. My issue is what has taken so long for people to do this!

 

I always love the comments that we need "civil discourse" or a dialogue.... we need to sit down & discuss the issues.... we need to speak quietly & respectfully. Guess old Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock & others should have taken that advice and not stirred up such emotion & rude behavior toward their government. (they were way tougher than we are today - we are light weights). They should not have stirred up the crowds of commoners who really couldn't understand it all. They should have used quiet discussion & not shouting speeches or all the drama. tsk tsk. They should have went over to England & had a meaningful conversation with the King.

 

I also believe the images of this weekend event & others is entirely selective. Depends on who had the camera lens & what website/station is showing the images. I have seen a bunch of grandmas & familes & a few strange birds too. But mostly grandmas & families.

 

FYI... Rush Limbaugh doesn't yell - just talks. Levin does at times. Not sure of Beck & OReilly b/c i dont' get cable.

 

People tolerate (sadly) slow changes (gradual - frog in warming water) very easily & dont' get too passionate. However, over the past year or a bit longer (both parties included in this).... they have begun to PUSH the population as if WE are the servants & they are the aristorcratic masters. Guess what.... the serfs have pitchforks & will only take so much.

 

Traditionally, we have met a recession int his country with a few responsible spending cuts & proper management. Both conservative-leaning & liberal-leaning presidents, worked to get burdens OFF people so they can feed their kids & keep their house payments paid... keep cash flowing on main street. For well over a year, there has been a complete shift in this traditional approach and it ain't working. They are spending money at the top like crazy & it doesn't get to main street... they just pull it out of main street pockets and compound the problems.

 

People are mad. Politicians are looking at us as cash cows to buffer the fall of their rich buddies, promote ranks of labor union leaders, keep their cushy beaurocratic jobs protected (huge numbers of gov't jobs have been added in this recession - shocking), and not willing to cut out a *&$% thing. Yep... push people hard & they will PUSH back! Thus... protests! Next... elections! If the aristocrats don't learn.... it may the peasants may take a more aggressive action. I do not think they will lie down quietly.

 

How much was the Stamp Act tax? How much was the Tea tax?.... hmm, that tiny amount led to a revolution.

 

How much do we pay today? My issue is "what has taken folks so long to get fed up?"

Edited September 16, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not against protests. I'm against idiots (as per video).

[astrid]

I always love the comments that we need "civil discourse" or a dialogue.... we need to sit down & discuss the issues.... we need to speak quietly & respectfully.

 

Guess old Sam Adams, Patrick Henry & others should have taken that advice and not stirred up such emotion & rude behavior toward their government. They should not have stirred up the crowds of commoners who really couldn't understand it all. They should have used quiet discussion & not shouting speeches or all the drama. tsk tsk.

 

 

Thank you for illustrating my point. Mockery is so unbecoming.

 

In Adams' day, people didn't shoot each other over their sneakers.

 

astrid

[Julie in Austin]

I always love the comments that we need "civil discourse" or a dialogue.... we need to sit down & discuss the issues.... we need to speak quietly & respectfully.

 

Guess old Sam Adams, Patrick Henry & others should have taken that advice and not stirred up such emotion & rude behavior toward their government. They should not have stirred up the crowds of commoners who really couldn't understand it all. They should have used quiet discussion & not shouting speeches or all the drama. tsk tsk.

 

QED.

 

When people start talking about following the example of revolutionaries a few months after a free and fair election, I start worrying about violence.

[tex-mex]

QED.

 

When people start talking about following the example of revolutionaries a few months after a free and fair election, I start worrying about violence.

 

:iagree:

[ma23peas]

:iagree: I am also concerned about many of the objectionable signs IMHO that portray President Obama as a nazi, hitler, witch doctor, etc. I also feel that calling him a communist or socialist is uncalled for as well. IMO this sort of name calling is unhelpful and not conducive at all to solving America's problems. I believe in rational discourse:).

 

 

This greatly disturbs me but on a different angle...parts of the media go out of their way to find the fringe of the group that posts those types of signs...90% of the signs do not portray any of that but reinforce the point...that is a big reason so many attend these tea parties, because they are not being heard...and now it's for a completely different reason. Instead of the complaints being addressed and listened to...we are told that we are misinformed on the facts...we're not..we just oppose them strongly.

 

I also have concerns as do many that the election was not fair...there were thousands upon thousands of attempts on the Democratic side (groups that supported the Democratic side) trying to create false voters...90% of the time this was found out, they were groups that were for Obama, I never once heard a case where there were groups trying to create false voters for McCain...there was proof of the illegality of folks recruiting people to vote and paying them to vote a certain way...too many stories like that and it builds resentment.

 

 

Tara

Edited September 16, 2009 by ma23peas

[Jumping In Puddles]

I always love the comments that we need "civil discourse" or a dialogue.... we need to sit down & discuss the issues.... we need to speak quietly & respectfully.

 

Guess old Sam Adams, Patrick Henry & others should have taken that advice and not stirred up such emotion & rude behavior toward their government. They should not have stirred up the crowds of commoners who really couldn't understand it all. They should have used quiet discussion & not shouting speeches or all the drama. tsk tsk.

 

Those patriots used their intellect, their rousing speeches and rallies to fight the issues. What we are seeing at these tea parties of today is hateful, personal, and dishonest.

 

The exchange of ideas, healthy debate and strong emotions are important for either side. "Obama is a muslim" "We are not armed, this time". Is this in the spirit of Patrick Henry? All of the hate, the buzzwords, the talking points is tiring because much of it is in the spirit of trying to take away the legitimacy of Obama's presidency.

 

Demonstrate, vote, write letters, rally with like-minded individuals but do it on the issues. Be loud, but for heaven's sake be coherent and honest. If you oppose whatever it is you are protesting and you have the facts, then I think it is good for our country. Americans are allowed to disagree with each other and I'm glad we get to vote :)

 

Do you remember the demonstrations against the Iraq war? Right wing talk radio said those people are un-American! But now that their party is not in power, demonstrations are American and our duty!

Edited September 16, 2009 by Jumping In Puddles

[Word Nerd]

Here's a different video taken at the same event. Both this video made by Reason and the one linked to previously by New Left Media reflect a particular bias, but they do show that the crowd is more diverse than some media outlets, bloggers, and others have portrayed.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This greatly disturbs me but on a different angle...parts of the media go out of their way to find the fringe of the group that posts those types of signs...90% of the signs do not portray any of that but reinforce the point...that is a big reason so many attend these tea parties, because they are not being heard...and now it's for a completely different reason. Instead of the complaints being addressed and listened to...we are told that we are misinformed on the facts...we're not..we just oppose them strongly.

 

 

Tara

 

IMHO, they are being heard. They have representatives and they can vote. They can also support the candidates of their choice in the next election. Many Democrats felt they were not being heard in the last 8 years as well and chose to support their candidates and it finally paid off:).

[Dirtroad]

Thank you for illustrating my point. Mockery is so unbecoming.

 

In Adams' day, people didn't shoot each other over their sneakers.

 

astrid

 

No mocking. Just pointing out that they were accused of being loud mouths, stirring up civil disruption, bringing out the worst in the people, being ignorant & poorly educated, being poor speakers, etc. I think the issues are comparible. They were often begged by their neighbors to be quiet & talk to the governor.... or wait & let it blow over. I see so much today in the manner that people speak against the protest sounding much like the same arguments used throughout historical conflicts. Talk or fight? Speak with respect or shouting crowds? Let the educated leadership make the decisions and not the jr college graduate with 3 kids.... same stuff b/c people are basically the same. We are just facing "when is it all enough".

 

Effigies (sorry if spelled wrong) of the king being hanged were run around. No different than today.

 

No, they didnt' shoot each other over sneakers... but they stole, lied, cheated, and broke each others noises in fist fights. Shot duels (a bit) over stupid stuff.... killed people in anger, etc.

 

Ignorance, stupidity, lack of discipline, and violence are always here... what they fight about may be a beer, a poker card, of a pair of nikes... doesn't matter.

[Jumping In Puddles]

No mocking. Just pointing out that they were accused of being loud mouths, stirring up civil disruption, bringing out the worst in the people, being ignorant & poorly educated, being poor speakers, etc. I think the issues are comparable.

 

Yes, but when the left was doing it, it was un-american, when the right does it, it's patriotic.

 

If, during the Bush administration, people were holding these tea parties against the Iraq war or any of Bush's policies, how do you think they would be portrayed on Fox News or on Hannity or Rush's show?

 

Do you remember how unfair they were to people who disagreed with them?

[Dirtroad]

Those patriots used their intellect, their rousing speeches and rallies to fight the issues. What we are seeing at these tea parties of today is hateful, personal, and dishonest.

 

The exchange of ideas, healthy debate and strong emotions are important for either side. "Obama is a muslim" "We are not armed, this time". Is this in the spirit of Patrick Henry? All of the hate, the buzzwords, the talking points is tiring because much of it is in the spirit of trying to take away the legitimacy of Obama's presidency.

 

I don't know ... pretending to bring a letter opener down to your heart in suicide is pretty violent & dramatic... not very intellectual.

 

Hang together or we will surely "hang seperately" is not very nice... sounds threatening to me.

 

Bunch of men & boys dressing up like Indians with soot on their face, speaking in an insulting dialect and brandishing tomahawks WAS NOT civil discourse. But sweeping the decks & returning everything to it's proper place was well mannered.

 

Calling King George names was NO different than calling today's leaders names (remember, it isn't about 1 man... but a nation) (this discussion isn't about the president... it is about the poor decisions, lack fo respect for the people, and greed of them all!)

 

Didn't care for Iraq. Didn't watch it much. Have never liked things that undermine the lives of oru troups when they are in grave danger though. Sent support to soldiers in care packages... but didn't think we had clear justification for being in Iraq.. Afghanistan... whole other can of worms though. They brought that one to us.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Dirtroad

[Dirtroad]

Yes, but when the left was doing it, it was un-american, when the right does it, it's patriotic.

 

If, during the Bush administration, people were holding these tea parties against the Iraq war or any of Bush's policies, how do you think they would be portrayed on Fox News or on Rush's show?

 

This isnt' about Bush. Don't get the discussion of issues shut down over personalities that you like or do not like.

 

This is bigger than O or B or C or R, etc. It has been building for some time & the gov't finally forgot who is boss. They are getting reminded. Besides protestors were of all political party flavors! And, this rally was not organized by a specific party or group.... it is really the people... not great charismatic leader or such. Another very neat thing.... both parties are scared to death! (that is awesome to see & refreshing)

Edited September 16, 2009 by Dirtroad

[AuntPol]

Were the signs here any worse than ones displayed against Bush. Neither party is sinless. There are many of us who dislike the policies of both Bush and Obama.

[SheilaZ]

deleted

Edited September 16, 2009 by SheilaZ

[LibraryLover]

 

I am not against tea parties but I think the above video highlights that not everyone going to the tea parties has all the facts. They use a lot of buzzwords yet don't know what they mean and there is so much hate. I never protested during the Bush administration but I do remember the conservative right talk show hosts mocking the protesters as un-american and wackos.

 

 

 

Yes!

 

I love a good protest. It's 100% American!

 

But the rhetoric! Heavens to Betsy! No!

 

I think people are too much looking to TV/media instead of looking deeply at the issues.

 

But I get that nobody trusts anybody. It's a sad state of affairs.

 

The most rabid people I've known over the years don't get any of their info from print. There is more to journalism than the NYT. Does nobody read anymore?

[astrid]

Why does the phrase "take back my country" bother you now, when it was started by those who opposed Bush? You can't take a non-partisan position if you stay in this position.

 

What stimulus money has been spent that averted a second Great Depression? Check the facts. Not much. Most economists predicted that the recession would start to lift in September if no action was taken...and that is about what has happened...but regardless, we are now liable to pay back the stimulus that has NOT been spent to lift the recession but is still an obligation.

 

Which government spending do you see leading to less spending? I'm curious. It hasn't ever happened before. Ever. Ev.ah.

 

It was regarded as the highest form of patriotism to dissent when the left did it against the right. What has changed that makes the reverse untrue?

 

Actually, for the past 8 years, dissent of the left against the right was not regarded as "the highest form of patriotism." It was considered terroristic. The Bush Administration certainly saw to that.

 

Furthermore, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and did not have weapons of mass destruction. Yet we have spent, and continue to spend, trillions of dollars because, in the words of one, "That man tried to kill my daddy." THAT is a debt that our great grandchildren will be paying.

 

Astrid

[elizabeth]

I don't know ... pretending to bring a letter opener down to your heart in suicide is pretty violent & dramatic... not very intellectual.

 

Hang together or we will surely "hang seperately" is not very nice... sounds threatening to me.

 

Bunch of men & boys dressing up like Indians with soot on their face, speaking in an insulting dialect and brandishing tomahawks WAS NOT civil discourse. But sweeping the decks & returning everything to it's proper place was well mannered.

 

Calling King George names was NO different than calling today's leaders names (remember, it isn't about 1 man... but a nation) (this discussion isn't about the president... it is about the poor decisions, lack fo respect for the people, and greed of them all!)

 

Didn't care for Iraq. Didn't watch it much. Have never liked things that undermine the lives of oru troups when they are in grave danger though. Sent support to soldiers in care packages... but didn't think we had clear justification for being in Iraq.. Afghanistan... whole other can of worms though. They brought that one to us.

 

The third or fourth paragraph of the 9-11 Commission report makes clear that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_1.pdf Not Afghans. Furthermore we "brought it" to the Afghani people by interfering with the invasion by Soviets in the 1980's. We trained them , armed them , financed them to combat invasion by none other than the United States. They became the mujhadeen. They also became Taliban. Bin Laden was able to use many of our training and weapons againsst us thanks to the US involvement. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701765675/soviet-afghan_war.html Why did we not go to Saudi Arabia where the hijackers hailed from?? Read the 9-11 report if you have any interest it is a good starting point to see where we have been and where we ought to be going. FWIW I do not think this administration has it right either...

[Audrey]

:iagree: I am also concerned about many of the objectionable signs IMHO that portray President Obama as a nazi, hitler, witch doctor, etc. I also feel that calling him a communist or socialist is uncalled for as well. IMO this sort of name calling is unhelpful and not conducive at all to solving America's problems. I believe in rational discourse:).

 

 

I find that calling him a communist or a socialist is to egregiously misunderstand either term.

 

FWIW, I am a registered communist. Trust me, your president is not a communist.

[LisaNY]

Please tell me how "Bush Administration saw to that". One of the most frustrating things to the Right was that Bush said NOTHING about the dissent.

 

That is very true. He did not speak out against dissenters.

[Renee in NC]

QED.

 

When people start talking about following the example of revolutionaries a few months after a free and fair election, I start worrying about violence.

 

That was my concern as well.

 

I also wonder about the purpose. I do understand the frustration - I don't like that our gov't now owns parts of private businesses and banks. I don't like how LOTS of things are going, but I don't see how protests make a difference.

 

Wouldn't the energy, money, and talent be better utilized to get people out of office and get people who share the ideals of the protesters in?

[OnTheBrink]

QED.

 

When people start talking about following the example of revolutionaries a few months after a free and fair election, I start worrying about violence.

 

Those revolutionaries formed a government that gives you the right to vote today.

[Renee in NC]

Those revolutionaries formed a government that gives you the right to vote today.

 

Right, but all the people in office today were voted in, so it isn't something so fundamental.

 

The *voters* picked the president by a fairly good margin and nothing I have seen so far that he has done is any different than the platform he ran on.

[Renee in NC]

Really?

 

I knew he was very liberal when he was running. That is why I did not vote for him. The stimulus bailouts started with the last administration. GMC got their first chunk of money before Obama.

 

What things has he done that are not on his platform. I am sincerely asking.

[astrid]

Please tell me how the Bush Administration saw to that: did they shut it down? Did the MSM not cover it? Did Bush force Ms. Sheehan from his view? Did he call for an end to "bickering"? (Dissent?)

 

Please tell me how "Bush Administration saw to that". One of the most frustrating things to the Right was that Bush said NOTHING about the dissent.

 

Bush himself stated point blank, "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists." Many Bush dissenters and war protesters found themselves on a State Department Terrorism Watch list and had their civil liberties infringed upon.

 

Several U.S. Attorneys, who had outstanding performance reviews, were summarily fired for a bizarre variety of ridiculous charges. This was possible because of a little clause that had been slipped into the Patriot Act just prior, allowing the White House to appoint "interim" attorneys without the consent of Congress.

 

I could keep going but it's almost 11 pm and I have to go to work tomorrow.....it's a mute point anyway.

 

astrid

[Renee in NC]

Renee, I am with you on this, that the bailout stuff started before his time. I was NOT HAPPY with this from the beginning, party-regardless.

 

If you look at the results of the stimulus, the cap-n-trade, (and potentially the healthcare) bills, you will see that taxes will go up bigtime for those with incomes below the $250,000, er, $150,000, er, $100,000, er, $75,000 income levels.

 

That he would be a uniter, not a divider.

That his election would prove that America was post-racial, when the fact is that dissent against his POLICIES is called racism at the drop of a hat.

 

OOPS--battery dying...will get back later. Sorry! I have very little notice on this...

 

Pooh!

 

Well, the taxes on those at the higher incomes was always supposed to go up and so far none have. At this time all we have is speculation. I think he *is* trying to be a uniter, but in partisan politics you can't make everyone happy.

 

It hasn't even been a year - I'm still waiting to see what *really* happens, not just what "might" happen.

[elw_miller]

Next: I would find the "but we're not partisan" line much more believable if they had protested during Bush's administration...

 

Four, an item you didn't mention: probably what I find most troublesome about these protests is the astroturf element. They are the product of certain right-wing media outlets who foment anger via inaccurate/biased reporting and then report on the results of that anger. It's a feedback loop.

 

 

These are important observations. I know the "but we're not partisan" line probably comes from whomever is in charge of the rallies. But the part about why didn't the "other side" protest during Bush's administration...well, I'm ashamed to admit, I wasn't really paying attention--the right kind of attention in particular. :( I think many people are in the same boat.

 

I have to disagree with the idea that the TEA Parties and protests are a product of the right-wing media--considering I don't listen to the right-wing media and neither do our family friends who voted for President Obama and are now upset. Many people who do listen probably attend the protests, but I do not believe that the discontent is largely a product of it.

 

I became disgruntled as far back as the CPSIA legislation, then the bank bailouts, then the auto bailouts, etc--all just from reading regular newspapers.

 

For some people it may be a feedback loop, but by-and-large I think describing it as such discounts people's legitimate concerns and does little to further discourse. In a way it just fans the fire that people do not feel like they're being heard when they're described as astroturf. I voted. I've called my representatives. "Leaders" are still turning to ad hominem attacks instead of taking the time to actually hear the concerns.

 

While I generally support the TEA Party protests, I completely disagree with those individuals who refer at all to Hitler or Nazis. Dumb "argument" and diminishes the horrors of history. I also disagree with people who refer, even obliquely, to violence. Again, dumb. Cicero stood down armies of people demanding their debts be forgiven with his eloquence and logic--the same should happen now.

 

I just wish the crazy fringe wasn't being used to define the crowd. :(

[Vida Winter]

I find that calling him a communist or a socialist is to egregiously misunderstand either term.

 

FWIW, I am a registered communist. Trust me, your president is not a communist.

 

Well that explains a lot.

[Slartibartfast]

Okay, I"ll jump in.

 

The concept of the Tea Party? Fine. Great. Freedom of speech, all that jazz. The actual EVENTS have been a bit disturbing, IMHO. There have seemed to be many people in attendance at them who were making a statement other than one about the level of spending, and more about racism, hatred and violence. Yes, I realize that falls under the First Amendment as well, but honestly, it does nothing to advance the dialogue or their agenda. It makes me wonder what their agenda really is.

 

What we need is meaningful, civil discourse between informed individuals, armed with FACTS, who above all else, recognize that while we may disagree, and disagree vehemently, the good of the NATION. Unfortunately, both sides are reacting to spin, and there seems to be little interest in fact-checking before opening one's mouth or dancing about with a placard.

 

Swastikas? Not helpful.

The governor of a state calling for secession? Ummm, not helpful.

Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck? Not helpful. You can't listen when you're screaming.

 

In short, I"m all for the tea parties. I'm glad so many people are interested in government, quite frankly. Yes, tea parties are a good thing-- with two lumps of respectful dialogue and hold the vitriol.

 

Astrid

 

I agree.

 

I believe when Bush was President they referred to such protests as "UN-American" and "if you are not for us, you are against us with the terrorists" and other such phrases. Some of those people still call the left, "terrorists" which is just irrational. When someone brings the argument down to that level who can even engage in discourse anymore? I am so tired of the buzzwords.

 

Glenn Beck is just a maniac and sure I watch Olbermann sometimes but I *know* Olbermann is a bit nuts. I don't run amok singing his praises and quoting his rhetoric.

 

My issue isn't that these protests are taking place but that people are saying they "can't take it anymore" (after 8 months??) and behaving irrationally, racism and cryptically threatening gun violence are not actually things that are going to win an audience.

 

I believe the people carrying the signs stating "We aren't armed...this time" are INSANE.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sis

[Cammie]

Yes, but when the left was doing it, it was un-american, when the right does it, it's patriotic.

 

 

I think is the best point yet! When people protested in the 1960's they were accused of hating their country. The whole love it or leave it refrain. When liberals protested Bush's wars, torture policies, etc we were routinely accused of being anti-American. But now, all of the sudden, when they don't like the party in power, conservatives can protest and suddenly it is the "American" thing to do??

 

Why do conservatives think they have the monopoly on loving their country? I would really like to understand this??

[Word Nerd]

Nancy Pelosi and other liberals have recently called conservative protesters un-American and unpatriotic. The inconsistency goes both ways.

[Slartibartfast]

Nancy Pelosi and other liberals have recently called conservative protesters un-American and unpatriotic. The inconsistency goes both ways.

 

They were calling the disruption of town hall meetings "un-American" which they were, they were also vulgar and inappropriate.

 

 

I don't see where they called actual protesters "un-American"

[Stacy in NJ]

I also am very disturbed by the anger as well since we did just have a fair election after all. It seems that some of the tea partier's (sp?) are almost suggesting taking up arms against their fellow Americans and brothers and sisters? This is a democracy and if they are unhappy then should try to get their representatives elected instead of implying insurrection is a good thing.

 

My 2 cents:)

 

I think if you put the whole Tea Party thing in the larger context it is much more understandable. In the past 8 years we've experienced 9/11, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, and now a massive economic failure. There is profound mistrust. The political and business classes, as well as the media and academia have largely failed us. We trusted the experts, the experts in the CIA who failed to protect us from 9/11, the political classes who failed to identify the danger of the islamists and lead us to war, the business titans who are responsible for our economic collapse, they failed us.

 

Now Obama's answer to our current situation is to trust government and our experts to redefine who we are? Why, why, why would we trust him or them?

 

Some will say that these are Bush's failures, but not really. They're the failures of our elite classes.

 

Are public schools consume a tremendous amount of resources and provide the most mediocre results. Our colleges offer useless degrees, once completed qualify the graduate for nothing.

 

The Tea party folks are protesting the status quo. The old institutions are breaking apart. The revolution is going viral.

[Joanne]

Honestly, I do not see a difference in the tone, name calling, conspiracy thinking, fear, media manipulation, or rhetoric than what anti Bush groups offered during that administration.

 

Same behavior, different party and President.

[Stacy in NJ]

Great video

[Slartibartfast]

Honestly, I do not see a difference in the tone, name calling, conspiracy thinking, fear, media manipulation, or rhetoric than what anti Bush groups offered during that administration.

 

Same behavior, different party and President.

 

The difference to me is that it isn't the White House pointing the finger the way it was previously.

 

I do agree there was a lot of rampant conspiracy. Some of that 911 garbage people were spreading around is just ludicrousness. I could kick that zeitgeist guy right in the butt.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sis

[Word Nerd]

Honestly, I do not see a difference in the tone, name calling, conspiracy thinking, fear, media manipulation, or rhetoric than what anti Bush groups offered during that administration.

 

Same behavior, different party and President.

 

:iagree:

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

The Tea party folks are protesting the status quo. The old institutions are breaking apart. The revolution is going viral.

 

This is the spirit with which Obama was elected. People were so fed up with the status quo and they were voting for change. This is the beauty of our country and if Obama is not doing what the majority of Americans want him to do, he will be voted out in the next election. Republicans may win majority again. THIS is what we do here in the US :) The revolution for Barack went viral, and it worked but it could go the opposite way in the next few years.

 

Believe me, it was a loooong 8 years for me (disagreeing with so much of Bush policy) so I can absolutely commiserate with how frustrating it must be to see the policies coming from an administration that you don't agree with :)

[Slartibartfast]

This is the spirit with which Obama was elected. People were so fed up with the status quo and they were voting for change. This is the beauty of our country and if Obama is not doing what the majority of Americans want him to do, he will be voted out in the next election. Republicans may win majority again. THIS is what we do here in the US :) The revolution for Barack went viral, and it worked but it could go the opposite way in the next few years.

 

Believe me, it was a loooong 8 years for me (disagreeing with so much of Bush policy) so I can absolutely commiserate with how frustrating it must be to see the policies coming from an administration that you don't agree with :)

 

I do think the Republicans could win next time around, it just depends on who they are running and what is going on.

 

Heck I liked McCain but Palin cost him my vote.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sis

[Jugglin'5]

People have short memories...everyone who is "SHOCKED, just SHOCKED" at the Tea parties: don't you remember all the effigies of Bu****ler burned or shown beheaded? Or the t-shirts with Sarah Palin is a C***? Frankly I was surprised at the things the Secret Service let people get away with regarding Bush. I say that as someone who is not his biggest fan.

[Karenciavo]

Nancy Pelosi and other liberals have recently called conservative protesters un-American and unpatriotic. The inconsistency goes both ways.

 

Don't forget evil-mongers. Calling the Soviet Union an evil empire or North Korea, Iran, and Iraq an axis of evil is over the top and uncalled for, but Americans who protest the liberal agenda, yup, just fine and dandy.

 

Truthfully, I'm not one who yells, it makes me uncomfortable. But people are angry, real people, not hired guns like the left would have you believe, not college students paid to protest. I understand their anger and frustration. Here's the bottom line: I don't want the government to take care of me, I want them to leave me alone. I find it un-American that people want a nanny state, but that's me. One of my favorite 9/12 signs was, "I'm not the party of no; I'm the party of hell no!" :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

Most recent Presidents have probably had their image burned in effigy. At least for the last forty years or so.

 

 

I don't think calling a Governor names is really on the level of a President but my complaint is about what seemed like *threats* against the President, not namecalling.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sis

[OnTheBrink]

 

 

I think is the best point yet! When people protested in the 1960's they were accused of hating their country. The whole love it or leave it refrain. When liberals protested Bush's wars, torture policies, etc we were routinely accused of being anti-American. But now, all of the sudden, when they don't like the party in power, conservatives can protest and suddenly it is the "American" thing to do??

 

Why do conservatives think they have the monopoly on loving their country? I would really like to understand this??

 

All conservatives DON'T think that. I'd defend to the death your right to protest any old thing you want to protest, worship how and whatever you like, raise your children according to your own beliefs and speak out on what you're passionate about. I'd like the same courtesy, because I have that same right, too. (I'm using "your" and "I" figuratively). Men died fighting for that very right and I'm proud to be descended from soldiers going back to the revolution. What I don't understand is, why is it liberals think no one but themselves can have an opinion? I'm not talking about solely this board; I've seen it all over. If you aren't a liberal, you don't deserve the right to be heard, vote, have an opinion. I realize that not every liberal feels that way, but sure is what I hear. A LOT. And this sentiment goes back (for me, in my own awareness of it) years, beyond BO, beyond GWB, beyond B&HC. I've had a very leftist liberal tell me to my face that I shouldn't have the right to vote, because I dared to disagree with her on some political issue (can't remember what it even was now).

 

It boils down to this one thing: It doesn't matter who's in office; about half the nation won't like it and the mud slings BOTH WAYS. I heard the same hatred, the same vitriol, the same vulgarity and disrespect for GWB that I'm hearing today for BO. There's nothing new under the sun. Same hatred, different administration.