• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Anyone going to the Chicago Tax Day Tea Party?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,627
73
91
Was thinking about going when I first heard about this. My views are mostly progressive, but my opposition to the bailouts stems from my belief that at least the initial funds were simply a power grab by the rich and powerful. I am not opposed to using gov't money to invest in infrastructure programs. I will be curious to see how this money actually gets spent and if it just becomes another money grab by large government contractors. I am also in favor of the stimulus money being spent on research and higher education. If society believes that the cure for low wages and working-class stagnation is re-education, then you can't allow massive cuts to colleges and universities (which is happening now in many states). If we truly believe that the road to salvation for the blue collar American is education, we need to have some resolve and dedicate ourselves to this task.

The money that went to banks and the autos was certainly money not well spent in my opinion. It was money given to the wealthy by their wealthy connections in government. It was corruption at its finest. And if it wasn't for these poorly allocated funds, maybe the public would be less against stimulus packages to fund programs that are genuinely useful for society. And instead of paying corporations to make cars that no one is going to buy anyway, maybe that money should have been spent giving the line workers unemployment and free vocational training, or maybe even paying them to do labor that is beneficial to society. There's no point in paying people to build cars when there are no customers. That could have been better managed, and it looks like it will be from here on out.

Ultimately, I didn't go to the party because the GOP latched onto it. If it could've remained a non-partisan event, I would've gone. After seeing Fox News pick up on the story, I had a hunch that it was just going to be about hating liberals and Obama. I'm concerned about the influence the elite have in this country, not whether Obama is a Muslim or gays can be married. And as far as a revolution goes? Good luck. For most people yesterday, this was a complete non-event. I think most people, correctly, recognized it as a partisan rally perpetrated by the GOP and conservative organizations. It might have been received warmly if it was about a power grab by the elite or wasteful government spending, but as soon as Fox News got involved it became entangled with the modern neo-Conservative, and all the baggage that entails, and went nowhere.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: eleison
I just went to the chicago one. Pretty cool. A lot more younger people than I expected. There was on crazy guy that was advocating not paying taxes because "it wasn't in the constitution." People in the protest were like "get away from me.. urgh.. he doesn't represent us". There was an acorn person trying to pass out handouts and proselytizing, but people didn't really take him seriously - people were more like, "WTF are you doing here". Took pictures with my cell phone. There were a few good banners. One of them had a picture of Obama, Pelosi, and geithner together. On the top of the picture, it read "The three stooges"..

In any case, good to know, in the sea of liberals, there were a good number of fiscal conservatives. :) we should have more of these. Shocked nobody was selling swag. I wanted a souvenir, e.g., tshirt, bumper sticker, etc. to show my support.
Remember, this is NOT a partisan issue. :roll:
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Repugs are so hypocritical with this. They're so upset with losing power that they'll do anything - anything to disrupt. Where were they when the bushies were bending over the citizens the last eight years?
So tea parties would have been OK during the Bush years? But now what, they're just not fair? Based on your ideologies, why were you not out protesting during the Bush years?

Your behavior right now differs not in the slightest from the very people you accuse of disruption. The difference being that they are standing up for their rights and you're whining on the Internet. Whining that they might disrupt your version of utopia. If you're not happy with the way things are shaking down, quit acting like a spoiled child, get off the couch and get out there and make a difference.
Why is it borrowing and spending didn't start happening when Obama took office but the protests did. The 'spending is out of control' protesters at these rallies are hypocrites if they're just doing it now.
Can't you guys get together, put your minds to work and come up with something better than this hypocrite spiel? Wow, hypocrite, that's got people re-thinking their stance. It's sad and pathetic.

You can blindly follow whatever person, movement, or party if that's what you want. But IMO, to blindly follow the government, under the assumption that they always know what's best to do and are always looking out for your best interests, is beyond naiveté. Our system of government was not designed to have one group or faction in complete and total control. People are exercising their rights. Whether you or anyone else disagrees with what they're saying is immaterial.

Obama did not get 100% of the popular vote. This means that a great percentage of voters are probably not going to agree with everything he does. It's going to be a long 4 years for you unless you can get your head wrapped around that.

Edit: If you can comprehend this chart, you'll know why tea parties were held. Somebody has to pay back this borrowed money. It's not going to fall out of the sky. Taxpaying citizens will be on the hook for all of it.

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/Q...y/wapoobamabudget1.jpg
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a duck.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
638
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a duck.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Who's responsible for re-writing the dictionary? Change of definition needed in aisle 8!
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
I think its funny seeing some of the posts in this thread.

I agree that you could easily say there are polititions/ party leaders from the republican party that would fall into the hypocracy category, but we are talking about the citizens here. Why is it fair to invalidate citizens protesting becuase of when the protesting starts?

Just becuase its more organized now doesnt mean it didnt exist before. Personally, Ive been upset with the spending and out of control government for many years, including the last 8. Im glad to see the issue getting more face time now, but this has to continue if its really going to matter come election time. I dont care if your talking about Bush or Obama, I want to see the governement tighten its own belt for once instead of putting more of a burden on us now or in our future. I want to see the governement stay out of the private sector when its inappropriate (such as trying to 'gently persuade' banks to make more bad loans - starting the whole domino effect in our economy) and to more aggressively enforce the regulations that are already inplace before adding more beaurocracy.

Spending has its place, but beyond emergency measures, many of the programs Obama is proposing are simply too much right now (Id rather not see that much spending all at once any time, but especially when everyone is hurting). There are other options out there that have been proposed by those that oppose this spending, but you just dont get to hear much about those (I would like to hear more about them).

Unfortunately we have too many greedy politicians to go along with all those greedy wall street guys everyone is so upset about to actually fix alot of things. How many decades have some politicians from both sides been taking money from supporters in return for favors? Thats just rediculous.

I also find it funny how some people would call out those that dont support Obama when we had 8 years of those that oppose Bush call him every name in the book, want him dead, etc, etc. Dont try to paint republicans as the party of hate/intolerance/violence, that role has been completely embraced on side of the dems as well. Personally, Im not use to seeing republicans/conservatives speaking out in such an orgianized manner, so thats refreshing. There are radicals on both sides, so lets try not to forget that this works both ways. I will call out anyone that tries to make it personal with Obama just as I have anyone making it personal with Bush, but not if its a stance against a policy.

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Robor
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a duck.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Who's responsible for re-writing the dictionary? Change of definition needed in aisle 8!
Yeah, I get it. You don't like being called a hypocrite. Too bad - I don't care.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
The teabaggings are basically just a right wing media publicity stunt. It was all totally conceived, hyped and sponsored by talk radio and Fox News. They're manipulating complete morons into showing up to protest the expiration of a 3% tax cut on rich people who would never let these yahoos into their living rooms.

As much as Fox News keeps trying to hardsell the line that it's a "grassroots" movement, or that it's "organic," it's really just a glorified, local radio, fan event. There is no populist movement sweeping the nation. These are just the same people as always. The same dittoheads, the same Palin fappers. If they had any brains at all, they'd be insulted that they can so easily played as such saps by their puppet masters to agitate against their own interests.

What's with that dipshit Governor in Texas, by the way? "We can secede any time we want?" WTF! Ed Whatshisface from the Ed Show on MSNBC posed a question to the Dipshit Gov. He asked him to define "secede" and how would he feel about that the next time a hurricane hits Texas, or the next time there's a crushing drought or the next time the illegals hop the wall. They all sound like a bunch of morons.

What was the goal today? What did the teabaggers think they were going to accomplish? They do know the stimulus package has already been signed into law, don't they? What end goal did they think that throwing a baby tantrum and dumping garbage on the ground (garbage that someone else has to clean up, by the way) was going to achieve? Did they think that Obama and the Democrats were all going to be so moved by the outpouring of emotion for the super rich that they'd all immediately change their economic philosophies? Did they think the rest of America was going to take them seriously?

I took time out from running my highest tax bracket business and I did a drive by at my local protest, like many, was all over the map -"Keep it a Christian Nation" posters, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-revolution(!), anti-immigration, etc. There was no goal, no cohesive rallying cry, just a bunch of folks with vaguely GOP campaign promises on signs. I mean, I would be a lot more impressed with this whole thing if it actually seemed to have a purpose, but at least around here, it was just a Republican/Anarcho-Libertarian rally masking as a protest. Where were these people when Bush was spending A BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK! in Iraq. How did Bush's spending benefit the average citizen of the United States vs. Obama's spending? Laughable. They're so factually, politically and intellectually illiterate and backwards. I don't think that the majority of people who are so fired up to attend even know what it is they're actually protesting.

As I passed by a throng of suburbanites heading to the Capital to protest. I felt an incredible surge of frustration. Our men and women are fighting two wars right now, getting killed and torn up and post-traumatized all over the damn place. They are making huge sacrifices beause many of them believe they are doing their part to help the country. We should all be grateful.

And then I see these lard-ass fools fucking up traffic in their big-ass trucks coming into a city they never visit because it's "ghetto" and there aren't any deer to shoot up, marching down the street in their Crocs and camo pants, all so they can complain about ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Most of them aren't seeing any increases in their taxes and in fact will be getting a small bump in their take-home pay. I don't buy the "we're leveraging our children's future" argument either. Because if that were the case, their freakin' heads would have been spinning during the last 8 years. They would have been protesting in the streets every day. No, this is called "We're whiny, self-entitled babies who talk a good game about patriotism and supporting the country but can't be called on for shit when it's time to finally walk the talk." Apparently fighting wars are suppossed to be FREE, NO SACRIFICE! from the population and is easier to do than being a willing tax-payer.

One of these jackasses was on NPR the other day, spewing forth about taxes and how it's so unfair to tax rich people. The reporter mentioned that the guy was solidly middle-class. "Well, I wanna be rich someday," he said. So basically that's the position, distilled to its rawest form. They aren't looking at what's best for themselves and their families today, nor what's good for most Americans. No, they think they're incipient rich people, just a few months away from making it big with the next Sham-Wow or Snuggie prototype they've been jiggering with in the basement for the last decade. Meanwhile their kids' teachers are being laid off and their local emergency rooms are shutting down and they're going to have to run the register at the Golden Corral well into their 80s because they don't have a retirement plan that's worth anything. Fuck the real reality. We're living in virtual reality, folks!

What gets me about these protestors is how fucking whiney they are. Whaah! The commie-lib MSM is ignoring us!!" Whaah! the American sheeple voted for a muslim who's gonna destroy the country. America died on November 4th." Did Free Republic marry the Democratic Underground and forget to put out a bridal registery, because I remember hearing this shit in '04 too with different names and adjectives. Same goddamn words and everything. The reactionaries, wave their little signs, scream their little protests, and then go home and shut up.

This has zip to do with the real Boston Tea Party, and for that we should be grateful. Boston Tea Party really isn't a good historical analogue. The organizers should have harkened back to the Whiskey Rebellion, when the Feds raised taxes due to high debts.

There are quite a few critical thinking fiscal (NOT SOCIAL)conservatives out there, and they do care about getting things right. They are just not in control right now. Unfortunately, it's the Freepers and the Ditto-heads who are running the show, and they might well be in the majority among conservatives. The country which Reagan presided over has changed dramatically right along with the rest of the world. The Democrats seemed to figure that out, and the Republicans didn't, and they paid for it with their self-respect and the election. I used to be proud to call my self a fiscal conservative Republican who has seen his own party hijacked and betrayed by the very elements they should have separated themselves from decades ago. Maybe this is the real reason tea parties piss me off. Not because of the protests themselves, but because every time I see the teabaggers on TV, it brings me face to face with what I've posted above.

Rant - off!


 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eleison
I just went to the chicago one. Pretty cool. A lot more younger people than I expected. There was on crazy guy that was advocating not paying taxes because "it wasn't in the constitution." People in the protest were like "get away from me.. urgh.. he doesn't represent us". There was an acorn person trying to pass out handouts and proselytizing, but people didn't really take him seriously - people were more like, "WTF are you doing here". Took pictures with my cell phone. There were a few good banners. One of them had a picture of Obama, Pelosi, and geithner together. On the top of the picture, it read "The three stooges"..

In any case, good to know, in the sea of liberals, there were a good number of fiscal conservatives. :) we should have more of these. Shocked nobody was selling swag. I wanted a souvenir, e.g., tshirt, bumper sticker, etc. to show my support.
Remember, this is NOT a partisan issue. :roll:

Like most people, I was talking about partisan as in "democrat" versus "republicans" - the official parties based in the USA. Being fiscally conservative does not preclude one from being a democrat, e.g., fiscal democrat, Blue Dog Democratic, etc. In the rally I went to, I pretty sure there were registered democrats in the crowd.

Being republican does not necessary mean being fiscally responsible -- e.g., liberal conservatism, moderate republicans.

I guess for some people it comes down to party lines. Just because people are a democrat, it doesn't necessary mean they are automatically for trillion dollar bailouts or hiring incompetent people who cannot even learn to fill out their tax forms.

I'm pretty sure registered democrats would be very upset if you told them they could only be "pro-spending", pro-obama, pro-taxes, etc. because they "registered" democrat.

I think most smart people know to what is important to them -- instead of being told by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. During the rally regardless if they "registered" democrat or republican, they know that taxing people to death is not the answer.

Step outside the box my friend. Just because someone is a democrat - it does not mean they automatically have to support (in their opinions) failed policies, or even a president which they may not agree with.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
There are quite a few critical thinking fiscal (NOT SOCIAL)conservatives out there, and they do care about getting things right. They are just not in control right now. Unfortunately, it's the Freepers and the Ditto-heads who are running the show, and they might well be in the majority among conservatives. The country which Reagan presided over has changed dramatically right along with the rest of the world. The Democrats seemed to figure that out, and the Republicans didn't, and they paid for it with their self-respect and the election. I used to be proud to call my self a fiscal conservative Republican who has seen his own party hijacked and betrayed by the very elements they should have separated themselves from decades ago. Maybe this is the real reason tea parties piss me off. Not because of the protests themselves, but because every time I see the teabaggers on TV, it brings me face to face with what I've posted above.

Rant - off!

I agree with this paragraph completely. There are too many in places of leadership in the republican party that have forgotten what being a conservative republican is all about. they were too wrapped up in trying to emulate the democrats that they have lost thier way and sacrificed the principles that define us. They thought they could win with a candidate that tried to hit the 'middle' as much as possible thinking that that was the only way to win support from the people. Conservative ideas can resanate with people if its applied properly.

I know you seem to think the protests are completely useless, but I think that simply by starting this conversation, maybe, just maybe, itll wake up people around the country to do thier own homework and not listen to the news or to posters on ther internet, to form their own opinion. I agree that there is no need to stoop to the level of protests that have gone on the last 8 years, resulting in nothing but irrational hate.

 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
There are quite a few critical thinking fiscal (NOT SOCIAL)conservatives out there, and they do care about getting things right. They are just not in control right now. Unfortunately, it's the Freepers and the Ditto-heads who are running the show, and they might well be in the majority among conservatives. The country which Reagan presided over has changed dramatically right along with the rest of the world. The Democrats seemed to figure that out, and the Republicans didn't, and they paid for it with their self-respect and the election. I used to be proud to call my self a fiscal conservative Republican who has seen his own party hijacked and betrayed by the very elements they should have separated themselves from decades ago. Maybe this is the real reason tea parties piss me off. Not because of the protests themselves, but because every time I see the teabaggers on TV, it brings me face to face with what I've posted above.

Rant - off!

I agree with this paragraph completely. There are too many in places of leadership in the republican party that have forgotten what being a conservative republican is all about. they were too wrapped up in trying to emulate the democrats that they have lost thier way and sacrificed the principles that define us. They thought they could win with a candidate that tried to hit the 'middle' as much as possible thinking that that was the only way to win support from the people. Conservative ideas can resanate with people if its applied properly.

I know you seem to think the protests are completely useless, but I think that simply by starting this conversation, maybe, just maybe, itll wake up people around the country to do thier own homework and not listen to the news or to posters on ther internet, to form their own opinion. I agree that there is no need to stoop to the level of protests that have gone on the last 8 years, resulting in nothing but irrational hate.
I think you have to go back beyond these past 8 years to the past 30 or so to capture all the partisanship that has brought us to where we are today.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Robor
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a duck.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Who's responsible for re-writing the dictionary? Change of definition needed in aisle 8!
Interesting. I used to think we had a lot of liberals here at ATPN...but now I know otherwise. We have a lot of people here who 'think' they're liberals.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
The plebians being led by the rich for the cause of the rich? In other news, water is wet.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
Originally posted by: OrByte

I think you have to go back beyond these past 8 years to the past 30 or so to capture all the partisanship that has brought us to where we are today.

oh I agree, this kind of thing isnt new, its been going on for 30+ years. but it feels like in the last 10 years, its begun to skyrocket in ferocity or maybe its jsut becuase we see it publicized more.
 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
The plebians being led by the rich for the cause of the rich? In other news, water is wet.

sure their are people that follow the crowd on all sides, but that doesnt discount legitimate issues with the policies being implimented. i think part of it is that there seems to be two popular sides: those who hate the rich and those who bend over backwards for the rich.

in reality, most people are probably in the middle, at least thats where I stand. I dont hate rich people and Ill be happy for anyone doing well for themselves and support policies that promote all us getting a chance at that same success, but I also want people to be diligent enforcing the rules that keep the system as fair as possible.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Dari
The plebians being led by the rich for the cause of the rich? In other news, water is wet.
Who is really doing the fighting for the rich? The people who protest "big" govt or those who write articles minimizing their efforts and want the status quo of big govt where govt gives money from avg workers to rich people in the banking, auto, airline, you name it industry?
 

eleison

Golden Member
Mar 29, 2006
1,319
0
0
Originally posted by: Dari
The plebians being led by the rich for the cause of the rich? In other news, water is wet.
And people are still losing their jobs -- welcome to the new America!!! And don't forget to leave whatever cash you have on the front desk, those bailouts aren't going to pay for themselves. Talk about the rich, helping the rich. How much money are those CEOs from those bailout companies making?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: eleison
I just went to the chicago one. Pretty cool. A lot more younger people than I expected. There was on crazy guy that was advocating not paying taxes because "it wasn't in the constitution." People in the protest were like "get away from me.. urgh.. he doesn't represent us". There was an acorn person trying to pass out handouts and proselytizing, but people didn't really take him seriously - people were more like, "WTF are you doing here". Took pictures with my cell phone. There were a few good banners. One of them had a picture of Obama, Pelosi, and geithner together. On the top of the picture, it read "The three stooges"..

In any case, good to know, in the sea of liberals, there were a good number of fiscal conservatives. :) we should have more of these. Shocked nobody was selling swag. I wanted a souvenir, e.g., tshirt, bumper sticker, etc. to show my support.
Remember, this is NOT a partisan issue. :roll:

Like most people, I was talking about partisan as in "democrat" versus "republicans" - the official parties based in the USA. Being fiscally conservative does not preclude one from being a democrat, e.g., fiscal democrat, Blue Dog Democratic, etc. In the rally I went to, I pretty sure there were registered democrats in the crowd.

Being republican does not necessary mean being fiscally responsible -- e.g., liberal conservatism, moderate republicans.

I guess for some people it comes down to party lines. Just because people are a democrat, it doesn't necessary mean they are automatically for trillion dollar bailouts or hiring incompetent people who cannot even learn to fill out their tax forms.

I'm pretty sure registered democrats would be very upset if you told them they could only be "pro-spending", pro-obama, pro-taxes, etc. because they "registered" democrat.

I think most smart people know to what is important to them -- instead of being told by CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. During the rally regardless if they "registered" democrat or republican, they know that taxing people to death is not the answer.

Step outside the box my friend. Just because someone is a democrat - it does not mean they automatically have to support (in their opinions) failed policies, or even a president which they may not agree with.
And yet these 'protests' were filled with right wing ditto heads filled with faux outrage.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
I took time out from running my highest tax bracket business and I did a drive by at my local protest, like many, was all over the map -"Keep it a Christian Nation" posters, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax, pro-revolution(!), anti-immigration, etc. There was no goal, no cohesive rallying cry, just a bunch of folks with vaguely GOP campaign promises on signs. I mean, I would be a lot more impressed with this whole thing if it actually seemed to have a purpose, but at least around here, it was just a Republican/Anarcho-Libertarian rally masking as a protest. Where were these people when Bush was spending A BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK! in Iraq. How did Bush's spending benefit the average citizen of the United States vs. Obama's spending? Laughable. They're so factually, politically and intellectually illiterate and backwards. I don't think that the majority of people who are so fired up to attend even know what it is they're actually protesting.
There are quite a few critical thinking fiscal (NOT SOCIAL)conservatives out there, and they do care about getting things right.
I'm a social conservative, and I care about getting things right, because a socially liberal position seems to be a pretty nasty alternative on quite a few points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xldzMVL6Iqk

The absolute most that you can possibly hope to prove is that all protests, from either circle, are usually populated by the factually, politically, and intellectually backwards illiterate types.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Robor
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a duck.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Who's responsible for re-writing the dictionary? Change of definition needed in aisle 8!
Interesting. I used to think we had a lot of liberals here at ATPN...but now I know otherwise. We have a lot of people here who 'think' they're liberals.
No, we have people being labeled as "liberals" whenever someone doesn't like what they have to say.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Like everything else on P&N this thread is a waste of time...
Why don't you go back to predicting the economy and telling us how great it is?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Originally posted by: boomerang
Originally posted by: Robor
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's a duck.
lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

Who's responsible for re-writing the dictionary? Change of definition needed in aisle 8!
Interesting. I used to think we had a lot of liberals here at ATPN...but now I know otherwise. We have a lot of people here who 'think' they're liberals.
No, we have people being labeled as "liberals" whenever someone doesn't like what they have to say.
Is "liberal" an insult to you?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Dari
The plebians being led by the rich for the cause of the rich? In other news, water is wet.
Who is really doing the fighting for the rich? The people who protest "big" govt or those who write articles minimizing their efforts and want the status quo of big govt where govt gives money from avg workers to rich people in the banking, auto, airline, you name it industry?
Who do you think is funding these tea parties because of a concern of a 3% tax hike on the richest Americans? I don't really understand it in any other terms considering the vast majority of Americans are not getting a tax hike.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY