Crash the tea party

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3144

An interesting interview on where our federal taxes go.

Nice, but it's wrong.

According to the CBO for 2009:

Discretionary Spending: 1,237.0 B$
Programmatic Spending (entitlements): 2,288.7 B$
Net Interest: 187.3 B$
Offsetting receipts: -194.7 B$
total spending: 3,518.2 B$

Entitlements are 65% of spending.

Defense was 655.8, so 18.6% (close tot he claim above).

That only leaves ~16% for everything else.

[Platapus]

Well the CBO should know.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

I use more of the fire department? I also pay more property tax—that's what it's for. We're talking FEDERAL right now. There is no way I use 100X more of ANYTHING provided by the government.

The point is richer people have more at stake and are thus more reliant on federal protection to keep that safe. I threw in police and fire because those are funded primarily by local and state tax monies, but the idea remains the same if you restrict it to national defense if you want to keep it solely from a federal standpoint.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by tater

While there are certainly some idiots like those sign holders, what about Obama supporters in Che shirts? Or Obama campaign offices with a Che poster?

Just as idiotic. Whoever implied they weren't? First, he's not at all like Ernesto (a Marxist), and second, how are these supporters of him in Che Guevara shirts at all related to the topic of racism which we were discussing (Che was a man who campaigned against racism and discrimination in the lower Americas LONG before the United States passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 and the Voting Rights Act of 1964)?

Originally Posted by tater

That would have been like a McCain rally or office with some iconic, but minor Nazi figure on shirts.

Depends; who is this "iconic, but minor Nazi figure" you speak of that they'd put on shirts or a flag or poster?

Originally Posted by tater

I've seen baby onesies with Che on them.

My god what's the world coming to when the Time Magazine shot of the face of an Argentinian Marxist revolutionary who's been dead 43 years appears on a piece of clothing? Why they have no right to do this without receiving justified scrutiny. Out of my own curiosity, is this mentality limited just to Che, or all political bits of clothing- like these Republican and Democrat baby t-shirts:

http://www.lalababyboutique.com/lil-...t-550-prd1.htm

http://www.lalababyboutique.com/lil-...t-549-prd1.htm

Originally Posted by tater

You can guess the political bumper sticker on THAT hybrid, can't you?

"Warning! IN CASE OF RAPTURE, THIS CAR WILL BE UNMANNED"?

Originally Posted by tater

Obama as a monkey? I've see the Bush/Monkey images,

We all have.

Originally Posted by tater

what's the difference, we're all evolved from common ancestors, both Obama and Bush are Homo sapiens, after all?

Chimpanzees are not monkeys. There is a difference. We are more closely related to chimps... but then again you knew that right?

"Monkey" has been used as a racial slur towards blacks in particular for centuries. People once believed, because of their high cranium, blacks were close cousins to primates. Look into the 18th and 19th century eugenic-like beliefs people held about Africans sometime. You know that, I know that. "Porch monkeys", "Bo-bos" (Bo-bo the Monkey, the zoo sideshow?), "Changos" (Spanish for monkey), "monkeyboys", "monos" (common Old English term for monkeys)... do I really need to go on with the things they call them?

If you didn't know any of this, I feel sorry for how sheltered you must have been as a child.

And now, this is the part where you say "What about the whites?" Well it's not right to call them things like "cracker" or "whiteboys" either. Just as it's not right to call Middle Easterners "sand n***ers", Indians "Jalals", Hispanics "Pacos", etc. But this was not started as an argument by me over which side does more, or which side is doing it- because they're both getting minority numbers that are doing it. To deny that they are to claim that only one side is doing it is nothing short of ignorant.

Originally Posted by tater

The problem is that people combed huge rallies, and we get to see every scumbag poster on the news as if it was most of them, or even a large %.

Evidently the people around them didn't care too much; otherwise, they would have stopped them- or at the least said "Hey man, we don't do racism here." But they haven't. That's what I resent more than anything.

Originally Posted by tater

During the Bush Admin,

We're not talking about the Bush Administration; this is the Obama Administration...

Originally Posted by tater

OTOH, the news breathlessly covered anti-war protests, and never once mentioned that the sponsor of many big protests—ANSWER—is in fact a communist organization.

What are you on about now?

Originally Posted by tater

The didn;t have a problem with burning Bush in effigy, nor were they overly concerned about posters of W with a crosshair on him.

No, you're exactly right, they didn't. And neither did the folks burning and hanging Obama effigies, Sarah Palin effigies, and Hillary Clinton effigies. What's your point?

Originally Posted by tater

Anyone here every read the huffpo, or dailykos?

No, I refrain from it as often as I can. I stick to the Associated Press.

Originally Posted by tater

If they are not smart enough to disable comments, check it out when the news reports some, heck, ANY Republican as sick or going to the doctor. Comments overflow with death wishes.

It's ridiculous how these people are acting, let alone the scare tactics their higher-ups are using. Concentration camps, death panels, the end of freedom, the destruction of the whole country... could they overreact a little more I wonder? Funnily enough, all other industrialized nations in the Western hemisphere have universal health care and have managed to avoid these things... unless our neighbors to the north and south are conspiring...

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Tater... you have to look at group psychology

its only wrong when its the other guys doing it

It's this exact idiotic mentality that keeps this tunnel a'churnin' (nevermind the very irony of this statement). One person on one side acts ugly, then another person on another side thinks it's okay to be just as moronic and do it too, returning the favor. BOTH sides should be gearing up (Tea Party members and anti-Tea Party members) to deal with these vermin waving around Confederate flags and whatnot. No sense at all in it.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I have heard enough of this racism crap

Good; then you can start helping us to get rid of these bastards and finally put an end to their shenanigans.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

how many of those racists are "planted"?

Well, GR, since you're the first person to imply some/most of them were planted, why don't you tell us with sources for your answers instead of playing this tired old "It's all fake" card. Do you really think you can get an organization like this going (let alone at this kind of strength in numbers) and not have racism pop up into it? Of course not. It's a statistical certainty, let alone when a black man is president- not to say that white presidents don't get as much flak from black racists. To say "There is no racism entering into this issue; there's no such thing in politics" is an absurdity of common knowledge/sense.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

one has to wonder.

Why don't you find out already since you were the first to suggest they were?

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

but you're right... Bush has been monkey imaged plenty enough himself... like you said, whats the difference?

He's white; the racial slur comparing blacks to monkeys has been exclusively as such. And I explained why already to Tater.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

well

Answer one: There isnt a difference

Between the slurs, there is. You wouldn't call an Irish-American guy a "sand n***er", just as you wouldn't call an Asian a "mottisa" (this term refers to the African "indentured servants" of England and the Colonies, when they would offer their owners "More tea, sir?").

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Answer two: Bush is white, so you can say or write or doodle anything you want about him and its ok

I can't call him a "cracker" or a "mouse" without being racist, because these are slur terms specifically reserved for whites; just like you can't call a black man a "n***er" or a "monkey" without being racist- because these are slurs specifically reserved for their race.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

which answer you go with depends on whether you lean left or right.

But moreover on what race you are, because these are racial slurs- not political slurs. Such racial slurs may be inspired by politics, but they are not (by their very use of terminology and definition) political slurs. I suggest you pick up a dictionary or consult Google to get a better look at what the differences are. With that said, slurs are slurs; there's no need for anyone to use them.

Originally Posted by August

First off they're not the cohesive and organized national group you think they are and their very narrow agenda is going to attract support from a wide range of people. That doesn't mean the movement is suddenly endorsing anything beyond the the issues it was created to address.

Well they are a nationally coordinated group of protesters that are (amongst other things) united in their belief in Fiscal Conservatism and are generally opposed to the federal government... in that regards I consider them to be as such. But on, I personally have found their agenda to not be narrow. Like I said, they just belief in the political theory of Fiscal Conservatism- they don't really offer any solutions to the things they disagree with. Like the health care bill. The general clamor was "It's going to ruin us. It's the end of freedom as we know it. We have to repeal it to keep Obama from destroying the country!" While that's all fair and good, they did nothing to suggest changes that could be made to the bill Congress was working on and instead took a stance of "THROW IT ALL OUT! IT'S SOCIALISM!" The problem I have seen time and time again with these kinds of people is that if the legislation doesn't fix the issue it's tackling immediately, then they're automatically opposed to it. They want quick fixes to these types of problems, but the fact of the matter is there are no quick solutions to the issue of health care. Or more relevantly, the economy. Solutions proposed and passed by the government that have turned the stock market around to where it was have been (particularly the stimulus package) ridiculed because they did not fix the issue of employment immediately. Now we're recovering, more than we were anyway, but it's still not solving the problem en masse. When you have this kind of economic meltdown, how can you honestly expect anything to be created that will all of a sudden just solve all the problems? It's a mystery to me how they get this mentality.

Originally Posted by August

Secondly, I'll agree with you that some of those posters you show are way over the top, but the lefts crocodile tears about it don't impress me after 8 years of their engaging in the same type of thing.

It's not just a "left" thing, though. It's not just a "right" thing either. Simply put, we should have no tolerance for it at all, no matter what side does it. It's just plain unnecessary, it provokes staunch intolerance for one another, it makes us look like a bunch of senseless, indecent hooligans, and there's no justifiable reason why we don't join together and stop it from happening- at least in these protests-- for both sides.

Originally Posted by August

For every picture you posted I can show you one made about Bush that was just as bad or worse.

Go for it.

Originally Posted by August

However given the lefts history of using agent provocateurs, one has to wonder whether the people holding them are real Tea Partyers or some divisive ass like that Jason Levin trying to marginalize and discredit the voices of American citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

Well would you and GoldenRivet care to show us that they were? There's no reason to assume they're plants. There really isn't. I keep on hearing claims (not just here necessarily) that they are, but that's it. No citations, no sources, nothing outside of baseless claims. So why say they are if you can't show/don't definitively know they are?

Originally Posted by August

We'll find out what the American people think about it come November.

True. Personally, I'm more worried about what they know/don't know (in terms of knowledge, that is) than what their opinions are. Perhaps this is just a trend that will die like the others we've had before. I hope so before it gets serious.

[CaptainHaplo]

There's no reason to assume they're plants. There really isn't. I keep on hearing claims (not just here necessarily) that they are, but that's it. No citations, no sources, nothing outside of baseless claims

Well had you paid much attention to what the focus of this was - an attempt to bring down the tea party - you would have noted that the person advocating such was in fact advocating exactly what is being discussed - infiltrating the gatherings, acting like an ass to present the group as extremist, etc - as well as "data mining" - trying to get people's names, addresses, SSN's etc.

He is currently under investigation by the school board.

http://www.examiner.com/x-42345-Tea-...y-school-board

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ish-tea-party/

To say its simply a "claim" when the reality is that it has been advocated publicly by tea party opposition - shows how naive you are. If its being shouted from the rooptops - its been spoken on in the alleys for some time.

Now - should both sides grow the heck up. Sure they should. None of us can hold our breath for that, unfortunately. Its also interesting to note that the call is for people to infiltrate and make them appear as something they are not - if they were "racists" or "extremists" - it wouldn't take people to infiltrate them now would it?

On the issue of Che shirts.... the issue is that they publicly show support for those who represent and favored a specific system - yet they also claim that "oh we are not for socialism, or communism, or violently repressing opposition, etc".... Thats called talking out of both sides of the mouth.....

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Well, GR, since you're the first person to imply some/most of them were planted...

I did not imply that they were planted.

I only raised the question of wondering IF any of them were... meaning there is the possibility that some were or were not planted. I did not deal in any absolute as your statement there implies.

for example... I did not say "437 of them were planted."

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I can't call him a "cracker" or a "mouse" without being racist, because these are slur terms specifically reserved for whites; just like you can't call a black man a "n***er"

case in point.

explain to me one thing... if the terms you used in your example here are mutually offensive racist terms...

why does the word "******" have to be "starred out" but the word "cracker" doesnt?

digest that a minute and then get back to me

edit: apparently neither of them are automatically edited by Subsim... so this means YOU edited the terms yourself.

so why the double standard?

(you know... the one i have been talking about all along)

[tater]

There have been documented discussions about plants.

Regardless, the Bush Administration IS relevant. If those in the political, talking head class complain about the Tea Party, they open themselves up to examination on how they responded to anti-W protests.

The fact is quite simply that nothing was investigated WRT anti-war, anti-W protests. Nothing at all. It was taken at face value—it was nationally organized and sponsored—more so than the tea party stuff. By ANSWER, which as a commie organization implicitly supports the murder of over 100 million people. Being communist is no different than being nazi—except that the commies have a higher body count (hard as that is to comprehend—the horror of nazism is beyond human capacity to really understand, then triple or quadruple it... yeesh).

The tea parties are actually far more grass-roots. It gets talked about nationally on the radio, but it's not like it's being organized by some office in DC.

I didn't name a specific nazi figure, because all the well known ones are clearly worse than Che. Of course Che is only well-known because he's become a popular icon, even though he is in fact a stand in for soviet era expansionist communism—that murdered people by the tens of millions. So pick some camp commandant loved by other murdering nazis, then spend decades using him as a pop icon and get back to me. Course you can;t because people rightly hate nazis, but wrongly give commies a pass. <shrug>

I named Che not in reference to racism. He might have been ant-racism, but as a commie, he was pro-mass murder. That's the thing about communist murder, it was not aimed at some race or other factor. It was the party office calling up a village and saying, "execute 100 enemies of the state by a week from next tuesday." It was random in many cases (read The Black Book fo Communism, or Death By Government for more—the former has a low figure for Soviet murder in the mid 30 millions, Rummel figured on closer to 60M in DBG). I also mentioned it because there are images of Obama campaign offices with Che posters on the wall.

Regarding Pan troglodytes, is your suggestion that it is OK to call Obama a chimp because we share more genetic material with them than we do with monkeys?

How about it's either OK to call a human being a chimp or monkey as a slur, or it's not?

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Well would you and GoldenRivet care to show us that they were? There's no reason to assume they're plants. There really isn't. I keep on hearing claims (not just here necessarily) that they are, but that's it. No citations, no sources, nothing outside of baseless claims. So why say they are if you can't show/don't definitively know they are?

Well that's odd, given I mean that this thread is about someone recruiting for that exact type of thing.

But this is nothing new. Remember that Cincinnati Dem Congressman who claimed that Tea Party supporters threw a rock through his window for instance? Turns out it didn't actually happen. http://www.examiner.com/x-16044-Christianity--Politics-Examiner~y2010m3d26-No-rocks-through-Driehaus-Cincinnati-office-window That hasn't stopped the MSM from continuing to play up the story as fact.

Then there are the claims by certain Democrat Congressmen that Tea Party supporters were spitting and hurling racial insults and threats at them on the Capitol steps, yet amazingly not one of these incidents is caught on tape in spite of about a gazillion cameras and microphones right there manned by people just hoping to record something like that for the evening news.

Come to think about it why were those congress critters walking through the crowd at all? They certainly didn't have to do that. It sounds to me like they were trying to incite a response like that and when it didn't happen they just made it up.

As a matter of fact the only violence relating to the Tea Party that has been caught on tape is where Democrat supporters beat up that guy who was handing out Gadsen flags in Ft. Lauderdale.

... before it gets serious.

I think it's too late for that. The Democrats went out of their way to poison the political landscape during the Bush administration and now those chickens have come home to roost.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Hmmm...I'm curious about something: is it an amazing coincidence that the Tea Partiers only appeared after a Democrat became President? Where were they when Bush was blowing billions?

I know the official talking point is that they are against governmental spending during all administrations, and yet..they only mobilized with Obama.

Somehow, I think if a Republican President were elected, and he (PLEASE be a he, or at least not an idiot) was forced to spend billions for whatever reason, they'd be as quiet as a tomb about it.

[GoldenRivet]

I could say it was because the masses felt threatened by terrorism.

After 9/11 fear gripped the nation... and terror was redefined for America, it crept into our psyche as a nation.

Bush (actually congress) - in many minds - was spending billions trying to "keep us safe" from this deadly enemy.

Obama on the other hand.

He is changing many aspects of our personal lives, with one government intrusion at a time.

thus the organization of TEA parties.

one thing ill add...

something like a TEA party organization doesnt crop up over night... they come from people being more and more pissed off for years... sometimes more than a decade.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I could say it was because the masses felt threatened by terrorism.

After 9/11 fear gripped the nation... and terror was redefined for America, it crept into our psyche as a nation.

Bush (actually congress) - in many minds - was spending billions trying to "keep us safe" from this deadly enemy.

Obama on the other hand.

He is changing many aspects of our personal lives, with one government intrusion at a time.

Do you have no problem with corporations invading your life?

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Do you have no problem with corporations invading your life?

yes... specifically when my government comes out and says "You have to do business with XXX corporation or pay a fine and go to jail."

[Aramike]

Hmmm...I'm curious about something: is it an amazing coincidence that the Tea Partiers only appeared after a Democrat became President? Where were they when Bush was blowing billions?

That's such a garbage argument.

Even if Bush was "blowing billions" in unjustified spending the core difference is that he wasn't invading the private sector nor was he taking over 1/6 of our economy in ANYTHING.

But that being said, the reason that argument doesn't fly is simple: what justifies throwing good money after bad?

Oh, and have you not been informed that Obama has already outspent Bush's ***8*** YEARS? Oh, and wasn't Obama a Senator for some of that time?

Somehow, I think if a Republican President were elected, and he (PLEASE be a he, or at least not an idiot) was forced to spend billions for whatever reason, they'd be as quiet as a tomb about it.

I cannot believe that you're so blind as to see the fundamental difference in the spending by the different administrations.

I'm pretty sure that if a Republican attempted to do anything akin to what Obama has done, there would be a similar response.

But here, let me put this in bold for you so maybe you'll really take this point in:

It's not simply that the money is being spent which is the problem, it's WHAT THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT ON.

[August]

Originally Posted by Torvald Von Mansee

Hmmm...I'm curious about something: is it an amazing coincidence that the Tea Partiers only appeared after a Democrat became President? Where were they when Bush was blowing billions?
I know the official talking point is that they are against governmental spending during all administrations, and yet..they only mobilized with Obama.

Somehow, I think if a Republican President were elected, and he (PLEASE be a he, or at least not an idiot) was forced to spend billions for whatever reason, they'd be as quiet as a tomb about it.

Well I'm curious about something too. What happened to all those anti-patriot act protesters of the past decade? Is it an amazing coincidence that they have suddenly become quiet as a tomb now that the Democrats, many of them the same ones who voted for the act, are now in power?

It's funny to see you mention Bush spending billions when your Democrats have already spent Trillions and are pushing to spend way more.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

yes... specifically when my government comes out and says "You have to do business with XXX corporation or pay a fine and go to jail."

Just like when the states do that for car insurance? Gub'mint is Gub'mint.