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

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
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.
Don't leave your mind so open your brain falls out. Maybe you need a lesson on what being open minded actually means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Originally posted by: Dari
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.
These protests were more than taxation. People were complaining about the size and scope of govt as well. Who is funding it? I dont know, do you? But my point stands. Are the people who are pushing the status quo where trillions are given to the rich on wall street and banking, airline, ect fighting for the rich? Or are people who are protesting the size of govt who are sick of the handouts?
 

trooper11

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


ok why is this any different from any orginized protest? wether its a liberal group or a conservative group, there will also be some group helping fund these large, organized rallies/protests/ etc. damn, is it really so bad to have money in this country....


anyway, the reason many people are upset is that they know (or think they know, depending on your point of view) that when you spend alot of money, espcially money you dont really have, when the bill comes in, someone has to pay. In the context of the governement, they never have to make hard choices about cutting back, they rely on things like taxes to make up any losses. So when there is a percieved crisis as there is now, which involves a bad economy, and any president announces large amounts of spending, people realize that usually leads to higher taxes, inflation, or both.

now of course there is more to it then that, and we can argue about what these policies will specifically do down the road, but thats where I think the outrage comes from.


also, these were more about just higher taxes, regardless of how you or anyone may characterize it, so it wasnt just one idea that is being brought up here. the discussions about taxation, the size of government, the role of government, are ideas taht will be argued until the end of time. These ideas should be spoken out about more, on both sides, thats the only way we move forward.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
38
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Dari
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.
These protests were more than taxation. People were complaining about the size and scope of govt as well. Who is funding it? I dont know, do you? But my point stands. Are the people who are pushing the status quo where trillions are given to the rich on wall street and banking, airline, ect fighting for the rich? Or are people who are protesting the size of govt who are sick of the handouts?
I don't think it's any different. My only gripe is that there is nothing grassroots about this. If anything, it's like the rich are playing both sides for suckers.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Dari
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.


ok why is this any different from any orginized protest? wether its a liberal group or a conservative group, there will also be some group helping fund these large, organized rallies/protests/ etc. damn, is it really so bad to have money in this country....


anyway, the reason many people are upset is that they know (or think they know, depending on your point of view) that when you spend alot of money, espcially money you dont really have, when the bill comes in, someone has to pay. In the context of the governement, they never have to make hard choices about cutting back, they rely on things like taxes to make up any losses. So when there is a percieved crisis as there is now, which involves a bad economy, and any president announces large amounts of spending, people realize that usually leads to higher taxes, inflation, or both.

now of course there is more to it then that, and we can argue about what these policies will specifically do down the road, but thats where I think the outrage comes from.
That might be why people across the country are upset or angry, but the proliferation of "socialist/fascist/nazi" with pics of Obama that so many protesters are holding up might tip you off that the outrage of the teabaggers has ulterior motives. Where were they when Bush was cutting taxes while lavishly spending? Didn't seem so outraged then to watch the deficit soar...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Originally posted by: jonks


That might be why people across the country are upset or angry, but the proliferation of "socialist/fascist/nazi" with pics of Obama that so many protesters are holding up might tip you off that the outrage of the teabaggers has ulterior motives. Where were they when Bush was cutting taxes while lavishly spending? Didn't seem so outraged then to watch the deficit soar...
Probably protesting something of Bush with the same signs but different face. Funny how this is a big deal to the left when before it was completely acceptable for Bush's face to be superimposed over Hitler.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jonks


That might be why people across the country are upset or angry, but the proliferation of "socialist/fascist/nazi" with pics of Obama that so many protesters are holding up might tip you off that the outrage of the teabaggers has ulterior motives. Where were they when Bush was cutting taxes while lavishly spending? Didn't seem so outraged then to watch the deficit soar...
Probably protesting something of Bush with the same signs but different face. Funny how this is a big deal to the left when before it was completely acceptable for Bush's face to be superimposed over Hitler.
Come on... Even you don't believe that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: Dari
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.
ok why is this any different from any orginized protest? wether its a liberal group or a conservative group, there will also be some group helping fund these large, organized rallies/protests/ etc. damn, is it really so bad to have money in this country....


anyway, the reason many people are upset is that they know (or think they know, depending on your point of view) that when you spend alot of money, espcially money you dont really have, when the bill comes in, someone has to pay. In the context of the governement, they never have to make hard choices about cutting back, they rely on things like taxes to make up any losses. So when there is a percieved crisis as there is now, which involves a bad economy, and any president announces large amounts of spending, people realize that usually leads to higher taxes, inflation, or both.

now of course there is more to it then that, and we can argue about what these policies will specifically do down the road, but thats where I think the outrage comes from.
And I think where the suspicion of their motives comes in is the incredible silence for eight years of massive deficit spending by the previous Republican administration, and then this immediate protest the other way. I mean Medicare Part D alone, passed by a Republican President and a Republican Congress, added $8 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. Somehow that $8 trillion worth of future debt didn't merit a peep, but a $1 trillion debt sends people into the streets!

Republicans have been worried for a long time that their charges of 'tax and spend librul' were losing their effectiveness due to how much the previous administration spent. This is just an effort to reassert that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jonks


That might be why people across the country are upset or angry, but the proliferation of "socialist/fascist/nazi" with pics of Obama that so many protesters are holding up might tip you off that the outrage of the teabaggers has ulterior motives. Where were they when Bush was cutting taxes while lavishly spending? Didn't seem so outraged then to watch the deficit soar...
Probably protesting something of Bush with the same signs but different face. Funny how this is a big deal to the left when before it was completely acceptable for Bush's face to be superimposed over Hitler.
He's not saying that they can't do it, just that their motivations might be a little different.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: jonks
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.
Don't leave your mind so open your brain falls out. Maybe you need a lesson on what being open minded actually means.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Nice video...very well done. Not sure why you think I need a lesson here though...please elaborate.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,063
495
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jonks


That might be why people across the country are upset or angry, but the proliferation of "socialist/fascist/nazi" with pics of Obama that so many protesters are holding up might tip you off that the outrage of the teabaggers has ulterior motives. Where were they when Bush was cutting taxes while lavishly spending? Didn't seem so outraged then to watch the deficit soar...
Probably protesting something of Bush with the same signs but different face. Funny how this is a big deal to the left when before it was completely acceptable for Bush's face to be superimposed over Hitler.
Come on... Even you don't believe that.
I witnessed it repeatedly. Where were you?
 

microbial

Senior member
Oct 10, 2008
350
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.
I think there is more here than meets the eye. Politically motivated, no doubt.

Sure, the super wealthy have an overly developed self-interest, but realistically it may be no more than the average person.

What the super wealthy DO have is the Cayman islands and lots of other shelters. Tommy DeLay made sure of that, so they don't need these "grass roots" displays of false outrage.

The fox is starting to smell a little more rotten than before...
 

trooper11

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

And I think where the suspicion of their motives comes in is the incredible silence for eight years of massive deficit spending by the previous Republican administration, and then this immediate protest the other way. I mean Medicare Part D alone, passed by a Republican President and a Republican Congress, added $8 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. Somehow that $8 trillion worth of future debt didn't merit a peep, but a $1 trillion debt sends people into the streets!

Republicans have been worried for a long time that their charges of 'tax and spend librul' were losing their effectiveness due to how much the previous administration spent. This is just an effort to reassert that.



and thats fair, but dont try to say there werent real people upset about this over the past few years. its one thing to single out the leaders, which I agree have not been holding true to the ideals I support as a conservative, its another thing to make a blanket statement that these people that wanted to be part of these protests were all in favor of the spending/growing of government that has been going on. I know I was upset with the Medicare issue when it passed.

and there is a simple reason the 'tax and spend liberal' msg doesnt work anymore: republican leaders are doing the same thing!

ive given up on the current leadership in the party, most dont seem willing to give up greed in washington and go back to ideals those who elected them have. Its going to take new republican leadership to start drawing real contrast and to start promoting those dieals honestly.

 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: eskimospy

And I think where the suspicion of their motives comes in is the incredible silence for eight years of massive deficit spending by the previous Republican administration, and then this immediate protest the other way. I mean Medicare Part D alone, passed by a Republican President and a Republican Congress, added $8 trillion worth of unfunded future liabilities. Somehow that $8 trillion worth of future debt didn't merit a peep, but a $1 trillion debt sends people into the streets!

Republicans have been worried for a long time that their charges of 'tax and spend librul' were losing their effectiveness due to how much the previous administration spent. This is just an effort to reassert that.

and thats fair, but dont try to say there werent real people upset about this over the past few years. its one thing to single out the leaders, which I agree have not been holding true to the ideals I support as a conservative, its another thing to make a blanket statement that these people that wanted to be part of these protests were all in favor of the spending/growing of government that has been going on. I know I was upset with the Medicare issue when it passed.

and there is a simple reason the 'tax and spend liberal' msg doesnt work anymore: republican leaders are doing the same thing!

ive given up on the current leadership in the party, most dont seem willing to give up greed in washington and go back to ideals those who elected them have. Its going to take new republican leadership to start drawing real contrast and to start promoting those dieals honestly.
So if these protests were 'grassroots' as the organizers claim, why wasn't there a single one when a program causing many times more debt was put into place? Sure their leadership is hypocritical, that's to be expected. All political leadership shifts with the winds.

So if you guys were so upset with Bush, why don't I see any signs condemning Bush? (or if there are, very few) He piled up way way more debt than Obama has... and while sure he had a lot more time to do it, it seems awfully dishonest to ignore $10+ trillion in debt from the guy that left office 3 months ago while furiously attacking the guy that added $1+ trillion.
 

trooper11

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


So if these protests were 'grassroots' as the organizers claim, why wasn't there a single one when a program causing many times more debt was put into place? Sure their leadership is hypocritical, that's to be expected. All political leadership shifts with the winds.

So if you guys were so upset with Bush, why don't I see any signs condemning Bush? (or if there are, very few) He piled up way way more debt than Obama has... and while sure he had a lot more time to do it, it seems awfully dishonest to ignore $10+ trillion in debt from the guy that left office 3 months ago while furiously attacking the guy that added $1+ trillion.



secondly, your once again making a blanket statement. you didnt see any signs agaisnt Bush, does that mean there was no opposition among the average joe conservative? one thing that im surpised people dont understand is that alot or most conservatives dont get out to protest like they really should I guess. To be honest, you just dont hear about rallies centered around conservatives as you hear about the other way.

but there has been a large amount of dissappointment from people I know about what Bush did and what Obama is continuing to do. Look, it comes down to the fact that if you dont believe the ideas the protests are about, then your not going to believe the people that agree with those ideas. I get it that its hard to believe there is a general collective of people upset with these practices regardless of the president in office, but there is, it just isnt as loud as the groups we usually hear about.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...w/archives/026359.html

Just as I was telling someone the other day, the GOP is overrunning the "Ron Paul Revolution," for three reasons. One, it is a movement they want to quash. Two, it is the only thing left in the party that has any momentum of which to grab hold, and three, to use it against the current administration.

Of course it is no surprise to many that Republicans revert back to being fiscally conservative when Democrats control the Oval Office.
 

trooper11

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


Of course it is no surprise to many that Republicans revert back to being fiscally conservative when Democrats control the Oval Office.


that is the sad part. if these leaders would stick to those ideals regardless, then there would be no case of hypocracy and alot more people would be receptive to the conservative principals



also, i think one thing to remember if that there also a devide over what spending someone is for and what spending someone is against. there are some things that everyone agrees money should be spent on, but there are others that are up for debate.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,359
25,096
136
Originally posted by: trooper11
Originally posted by: eskimospy


So if these protests were 'grassroots' as the organizers claim, why wasn't there a single one when a program causing many times more debt was put into place? Sure their leadership is hypocritical, that's to be expected. All political leadership shifts with the winds.

So if you guys were so upset with Bush, why don't I see any signs condemning Bush? (or if there are, very few) He piled up way way more debt than Obama has... and while sure he had a lot more time to do it, it seems awfully dishonest to ignore $10+ trillion in debt from the guy that left office 3 months ago while furiously attacking the guy that added $1+ trillion.



secondly, your once again making a blanket statement. you didnt see any signs agaisnt Bush, does that mean there was no opposition among the average joe conservative? one thing that im surpised people dont understand is that alot or most conservatives dont get out to protest like they really should I guess. To be honest, you just dont hear about rallies centered around conservatives as you hear about the other way.

but there has been a large amount of dissappointment from people I know about what Bush did and what Obama is continuing to do. Look, it comes down to the fact that if you dont believe the ideas the protests are about, then your not going to believe the people that agree with those ideas. I get it that its hard to believe there is a general collective of people upset with these practices regardless of the president in office, but there is, it just isnt as loud as the groups we usually hear about.
I'm making a statement specifically about the people attending those rallies. I don't care if people sitting at home feel a certain way, because I'm not talking about them. I have seen absolutely no evidence that they are comparably outraged with Bush's spending policies, as the people I have seen interviewed along with the signs that I have seen overwhelmingly attack Obama. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would very much like to see it. Show me evidence of undercovered conservative protests during the Bush administration, show me evidence of significant anti-Bush sentiment at these protests. Considering all the coverage they got it shouldn't be hard.

I disagree with what these protests are about, I think the government isn't spending enough. That doesn't mean that I can't objectively look at the whole deal and notice a striking disparity with the protests before and after say... mid January 2009.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,413
616
126
wrong wrong wrong :|, it was actually rick santelli of CNBC and the bailing out of the homeowners. get your facts right.:|



Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
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!
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Is "liberal" an insult to you?
Not anywhere near as insulting as being labeled a Social Conservative
I'm afraid I don't consider that an insult. That's simply a fact in my case.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,007
571
126
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: jonks


That might be why people across the country are upset or angry, but the proliferation of "socialist/fascist/nazi" with pics of Obama that so many protesters are holding up might tip you off that the outrage of the teabaggers has ulterior motives. Where were they when Bush was cutting taxes while lavishly spending? Didn't seem so outraged then to watch the deficit soar...
Probably protesting something of Bush with the same signs but different face. Funny how this is a big deal to the left when before it was completely acceptable for Bush's face to be superimposed over Hitler.
Come on... Even you don't believe that.
Uh...yeah? There were more pictures of Bush compared to Hitler, I'd wager, than Hitler compared to Hitler.
 

trooper11

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

I'm making a statement specifically about the people attending those rallies. I don't care if people sitting at home feel a certain way, because I'm not talking about them. I have seen absolutely no evidence that they are comparably outraged with Bush's spending policies, as the people I have seen interviewed along with the signs that I have seen overwhelmingly attack Obama. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would very much like to see it. Show me evidence of undercovered conservative protests during the Bush administration, show me evidence of significant anti-Bush sentiment at these protests. Considering all the coverage they got it shouldn't be hard.

I disagree with what these protests are about, I think the government isn't spending enough. That doesn't mean that I can't objectively look at the whole deal and notice a striking disparity with the protests before and after say... mid January 2009.
no no, you didnt read my reply correctly. i explicidley mentioned why you didnt see a bunch of rallies agaisnt bush like youve seen from other groups. Most of the time (at least for the past couple of decades that Ive paid attention to it), conservatives (again, talking about average joes, not leaders), just dont do thier share of outraged protesting. this is a good or bad thing depending on your perspective, but its true. Most of these people just dont get out and do these sorts of things, thats why Im suprised at how many average people went out and got involved.

As far as evidence of the mindset of people going to these rallies, I would hope that you arent going to assume that becuase we see news reports about wackos (yes, there are wackos on both sides) that you will then apply that to each and every one of the hundreds of thousands of people across the country were just wackos. My evidence isnt any more crediable then those that come through the news. I wasnt able to go and if you didnt either, then all we have is 2nd hand accounts. The people I know that attended here locally didnt witness what we've heard in the news, so its fair to say there were plenty of 'normal' people there.

The point I agree with you on is that there should have been more outcry before now, but Im still not going to downplay the outcry becuase it needed to happen.

I may disagree about how much the government should be spending and how it should be spending what it has, but I wouldnt have a beef with people getting together to protest the lack of spending for instance, just a beef with the idea.





 

trooper11

Senior member
Aug 12, 2004
343
0
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Uh...yeah? There were more pictures of Bush compared to Hitler, I'd wager, than Hitler compared to Hitler.

seriously, why anyone would try to argue that extreme acts like that didnt happen on a regular basis is beyond me. there are plenty of more useful things to debate.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY