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

[Slartibartfast]

 

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).

 

 

 

There are fanatics on both sides of the spectrum and fanaticism in any form can be irrational, dangerous and frightening.

[Jugglin'5]

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.

 

Aahhh. I see. Somehow one group that uses Nazi or Hitler with reference to the President incites violence, but if the left does it, it is just all in good fun. Same thing goes with hanging or burning or beheading the President in effigy. Gotcha. And there are no limits to decency for a governor running for Vice-President at.all. Just so I know what the rules are.

 

I'm not against any of it legally speaking, I just think the cries of "woe, woe, incivillity, incitement to violence, racism" are just so much hypocritical horse-hockey.

[Slartibartfast]

Aahhh. I see. Somehow one group that uses Nazi or Hitler with reference to the President incites violence' date=' but if the left does it, it is just all in good fun. Same thing goes with hanging or burning or beheading the President in effigy. Gotcha. And there are no limits to decency for a governor running for Vice-President at.all. Just so I know what the rules are.

 

I'm not against any of it legally speaking, I just think the cries of "woe, woe, incivillity, incitement to violence, racism" are just so much hypocritical horse-hockey.[/quote']

 

Oh yeah, cause that is what I said.

 

 

Sheesh.

 

If you actually read my posts you would see I complained about the conspiracy stuff. I do think burning a President in effigy is a fairly common form of protest and his image is NOT protected. No, I don't care if someone burns a picture of the President whether it is Bush or Obama.

 

I complained about the people saying "I didn't bring a gun...this time" because that is just NUTS.

 

Also, we are talking about Presidents here, Palin is not one and will likely never be one so I felt that was besides the point but I don't think holding up signs calling someone a "C***" where children might be present is *ever* ok no matter who it is.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sis

[Vida Winter]

 

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:

 

Exactly. If you look at the tea parties (not the fringe element which appears on both sides) they are not faking it. There are grandmas, grandpas, aunts and uncles who have never protested in their lives. I went to town halls this summer in my small town. These people are for real. People expected Obama to be liberal but he has pushed normal people to beyond the breaking point. That is what you are seeing at the townhalls and tea parties. Know what? I'm glad. I wanted it to get this bad so people could be alerted to what is important. I want them to know what freedoms they are about to lose. It takes that for them to finally rise up and protest. Seems to be working.

[Robin in Tx]

First, I will say that I don't know of a single person involved in the tea parties who is pro Obama. I think they are very anti-current administration, and don't pretend to be otherwise... all the tea party organizers where I live were the first to believe and spread the "Obama snubbed by Russian delegates" internet hoax (for example). Which they are free to do, of course... I'm just commenting on your suggestion that the tea party is possibly bi partisan because I don't think it is.

 

I haven't participated in them or supported them because of the tea party reference. It makes me very uncomfortable because I feel the Boston Tea Party was actually wrong. I would never support the destruction of someone else's property and I don't hold those men up as heros (actually they seemed cowardly, disguising themselves the way they did). That's honestly the big deal with me - the reference is offensive to me.

[teamturner]

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.

 

We just studied the American Revolution last year and what I remember is that there was a long period (decade or more?) of unhappiness with England that built up over time. They didn't just decide to take up arms one day. There were protests and town meetings. England's response was to punish the colonies more with more taxes and restrictions. I think the hope and goal of the colonists with their protests was for England to listen and change how they were treating them. They only came together to revolt (many very reluctantly) because they saw no other way to have freedom.

 

When tea party people compare themselves to the American revolutionaries, I think they are referring to the mentality of the colonists that tried to be heard by an unlistening and unyielding authority. Plus, many feel that there are similarities to the unfair taxation of England and the taxation and potential taxation we face in our future. And so by protesting, they hope to have Washington hear their concerns and remember that we are a representational form of government and we the people deserve to voice our concerns and oppositions.

 

Just my little jaunt through American history. ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

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

 

This is untrue. They never intended to give ME (a female Native American) the right to vote. Just for the record. That right was hard won with blood and PEACEFUL protest.

[tex-mex]

This is untrue. They never intended to give ME (a female Native American) the right to vote. Just for the record. That right was hard won with blood and PEACEFUL protest.

 

Hmmmm... along that same thought, they also took away my father's rights as an American citizen (see earlier post) in the 1930's Repatriation that was unconstitutional. My mother's side of the family were Native Tejano Americans -- and Apache -- in West Texas/New Mexico. There are many stories of mistreatment and no rights on that side of my family's history too. I really don't think my people were intended to be part of the group (white men) granted the right to vote in the early days of our nation.

 

The main point is everyone is fed up with both parties and mistrust of the govt. But honestly, does civility go out the window with some of the fringe group protests getting mean spirited? That part of society rearing its ugly hate just stirs up old hurtful memories from people like me... again, history can repeat itself. We need to keep peace in the midst of strife.

Edited September 16, 2009 by tex-mex

[Mama Bear]

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.

 

Yup. But to take it further -- I've been thinking about the "is it any worse than" line of thinking, since it's crept into my approach a little too often lately. I think it's a fallacious baseline. If we're out here, us citizens, striving for some version of the American Dream, can we say with straight faces to our children, things along the lines of, "He started it!" I don't think so.

 

There are plenty of people with legitimate quibbles with both presidents mentioned in this thread, but it's interesting to think about this (tea parties and other protests) as being party-led. I think they have little to do with any political party, and far more to do with loud members of the fringes. As someone who has shown up in support of certain things, I think most people understand that any particular issue is more complicated than a sound bite (though the sound bite is easily parlayed into powerfully fearful baloney, despite evidence), that no single person is to blame for X, and that literal hate speech (as in: I hate _____ and hope he dies and goes to hell) is not only counterproductive but also simple minded and mean -- not, IMO, in harmony with any part of the American Values we each wish to decide and live for ourselves.

 

Or, as I would have said to my children before they started saying it to me: Ad Hominem attacks weaken your argument.

[Mama Bear]

Robin -- the last time we read through the story of the Boston Tea Party, I found myself wondering how closely aligned with ELF or the Anarchists that same group would be in modern application of their ideals/actions? ;) We had a chat about destruction of other people's property, concluding that even in context, my group was bothered by the lack of concern -- when ostensibly it was the lack of concern from King George that had taken them to that point. High-minded thinking, no doubt made easier because we aren't facing the kinds of life circumstances or taxes they did, but it made for a compelling conversation. I'm glad to have my punkins thinking about such things.

 

It's good to see you. :)

[Mama Bear]

Re: leaders using ad hominem attacks to shut their constituency down? I've pondered sending out copies of basic logic texts and (when feeling especially cheeky) asking if certain folks would like my little group of homeschoolers to vet their next speeches for them.

 

Ah, fantasy. ;) Hey -- maybe we'll start with the NEA statement on homeschooling. Heh.

[OnTheBrink]

This is untrue. They never intended to give ME (a female Native American) the right to vote. Just for the record. That right was hard won with blood and PEACEFUL protest.

 

The government was set up in such a way that people could change things, such as your right to vote, as well as women's right to vote, etc. So, yes, what I said is indeed true. I never said everyone had the right to vote from the second the Constitution was signed. I said that the revolutionaries set up a government that gave you the right to vote. Which it did.

[Dirtroad]

This is untrue. They never intended to give ME (a female Native American) the right to vote. Just for the record. That right was hard won with blood and PEACEFUL protest.

 

That is not true but understandable.

 

"All Men are Created Equal.... " men = humanity for many of the founding fathers. But it wasn't going to happen overnight - too much money, too many institutions dependant, too much suspicion of each other, too many tradtions, some hate too. But... there were people of ALL colors in the Patriot army.

 

Slaves were the first to see this disappointment but I think many knew ti was coming (just thought sooner). Many founding fathers were opposed to slavery & mistreating Native Americans and would have loved for it to cover ALL people... but things that are drastic changes take time (sadly, too much time).

 

I think slaves & indians were in the minds of many... but not enough to change it all at once. Not sure about women b/c women were thought to vote like their husbands, etc. However, I am sure Abigail Adams would have liked to vote.

 

Big changes take great time. Blood spilled for independance and the right to vote, etc. As time passed and people influenced their neighbors & brought even more ideas of liberty & freedom into the conversation.... you began to see "peaceful" protests & acceptances & changes. Sadly, it moves too slowly for most of us... but we didint' live in those times & I can't completely relate.

[Word Nerd]

Yup. But to take it further -- I've been thinking about the "is it any worse than" line of thinking, since it's crept into my approach a little too often lately. I think it's a fallacious baseline. If we're out here, us citizens, striving for some version of the American Dream, can we say with straight faces to our children, things along the lines of, "He started it!" I don't think so.

 

I think it's just intended as a reality check, not a justification or an argument in support of one side or the other.

[pqr]

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

 

 

One can find individuals on both sides of any argument who lack an understanding of the issues. To watch a blatantly partisan viedo that uses slected clips and focused almost exclusively on the most extreme signs is being intellectually dishonest.

 

Are you arguing that the majority of the individuals out there were "idiots"? How about those members of THIS board who showed up? Are they idiots?

 

How many videos would you like me to fiind of anti-Bush rallys? It would seem that by your definition that those people too were idiots? (In point of fact many of the accusations against the former president and his intellect did demonstrate that the accusers were, well......)

 

Avoid the fringes, look at the overwhelming majority of the people who were there, they were not idiots, they were and are Americans exercising their rights. The fact that honest and intelligent Americans question the policies of this government does not not make us idiots.

 

In the words of the Secretary of State:

 

I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.

 

 

......and Mrs Mungo it does not make them idiots.

Edited September 16, 2009 by pqr

[Sara R]

First, I will say that I don't know of a single person involved in the tea parties who is pro Obama. I think they are very anti-current administration, and don't pretend to be otherwise... all the tea party organizers where I live were the first to believe and spread the "Obama snubbed by Russian delegates" internet hoax (for example). Which they are free to do, of course... I'm just commenting on your suggestion that the tea party is possibly bi partisan because I don't think it is.

 

What I think they mean by bipartisan is that these protests would be going on if McCain had gotten elected. McCain wasn't all that different from Obama; he was going the same place, just slower. He would have voted in all of the bailouts as well.

 

I think many of the tea partiers are former Republicans who feel betrayed by their party. So many people called their Congressman about the first bailouts last October, and they voted it in anyway. The attitude was "you little people couldn't possibly understand complicated financial matters." Baloney. The representatives are willfully not listening to reason. Have you (collective you; not you personally) looked at the debt numbers? And applied basic math skills to understand those numbers? It's terrifying!

 

I suspect that many Democrats will feel the same way in 4-8 years.

[TravelingChris]

We went to the big 9/12 march and I only saw two posters I didn't like. One compared Obama to Hitler and another showed an aborted fetus. I saw thousands of signs expressing displeasures with policies. I saw people of all races and all ages there. The speakers were not all white too. This was the first protest I have ever attended and it was very peaceful and nobody was threatened in my sight. We did have one guy with a Huge Public Option Now flag go through the rally. Nobody tried to attack him but we did loudly chat "NO Public Option". We don't hate and had no hateful signs. We did have a Don't thread on Me flag which is what we believe. We all cheered at the First Amendment carving at the Newseum as we were passing by. Note the passage about free speech and free assembly to petition the government.

[Truscifi]

I have been watching this thread, and finally decided to take a stab at it, so here goes: I am not against protests. I am not against the tea parties (although I also think it was a poor choice for a name to spearhead a movement). I think there are a lot of people with legitimate concerns in this movement. I do think that it is hard to hear those concerns over the 'fringe'. What I find especially concerning is that the conservative media has not spoken against these fringe elements. There are people on the conservative side of the media who are not joining in the fear mongering, but neither are they saying, 'hey guys, we should really calm down and stop yelling so we can get some things done'. It is the same with most politicians. Very few have spoken up to say they don't agree with the conspiracy theories and allegations of various sorts against President Obama, and that there are serious issues that need to tackled or that this is hard to do with so many people screaming all the time. The few that have (like Colin Powell) have been told they are not real republicans. It also concerns me that many people seem to have lost respect for the office of the president because of the particular man in that office now. The furor over the speech to school children is a good example of this (and no, I'm not trying to restart any arguments).

 

The liberal media and politicians have done similar things int he past, though I don't remember seeing this level of anger and hatred toward the President in the past. I don't think saying it is not worse than what so-and-so did is justification for doing it as well. Full disclosure: I am neither a democrat nor a republican, I am a pragmatist looking for something that works. So far I haven't found it.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Truscifi
I can't type :)

[Phred]

I feel that the people we see out protesting in these "tea parties" are only doing it because they feel that they have been disenfranchised. They aren't doing it because of a position of "right" or "wrong" it is simply a position of feeling powerless. This is false. They have representation. The men they've named themselves after did not. They can vote and make their arguments and try to persuade others to vote with them. The men they've named themselves after could not.

[pqr]

We went to the big 9/12 march and I only saw two posters I didn't like. One compared Obama to Hitler and another showed an aborted fetus. I saw thousands of signs expressing displeasures with policies. I saw people of all races and all ages there. The speakers were not all white too. This was the first protest I have ever attended and it was very peaceful and nobody was threatened in my sight. We did have one guy with a Huge Public Option Now flag go through the rally. Nobody tried to attack him but we did loudly chat "NO Public Option". We don't hate and had no hateful signs. We did have a Don't thread on Me flag which is what we believe. We all cheered at the First Amendment carving at the Newseum as we were passing by. Note the passage about free speech and free assembly to petition the government.

 

Shhhh you are ruining what people want to believe.

 

It is easier to believe that those who oppose the Health Care Plan, the Bailouts, the intrusive policies etc are imbiciles than have to face the fact that we have real and thought out viewpoints based on an understanding of reality.

[Mrs Mungo]

One can find individuals on both sides of any argument who lack an understanding of the issues. To watch a blatantly partisan viedo that uses slected clips and focused almost exclusively on the most extreme signs is being intellectually dishonest.

 

I'm against idiots (extremists and fundamentalists, too, for that matter) on both sides of the aisle.

 

The government was set up in such a way that people could change things...

 

Certainly, but it wasn't the original intent.

 

But... there were people of ALL colors in the Patriot army.

 

People of all colors were on the other side as well, thinking they had a better chance with the far-away British rulers. In fact, this was part of the reason for breaking treaties with certain tribes.

 

Many founding fathers were opposed to slavery & mistreating Native Americans and would have loved for it to cover ALL people...

 

Many of them were not. Even many of them who were "against slavery" actually owned slaves. John Adams was one of the few who put his money where his mouth was. (for some reason I can't get this part to unbold, the bolded part of the quote messed it up, I'm not emphasizing this or anything)

[KingM]

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?

 

 

I think it's quite clearly about Obama. What is the message of this movement? I have gone to youtube and watched cherry-picked interviews from the left designed to make the protests look ridiculous and the equally cherry-picked interviews from the right designed to make them look noble, and the only coherent message of the protesters seems to be that they don't like what's going on in the country. They don't like abortion, health care reform, deficit spending, the recession, etc. Most of this stuff has very little to do with Obama, yet these people were quiescent during eight years of the Bush administration when we lowered taxes while spending 1,000,000,000,000+ on wars in the Middle East. It was also the era when Wall Street melted down, the bank bailouts started, and the recession began.

 

So where were these people? If this were a continuation of a movement that began a year ago and is growing in size, strength, and anger since Obama continued/worsened Bush's policies, then I'd buy that this was about the stated issues. But the movement simply didn't exist before last November.

 

So I look at the evidence and I believe that yes, it's about Obama.

[Jen500]

I feel that the people we see out protesting in these "tea parties" are only doing it because they feel that they have been disenfranchised. They aren't doing it because of a position of "right" or "wrong" it is simply a position of feeling powerless. This is false. They have representation. The men they've named themselves after did not. They can vote and make their arguments and try to persuade others to vote with them. The men they've named themselves after could not.

 

Phred!

Just saying "Hi".

[Janet in WA]

 

So I look at the evidence and I believe that yes, it's about Obama

I tend to agree with you. It is about Obama. It's about having a man in office whose leanings are SO far left that the protesters have been moved to get out there and do something. Had McCain been elected, most of those protesters would have been unhappy with a lot of what he stood for, but not enough so to get out there and protest publicly. In short, Obama scares them more than McCain would have. And it has nothing to do with race. Edited September 16, 2009 by Janet in WA

[Word Nerd]

I think it's quite clearly about Obama. What is the message of this movement? I have gone to youtube and watched cherry-picked interviews from the left designed to make the protests look ridiculous and the equally cherry-picked interviews from the right designed to make them look noble, and the only coherent message of the protesters seems to be that they don't like what's going on in the country. They don't like abortion, health care reform, deficit spending, the recession, etc. Most of this stuff has very little to do with Obama, yet these people were quiescent during eight years of the Bush administration when we lowered taxes while spending 1,000,000,000,000+ on wars in the Middle East. It was also the era when Wall Street melted down, the bank bailouts started, and the recession began.

 

So where were these people? If this were a continuation of a movement that began a year ago and is growing in size, strength, and anger since Obama continued/worsened Bush's policies, then I'd buy that this was about the stated issues. But the movement simply didn't exist before last November.

 

So I look at the evidence and I believe that yes, it's about Obama.

 

I agree that many in this movement have behaved in an incredibly inconsistent manner and overlooked the same things in Bush's administration that they're complaining about now in Obama's. However, it's simply not true that the movement didn't exist at all before last November. The movement inspired by Ron Paul is only one example. Some of us were making many of these same points about Bush's administration well before the election. Libertarians have been around for quite a while, actually.

[PineFarmMom]

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:

 

:iagree::iagree: I liked all that you said. About the first part of what you said that I bolded: The hypocrisy is mind-bogglng.

 

About the second, I too am floored that people feel such a strong need to have someone over them in such a way!! I know many people of all races and religions and backgrounds who I consider perfectly capable of handling their own lives without someone controlling their every move. That's part of what homeschooling is about. I don't feel the need for someone to take even more of my money and hand it out in the way "they" see fit. I can handle that fine, thank you.

[Slartibartfast]

I agree that many in this movement have behaved in an incredibly inconsistent manner and overlooked the same things in Bush's administration that they're complaining about now in Obama's. However, it's simply not true that the movement didn't exist at all before last November. The movement inspired by Ron Paul is only one example. Some of us were making many of these same points about Bush's administration well before the election. Libertarians have been around for quite a while, actually.

 

 

Ron Paul? I never heard anything racist from Ron Paul but he is certainly so permissive towards it that he hires racist individuals to work for him or allows them to run the newsletter with his name on it. If someone is trying to state something *isn't* racist Ron Paul isn't really the name to bring up. How many donations did he get from Storm Front again? He certainly took the owner's check.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sis

[Word Nerd]

Ron Paul? I never heard anything racist from Ron Paul but he is certainly so permissive towards it that he hires racist individuals to work for him or allows them to run the newsletter with his name on it. If someone is trying to state something *isn't* racist Ron Paul isn't really the name to bring up. How many donations did he get from Storm Front again? He certainly took the owner's check.

 

That's quite a non sequitur, since I didn't say anything about racism at all. Believe whatever you want. I'm done with this conversation.

[Slartibartfast]

It is not a non sequitur. The person you were responding to was expressing concern that it was "about Obama." You responded by discussing the Ron Paul movement.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Sis

[Jumping In Puddles]

I feel that the people we see out protesting in these "tea parties" are only doing it because they feel that they have been disenfranchised.

 

Phred! Does your presence mean this thread's death is imminent? :p :p Now where is spycar?

 

I think it's quite clearly about Obama. What is the message of this movement? I have gone to youtube and watched cherry-picked interviews from the left designed to make the protests look ridiculous and the equally cherry-picked interviews from the right designed to make them look noble, and the only coherent message of the protesters seems to be that they don't like what's going on in the country. They don't like abortion, health care reform, deficit spending, the recession, etc. Most of this stuff has very little to do with Obama, yet these people were quiescent during eight years of the Bush administration when we lowered taxes while spending 1,000,000,000,000+ on wars in the Middle East. It was also the era when Wall Street melted down, the bank bailouts started, and the recession began.

 

So where were these people? If this were a continuation of a movement that began a year ago and is growing in size, strength, and anger since Obama continued/worsened Bush's policies, then I'd buy that this was about the stated issues. But the movement simply didn't exist before last November.

 

So I look at the evidence and I believe that yes, it's about Obama.

:iagree: QFT

 

 

And it has nothing to do with race.

But it does have to do with party affiliation.

[Margaret in GA]

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!

 

In my opinion, he is a uniter. Why on earth is he even speaking to Republicans when their idea of discourse is to shout out "You Lie!" like some kind of kid. When they consistently say they are "afraid" and that he is a "socialist". In my opinon he is far too interested in uniting with a party that has no such intentions.

[Janet in WA]

Phred! Does your presence mean this thread's death is imminent? :p :p Now where is spycar?

 

 

:iagree: QFT

 

 

But it does have to do with party affiliation.

Of course it does. But it's not the simple mindless cause and effect relationship that is being suggested by the liberal crowd here.

[Mrs Mungo]

Of course it does. But it's not the simple mindless cause and effect relationship that is being suggested by the liberal crowd here.

 

I disagree with that. The first tea party was held two months after Obama took office. There was none of this before he took office, none. And most of the Dems here are far from liberal. I'm constantly accused of being a conservative on the liberal board I frequent. :lol:

[Vida Winter]

In my opinion, he is a uniter. Why on earth is he even speaking to Republicans when their idea of discourse is to shout out "You Lie!" like some kind of kid. When they consistently say they are "afraid" and that he is a "socialist". In my opinon he is far too interested in uniting with a party that has no such intentions.

 

Are you serious? When has Obama spoken to Republicans about anything other than for appearances? And for the record, he is a liar.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Are you serious? When has Obama spoken to Republicans about anything other than for appearances? And for the record, he is a liar.

 

 

Gee that is such a strong statement. Do you have documentation of this from a reputable source?

[Janet in WA]

 

I disagree with that. The first tea party was held two months after Obama took office. There was none of this before he took office, none. And most of the Dems here are far from liberal. I'm constantly accused of being a conservative on the liberal board I frequent. :lol:

I'm not following you at all. With what do you disagree? And I can't recall saying anything about the Democrats on this board.

[Slartibartfast]

I am a moderate. Wanna hear me talk about guns? :lol:

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I am a moderate. Wanna hear me talk about guns? :lol:

 

:iagree: I may have very many liberal tendencies but I have conservative ones as well;).

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not following you at all. With what do you disagree? And I can't recall saying anything about the Democrats on this board.

 

I quoted what you said:

Originally Posted by Janet in WA

Of course it does. But it's not the simple mindless cause and effect relationship that is being suggested by the liberal crowd here.

I'm disagreeing with you on two counts.

 

1) You say it isn't simple cause and effect. I disagree, I think it is.

 

2) You imply the people taking the dissenting view on this are liberal with your use of the phrase "the liberal crowd here." The "crowd" here isn't by and large liberal, they are mostly moderate Democrats. Did you mean something else?

[Vida Winter]

Gee that is such a strong statement. Do you have documentation of this from a reputable source?

 

Yes. My own common sense.

[Jean too]

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?"[/QUOTE]

 

 

Excellent post! I have been telling dh for years that it was going to take the people taking to the streets in protest to stop the madness in our government. I'm glad to see that people have finally realized they've had enough.

[Janet in WA]

 

1) You say it isn't simple cause and effect. I disagree, I think it is.

 

 

No, I didn't say that. You did when you misquoted me by omission.

 

2) You imply the people taking the dissenting view on this are liberal with your use of the phrase "the liberal crowd here." The "crowd" here isn't by and large liberal, they are mostly moderate Democrats. Did you mean something else?

If you are not in the liberal crowd here, then I wasn't talking about you. If you are a moderate Democrat, then I wasn't talking about you. I didn't imply anything, and I didn't say what you said I said. You seem to be arguing with yourself, mostly. Edited September 16, 2009 by Janet in WA

[Jean too]

So to follow your reasoning, because they didn't protest during the previous administration they shouldn't protest now? They should just sit by and let the out of control spending that has been going on (starting in the last administration) continue, right?

At what point do you think they should protest?

[Soph the vet]

Yes. My own common sense.

I'll vouch for Dana, she has common sense and I agree with her. :001_smile:

I'm tired of being lied to by either party and that is why I am proud to be a tea party goer. I love my country and I value the Constitution. The federal government is too big, too loose with our money and Congress, for the most part, is too arrogant with the real people who have the power in this country...us. I think those are some of the reasons people attend the tea parties.

And, just FYI, I do not condone posters making Obama look like Hitler just like I did not condone posters of Bush doing the same. Everything that the Dems are crying foul on they have done themselves. Hypocrisy at its best.

[Spy Car]

I think William F. Buckley must be spinning in his grave, as the lunatic fringe of John Birchers, Joe McCarthyists, white supremacists and other paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists that once controlled the Conservative movement, but were marginalized (partially through his efforts) are now back in command of American conservatism in different guises.

 

At a time when our Republic is in crisis we could use responsible voices from the Conservative wing to step forward to help solve our nation's problems. Instead we have an abdication on the right. And a collapse of reasoned Conservatism.

 

In its stead we have angry (and sometimes armed) fringe elements making fools of themselves. Its a very sad state of affairs.

 

We have a right to protest in this country. No question. But we also have a duty to be responsible citizens, and the antics of the far-right are unseemly and unhelpful.

 

Where are the "thoughtful Conservatives"? Why are they dead quiet?

 

I wish Bill Buckley were still around. Because the Ron Paulistas and others on the gun-toting fascist right are a treat to our American way of life. And he had the intellectual authority to say so.

 

Bill

[KingM]

So to follow your reasoning, because they didn't protest during the previous administration they shouldn't protest now? They should just sit by and let the out of control spending that has been going on (starting in the last administration) continue, right?

At what point do you think they should protest?

 

If they were sincere, a year or two ago. If they have an irrational fear of Obama, I would have expected them to start making noise around last December or so.

 

Which is exactly what happened.

[Word Nerd]

I think William F. Buckley must be spinning in his grave, as the lunatic fringe of John Birchers, Joe McCarthyists, white supremacists and other paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists that once controlled the Conservative movement, but were marginalized (partially through his efforts) are now back in command of American conservatism in different guises.

 

At a time when our Republic is in crisis we could use responsible voices from the Conservative wing to step forward to help solve our nation's problems. Instead we have an abdication on the right. And a collapse of reasoned Conservatism.

 

In its stead we have angry (and sometimes armed) fringe elements making fools of themselves. Its a very sad state of affairs.

 

We have a right to protest in this country. No question. But we also have a duty to be responsible citizens, and the antics of the far-right are unseemly and unhelpful.

 

Where are the "thoughtful Conservatives"? Why are they dead quiet?

 

I wish Bill Buckley were still around. Because the Ron Paulistas and others on the gun-toting fascist right are a treat to our American way of life. And he had the intellectual authority to say so.

 

Bill

 

:lol: A treat indeed.

Edited September 16, 2009 by WordGirl

[LizzyBee]

I think William F. Buckley must be spinning in his grave, as the lunatic fringe of John Birchers, Joe McCarthyists, white supremacists and other paranoid right-wing conspiracy theorists that once controlled the Conservative movement, but were marginalized (partially through his efforts) are now back in command of American conservatism in different guises.

 

At a time when our Republic is in crisis we could use responsible voices from the Conservative wing to step forward to help solve our nation's problems. Instead we have an abdication on the right. And a collapse of reasoned Conservatism.

 

In its stead we have angry (and sometimes armed) fringe elements making fools of themselves. Its a very sad state of affairs.

 

We have a right to protest in this country. No question. But we also have a duty to be responsible citizens, and the antics of the far-right are unseemly and unhelpful.

 

Where are the "thoughtful Conservatives"? Why are they dead quiet?

 

I wish Bill Buckley were still around. Because the Ron Paulistas and others on the gun-toting fascist right are a treat to our American way of life. And he had the intellectual authority to say so.

 

Bill

 

Wow. I think this is part of the problem right here. The Left would have us believe that only the lunatic fringe on the right is making the noise, attending tea parties, raising questions about health care reform at town hall meetings. But I know a lot of people who are involved in these things. They are intelligent, reasonable people. They are not racist. They are not paranoid. They are not white supremacists. Some of them don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh! Where are the thoughtful Conservatives? They are attending tea parties and town halls, writing letters to their Congressmen, and trying to do their part to stem the tide of out-of-control spending in Washington. They are not quiet.

Edited September 16, 2009 by LizzyBee

[Janet in WA]

If they were sincere, a year or two ago. If they have an irrational fear of Obama, I would have expected them to start making noise around last December or so.

 

Which is exactly what happened.

What if they had a sincere fear of Obama that wasn't irrational? When would they have started making noise?

[Mrs Mungo]

Wow. I think this is part of the problem right here. The Left would have us believe that only the lunatic fringe on the right is making the noise, attending tea parties, raising questions about health care reform at town hall meetings. But I know a lot of people who are involved in these things. They are intelligent, reasonable people. They are not racist. They are not paranoid. They are not white supremacists. Some of them don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh! Where are the thoughtful Conservatives? They are attending tea parties and town halls, writing letters to their Congressman, and trying to do their part to stem the tide of out-of-control spending in Washington. They are not quiet.

 

I know tons of thoughtful Republicans. Many of the Republicans I personally know (and speak to about politics) hold ideas very similar to my own. We just have different ideas on how to fix the ills of our society.

 

However, the Republicans I personally know who attended tea parties back in March lost all credibility with me when they did that. It was clearly born of partisanship and fear. Maybe if the tea parties had started later I would have felt differently. But they didn't and I don't.