By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Tea Parties: Whats really going on?

Kasz216 on 17 April 2009
jv103 said:
Well as the february 2002 anti-war protests against the iraq war showed, protests don't accomplish much. Especially, since the media always tends to marginalize protesters and their view points (I'm thinking of the WTO protests/anarchists / agent provocateurs). The Tea Party was different in that it got a lot of support from Fox News. Which larger protests (i.e. the iraq war one) have been dismissed.

I think the most ironic thing though, was the purchasing of one million tea bags (I believe they purchased them) and complaining about wasteful spending. Not to mention the elaborate costumes that apparently some people must have had laying around.

Overall though, I like protests and support them. I think many people had valid points, although most seem to be simply saying Democrats =evil. Nonetheless, I don't think it will have much effect - mainly because of the cheerleading that makes it seem disingenous in the eyes of those more to center or left.

Your kidding about the Anti-war protests right?  That wasn't marginal in the least.  Hell the news networks were way better then the protesters at that particular goal.

 

 



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 17 April 2009
Zucas said:

A people of bad credit and debt yields a government that does the same.  How do you change that when the problem is with the people in general.  Problem is money is power and power corrupts while absolute power corrupts absolutely.  You don't want them to do the exact thing as the people but is that phsyically possible.  It's quite possible the entire system is broken from the beginning. 

You see I agree with people need to stop acting like it's no big deal.  I take that a step further.  I won't people like you and the rest of America to stop pretending the problem is something so simple as government spending.  Cut the bullshit for once in your life and look at the big picture.  If you really think the entire economy can be completely trampled by 2 presidents who compared to leaders in history are weak, then you aren't looking at the real problem.  It's a big deal but you don't know what the problem is. 

You and the rest of this country act as if they can point to something and use it as a scapegoat to the real problem: general mainstream American fear to capitalism.  You don't trust these corporations or the government when all of our beliefs (laizzes faire capitalism and representative democracy) are based on this trust with a system of checks and balances.  Thus you ruin it.  They complain every time the bust of a "boom and bust cycle" of capitalism occurs and cause this country to move further to the left.  They accept socialist and left winged regulations into the economy such as the Federal Reserve, minimum wage, trust busters, anti-monopolies, and more recently financially supporting businesses who should have burned to the ground with their errors. 

Then you have the nerve to tell me that I don't know this is a big deal when the rest of this country would willingly accept a dictator to bring us into socialism over a true capitalist representative democratic president.  Like the rest of this country, we let the media tell us what the problems are and then we complain about it.  But we don't know what the problems are and we don't have values anymore that resembled that of what the country was founded on.  Sure they will complain now about government spending being too much but only becuase it doesn't help their interests.  As soon as they get into financial trouble they'll all cry to the government... including you.  That's the funny thing about all these "anti-American" values that get into our system.  Something scares the people and fear causes these thigns to happen.  Ya'll took my liberty away after 9/11 and now you want to take away my capitalist system.  This is a great quote from Benjamin Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

When the rest of this country is ready to get over their fears and let someone other than mainstream media tell them how to think, then these tea parties will mean something.  When they say no to paying income taxes then they'll truly know what the problem is.  Until then all I see is a nation of sheep.

(part of a piece I wrote yesterday which I'll translate for here soon)

 

Are you arguing with me, or venting to me?

Your views and mine are pretty much the same. What did I say to piss you off?

 



jv103 on 17 April 2009
Kasz216 said:
jv103 said:
Well as the february 2002 anti-war protests against the iraq war showed, protests don't accomplish much. Especially, since the media always tends to marginalize protesters and their view points (I'm thinking of the WTO protests/anarchists / agent provocateurs). The Tea Party was different in that it got a lot of support from Fox News. Which larger protests (i.e. the iraq war one) have been dismissed.

I think the most ironic thing though, was the purchasing of one million tea bags (I believe they purchased them) and complaining about wasteful spending. Not to mention the elaborate costumes that apparently some people must have had laying around.

Overall though, I like protests and support them. I think many people had valid points, although most seem to be simply saying Democrats =evil. Nonetheless, I don't think it will have much effect - mainly because of the cheerleading that makes it seem disingenous in the eyes of those more to center or left.

Your kidding about the Anti-war protests right?  That wasn't marginal in the least.  Hell the news networks were way better then the protesters at that particular goal.

 

 

 

 I mean't they were covered, but it was never considered as a valid argument and backed as much by any one network as Fox backed this one. At least to my memory. Especially since the media (even those liberal stations besides Donahue) were beating the war drum as well.  The media only started going against the war (MSNBC, CNN) after it became popular to do so. That's what I meant. It did get coverage though. I know that.



Kasz216 on 17 April 2009
jv103 said:
Kasz216 said:
jv103 said:
Well as the february 2002 anti-war protests against the iraq war showed, protests don't accomplish much. Especially, since the media always tends to marginalize protesters and their view points (I'm thinking of the WTO protests/anarchists / agent provocateurs). The Tea Party was different in that it got a lot of support from Fox News. Which larger protests (i.e. the iraq war one) have been dismissed.

I think the most ironic thing though, was the purchasing of one million tea bags (I believe they purchased them) and complaining about wasteful spending. Not to mention the elaborate costumes that apparently some people must have had laying around.

Overall though, I like protests and support them. I think many people had valid points, although most seem to be simply saying Democrats =evil. Nonetheless, I don't think it will have much effect - mainly because of the cheerleading that makes it seem disingenous in the eyes of those more to center or left.

Your kidding about the Anti-war protests right?  That wasn't marginal in the least.  Hell the news networks were way better then the protesters at that particular goal.

 

 

 

 I mean't they were covered, but it was never considered as a valid argument and backed as much by any one network as Fox backed this one. At least to my memory. Especially since the media (even those liberal stations besides Donahue) were beating the war drum as well.  The media only started going against the war (MSNBC, CNN) after it became popular to do so. That's what I meant. It did get coverage though. I know that.

I disagree.  I think the minute it was obvious it wasn't "Mission Accomplished" they pounced on it.  This was back well before it was unpopular.

 



ironman on 17 April 2009

Zucas, I applaud you! You get it!

Look people, America is not a Democracy, it is a Republic "and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands". A Democracy only brings about mob rule, a majority ruling over a minority. Whereas a Republic is a system where an elected few rule over the majority. The only problem is that a Republic can only remain successful as long as the few elected officials do not realize they can buy their way into office by promising to steal money from the rich minority and giving it to the poor majority. And that is the point we have reached.
The tea parties are about turning this trend around, they are not about taxes as much as they are about spending. at this point lowering taxes to a sane level would pretty much destroy us because we now have too much to pay for. if we can convince the government to spend less money, then the only natural reaction is lower taxes. Higher taxes serve only to increase government and the people working in it.
Also, pay no attention to those few nut jobs that were either planted, or truly believe, the things said about Obama vs. Bush, they do not speak for the movement, and the movement will not stop for them.



Past Avatar picture!!!

Don't forget your helmet there, Master Chief!

Around the Network
JRPG on 17 April 2009

 

This "change" sucks by the way.



akuma587 on 17 April 2009

The national debt is everyone's problem. Everyone is going to pay for it one way or another. The question is do you want to raise taxes some now, raise them to obscenely high levels later, or watch the economy collapse once the debt spirals upward to unsustainable levels.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

JRPG on 18 April 2009
akuma587 said:
The national debt is everyone's problem. Everyone is going to pay for it one way or another. The question is do you want to raise taxes some now, raise them to obscenely high levels later, or watch the economy collapse once the debt spirals upward to unsustainable levels.

 

You know what Obama has to say to that?

 

STIMULUS CHECKS! Gotta give away money to thank all the poor people who voted for me, whom will most likely not spend the checks thus creating more debt.



akuma587 on 18 April 2009

Many different industries are projecting far lower unemployment numbers than they were just months ago directly because of the stimulus. Construction and Education are two great examples that were literally saved on their way to the chopping block.  Millions of jobs will and have already been saved.  If you want to invest your money, look into construction.

Furthermore, when people aren't working, they can't pay taxes. When people aren't working, they aren't making any income to spend elsewhere so that other people aren't making much income and might lose their job.  Then they can't pay taxes. The government could potentially lose more money in the long term in tax revenue if the economy slips even further and takes even longer to recover.

And strong fiscal policy does work. You want an example? World War II. Who do you think was the one spending all the money that got us out of the Great Depression finally? The government! This is why I find it laughable when people say that fiscal policy didn't get us out of the Great Depression and that World War II did. World War II was fiscal policy on a massive scale. If anything, it proves that FDR didn't do ENOUGH during the Great Depression. It took the level of government spending we saw during WWII to get us out of it.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

theprof00 on 18 April 2009

You've given this new administration 3 months.

Those companies had to be bailed out. There is no recourse.

It's quite simple.