I think it is safe to say that Dems are more than a little fed up with the republican administration and media.I don't remember exactly what happened when we lost the seat to Bush twice in a row, even though he lost the popular vote. However, I clearly remember not throwing a huge fuss about it. In fact we even gave up a recount in order to give Bush command asap for the good of the country. If you want to talk about the protests and the like, it was a large majority of the country participating, amalgamating in  near 70% dissapproval rating (needs source).

Now, recently on tax day, Fox news hosts and other figures such as Glen Beck hosted tea parties to protest wasteful spending and higher taxes. This is all well and good, but Fox news has been touting this as a grassroots campaign, an adjective not used by most other networks.

However, let's get down to the most interesting part of this thread. If you read nothing else, read the following:

The first tea party was to protest "taxation without representation".

Isn't it strange that protesters would use the tea party as a headline of their protest? If we look back to the original slogan of "taxation without representation", does it apply to the current situation at all? If this neo-tea party slogan were the same one, it would mean that people do not want to pay taxes to a goverment run by someone they didn't vote for.

This is bullshit. Grow up people. Patriotism is doing what is best for the country, not what is best for yourselves. In a democracy, the majority makes the decisions. If someone is voted into office whose views you disagree with, chances are they are going to make decisions that you will disagree with. That doesn't make the person voted into office a socialist or a tyrant. It just makes you shit outta luck for four years. Welcome to the USA. Better luck next time.

I understand that repubs are upset that they lost and what they need to understand is that nobody expects them to worship Obama. We do however expect them to act like adults. It's scary how conservative leaders like Rush desperately want this society to fail, just to justify the last 8 years of Bush, because it feels like there is a trend among all this.

The Boston Tea Party didn't have anything to do with taxation. Did anyone ever wonder why a bunch of colonists would protest British taxation by dumping tea into Boston harbor in the first place?

no conspiracy theories please.

It's not a conspiracy theory. I'm asking you why exactly would you dump tea to protest taxation?

I would just like to say that protest happen by both sides all the time. This one just happens to be a little better organized than most. For the last 6 years there have been protesters in the park of Clinton NY every weekend. I think they are crazy and wasting their time, but whatever.

Just as a question, why can major news networks follow around a small group of ACORN paid protestors as they travel to AIG executive's houses in order to protest the bonuses without having the motivations of the networks, protestors or ACORN mentioned or questioned but it is a major problem when (often non-partisan) conservative commentators support a series of protests with entirely voluntary protestors you question their motives?

The fact is that there is a ton of people in the USA (and the world) who are upset with the number and scale of bailouts that have occured and the complete loss of fiscal restraint by their government, and it doesn't take much to motivate them to get out to protest. Certainly, Fox news and their commentators have exploited this situation to increase their profile and Repubilcan party members have tried to capatalize on the outrage ... but is this any different from the "Global Warming" or "G20" protests you see on TV all the time?

I think the difference Nord, is that the protests before were done by majority consent. This recent "demonstration" was done by a minority but publicized as if 10million people gathered of their own accord. Whereas in reality it was set up by a select few and the media and then blown out of proportion to make some kind of point.

@totalwar23
The tea was imported from Britain and colonists prevented it from being unloaded in response to the Tea Act which was passed by Britain and taxed all tea sales in America. The governor at the time, appointed by British rulers, would not send the tea back to Britain. Colonists responded to this aggressive attempt to enforce British law by destroying all the tea on those boats.

That's not true....

The Tea Act did not put any tax on tea. It allowed the East India Company to sell their tea directly to the American colonies because they had a huge surplus they could not unload. The tax on tea was in the Townshend Duties, which was passed in 1767. Colonists responded by boycotting, which forced Parliament to repeal everything but the tax on tea. The American colonists then just merely smuggled tea in but in places like Boston, they were importing tea with the tax in place. The Tea Act actually allowed the taxed tea to be sold cheaper than smuggled tea. Now why exactly would the colonies be okay with the tea tax for several years, and then explode into outrage because of the tax on tea after the Tea Act?

Ok, what's wrong with demanding the money back from AIG. In my opinion, that is the best for both the country and the government. How that could even be construed as partisan is twisted.

"(often non-partisan)"- so you would say that those people I listed are non-partisan?

The bailout was a necessary step. The country would have collapsed in on itself without a bailout. Letting all those companies fail, would have had HUGE repercussions. The best way to solve this crisis is to keep them afloat while we disentangle the giant ball of thread that connects all these corps to each other. A company should be able to fail without taking out many others. This is not reality at the moment. Things have gotten out of control because of corporate loopholes and a bottom line mentality over ethicality.

You have no proof that Global warming does not exist. Global warming may not exist, but the fact is that if something is not done about it, there will also be HUGE repercussions, regardless if man-made or not. Measures need to be taken to ensure that the north pole doesn't dissolve completely.

I don't see anything wrong with the G20. It's comprised of the top financial leaders in the world and try to keep the world economy afloat. In my view it is the exact same with the bailout. We are completely tied into the finances of other countries. Therefore, to maintain the best interests of ourselves, it is a necessary group. If you want to complain about the rights of smaller countries being impugned, every member gets to act as head of the G-20. This includes both 1st owrld and 3rd world countries.