Just thought I would stop by. It was on Freedom Plaza downtown. I have to say a couple of things about the experience. First, if this was representative of the movement, the main stream media is really making this out to be a lot more looney than it actually is. I agreed with about 1% of what I heard, but for the most part, their opinions weren't looney, racist, gun-toting crap. They were, while simplistic and even irrational, legitimate opinions. Second, I didn't sense one ounce of hostility of violence. No one threatened anyone else. There were a bunch of non-Tea Party protesters there who obviously disagreed with them, but they were treated with respect and inter-mixed with the ralliers with no incidents. In fact, I also attended the IMF protest in 2004 and I was far more worried for my safety there than at this place. In sum, I think the media may be pulling a fast one on the public. Yes, I disagree with a lot of what they say. But no, these people aren't violent loonies.

Any black people in the crowd? Were they preaching old school religion and no government regulations?

Was Palin using her crib notes?

There were black people in the crowd, but I don't think they were TP's. I think a lot of folks at the rally, myslef included, were just curious to see what the spectacle was. There were lots of signs and shirts about debt, Obamacare, limited gov't, etc., but about 90% of what I heard was about getting out the vote in Nov. Nothing too inflammatory.

Well the media has certainly made the Tea Party look like a bunch of redneck, gun toting terrorist quacks.

Yes, the media has. I'm starting to wonder if their portrayal has more to do with their own inherent biases than reality. The TPs are not people I'd want to have over for dinner, but these aren't violent right-wing nuts...at least from what I saw. Having viewed a Code Pink rally in 2005, this group felt like a cub scout troop.

LollingLibertine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the media has. I'm starting to wonder if
> their portrayal has more to do with their own
> inherent biases than reality. The TPs are not
> people I'd want to have over for dinner, but these
> aren't violent right-wing nuts...at least from
> what I saw. Having viewed a Code Pink rally in
> 2005, this group felt like a cub scout troop.

I wonder if a Saturday\Sunday rally would be a lot different because people would not be working. Maybe what you saw was tourists.

Qwest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LollingLibertine Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, the media has. I'm starting to wonder if
> > their portrayal has more to do with their own
> > inherent biases than reality. The TPs are not
> > people I'd want to have over for dinner, but
> these
> > aren't violent right-wing nuts...at least from
> > what I saw. Having viewed a Code Pink rally in
> > 2005, this group felt like a cub scout troop.
>
> I wonder if a Saturday\Sunday rally would be a lot
> different because people would not be working.
> Maybe what you saw was tourists.


Perhaps. But to be frank, most of the TPs don't look like they have jobs that demand that they be there every waking hour. The turnout was maybe 3,000, maybe 2/3s of whom were actual TPs.

Here's the deal about the Tea Bagger survey numbers. They say that 20 percent of Americans sympathize with the Tea Bagger platform, but only a fraction of that 20 percent have ever gone to a rally. It's entirely possible that the 53% or whatever that make more than $50K a year are too busy working to show up to these things and that the face of the so-called "movement" are the crazy fringe fuckers who have nothing better to do than to hold up signs threatening violence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

My favorite sign from the Tea Bagger Rally yesterday was the "I'd Go GAY For Palin" sign. "You're A Terrible Person" was a close second.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the deal about the Tea Bagger survey
> numbers. They say that 20 percent of Americans
> sympathize with the Tea Bagger platform, but only
> a fraction of that 20 percent have ever gone to a
> rally. It's entirely possible that the 53% or
> whatever that make more than $50K a year are too
> busy working to show up to these things and that
> the face of the so-called "movement" are the crazy
> fringe fuckers who have nothing better to do than
> to hold up signs threatening violence.


Funny, I didn't see any signs threatening violence at the DC rally. I have no doubt that the guys who show up at these things are looney tunes, but I agree witht the OP that the media has been portraying these folks as wingnuts when they're no nuttier than any Code Pinkers marching through the streets in 2005. I saw tens of Hitler/Bush signs in 2005 and the media was silent. I saw exactly zero Hitler/Obama signs yesterday, but you can't escape the image on the cable news.

That Suckaass Punkbitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Funny, I didn't see any signs threatening violence
> at the DC rally. I have no doubt that the guys who
> show up at these things are looney tunes, but I
> agree witht the OP that the media has been
> portraying these folks as wingnuts when they're no
> nuttier than any Code Pinkers marching through the
> streets in 2005. I saw tens of Hitler/Bush signs
> in 2005 and the media was silent. I saw exactly
> zero Hitler/Obama signs yesterday, but you can't
> escape the image on the cable news.

When Code Pink had their convention, how many leaders of the Democratic Party showed up to speak?

THAT is the difference between the two. I don't blame the GOP for having fanatic followers. I blame the GOP for kissing the ass of their fanatic followers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

I watched the excerpts from the Tea Party speeches last night on CNN. It seemed very clear to me from the excerpts that the people speaking at the rally were anti-Obama and on the fringe of violence. That's straight from the words they used in their speeches. Has media picked out the highlights of the speeches to make for a move news worthy story, sure they have.

The fact is the people giving the speeches were very clear in their words.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That Suckaass Punkbitch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Funny, I didn't see any signs threatening
> violence
> > at the DC rally. I have no doubt that the guys
> who
> > show up at these things are looney tunes, but I
> > agree witht the OP that the media has been
> > portraying these folks as wingnuts when they're
> no
> > nuttier than any Code Pinkers marching through
> the
> > streets in 2005. I saw tens of Hitler/Bush
> signs
> > in 2005 and the media was silent. I saw exactly
> > zero Hitler/Obama signs yesterday, but you
> can't
> > escape the image on the cable news.
>
> When Code Pink had their convention, how many
> leaders of the Democratic Party showed up to
> speak?



That looks like Representatives Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey at the beginning of the clip, and isn't that Dennis Kucinich there? Remind me again what party those members of Congress are in?

> THAT is the difference between the two.

It would appear not, but thanks for trying.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That Suckaass Punkbitch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Funny, I didn't see any signs threatening
> violence
> > at the DC rally. I have no doubt that the guys
> who
> > show up at these things are looney tunes, but I
> > agree witht the OP that the media has been
> > portraying these folks as wingnuts when they're
> no
> > nuttier than any Code Pinkers marching through
> the
> > streets in 2005. I saw tens of Hitler/Bush
> signs
> > in 2005 and the media was silent. I saw exactly
> > zero Hitler/Obama signs yesterday, but you
> can't
> > escape the image on the cable news.
>
> When Code Pink had their convention, how many
> leaders of the Democratic Party showed up to
> speak?
>
> THAT is the difference between the two. I don't
> blame the GOP for having fanatic followers. I
> blame the GOP for kissing the ass of their fanatic
> followers.


Well, I'm not going to defend the Republicans. They're worthless. But you should get your facts straight. Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Conyers, Lynn Woolsey, Jesse Jackson, Waxman have been pretty vocal supporters of the anti-war movement and many of those named have, in the past, spoken at various DC rallies. So, I would temper your opinion of the Republicans cynically embracing this movement. The Dems did the same thing not long ago. I'd also like to point out that those principled anti-war Dems are now COMPLETELY SILENT about the evils of U.S. policy even though Obama has continued the Bush policy in Iraq (one which he voted against, I might add) and has escalated the war in AFG. The media says not a word...

Spartan Wrote:

>
> The fact is the people giving the speeches were
> very clear in their words.
>

And yet, you're not. That's irony for you.

You have to love the one guys sign at the beginning.

"Say No America To Egotistic Dictators"

muddy waters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and isn't that Dennis Kucinich there?

Holy Shit! Is Kucinich embracing the 9/11 truthers with his "our plan is to tell the truth about 9/11," comment at 1:30? Talk about batshit crazy.

Truthers hardly make news anymore. When Van Jones was outsted from his position for openly espousing Truther paranoid theories, the NYT didn't even cover the story until after his resignation. Do we really need much more evidence about media bias?

muddy waters Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> That looks like Representatives Maxine Waters and
> Lynn Woolsey at the beginning of the clip, and
> isn't that Dennis Kucinich there? Remind me again
> what party those members of Congress are in?
>
> > THAT is the difference between the two.
>
> It would appear not, but thanks for trying.


I Repeat - LEADERSHIP.

Sarah Palin is a fucking leader of the Republican Party. So is Haley Barbour! So is John Boehner!

Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and Dennis Kucinich don't lead shit when it comes to the Democrats.

..."Thanks for trying," my ass. Learn to fucking read.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

That Suckaass Punkbitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Well, I'm not going to defend the Republicans.
> They're worthless. But you should get your facts
> straight. Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Conyers, Lynn
> Woolsey, Jesse Jackson, Waxman have been pretty
> vocal supporters of the anti-war movement and many
> of those named have, in the past, spoken at
> various DC rallies. So, I would temper your
> opinion of the Republicans cynically embracing
> this movement. The Dems did the same thing not
> long ago. I'd also like to point out that those
> principled anti-war Dems are now COMPLETELY SILENT
> about the evils of U.S. policy even though Obama
> has continued the Bush policy in Iraq (one which
> he voted against, I might add) and has escalated
> the war in AFG. The media says not a word...


Where were the anti-big government Republicans during Bush's two terms?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> muddy waters Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > That looks like Representatives Maxine Waters
> and
> > Lynn Woolsey at the beginning of the clip, and
> > isn't that Dennis Kucinich there? Remind me
> again
> > what party those members of Congress are in?
> >
> > > THAT is the difference between the two.
> >
> > It would appear not, but thanks for trying.
>
>
> I Repeat - LEADERSHIP.
>
> Sarah Palin is a fucking leader of the Republican
> Party. So is Haley Barbour! So is John Boehner!
>
> Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey and Dennis Kucinich
> don't lead shit when it comes to the Democrats.
>
> ..."Thanks for trying," my ass. Learn to fucking
> read.

Does Boehner go to those rallies? I wasn't aware. And I think there are a lot of Republicans who don't see Palin as much of anything other than a demagogue. I was unaware that Haley Barbour was a leader of the Republican party. Kucinich and Waxman are considered leaders of the liberal wing of the Dem party.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That Suckaass Punkbitch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Well, I'm not going to defend the Republicans.
> > They're worthless. But you should get your
> facts
> > straight. Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Conyers,
> Lynn
> > Woolsey, Jesse Jackson, Waxman have been pretty
> > vocal supporters of the anti-war movement and
> many
> > of those named have, in the past, spoken at
> > various DC rallies. So, I would temper your
> > opinion of the Republicans cynically embracing
> > this movement. The Dems did the same thing not
> > long ago. I'd also like to point out that those
> > principled anti-war Dems are now COMPLETELY
> SILENT
> > about the evils of U.S. policy even though
> Obama
> > has continued the Bush policy in Iraq (one
> which
> > he voted against, I might add) and has
> escalated
> > the war in AFG. The media says not a word...
>
>
> Where were the anti-big government Republicans
> during Bush's two terms?


Man, I don't know. I know that a lot of them, like George Will, were jumping up and down and calling the Bush admin hypocrites. But that's actually beside the point. I'm not making any claims about the integrity of the Republicans. Like I said, screw 'em. You are making claims about the integrity of Democracts. You need to back up those claims.

The Tea Party Express concluded its cross-country, 34-city tour in Washington Thursday, Tax Day.

House Republicanleader John Boehner, who spoke at an Orlando, Fla., Tea Party event this week, said Thursday Republicans were working to earn the support of the Tea Party followers, CNN said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Little off topic, but along the line of US sentiment toward Obama's big government:

Three weeks after Congress passed its new national health care plan, support for repeal of the measure has risen four points to 58%. That includes 50% of U.S. voters who strongly favor repeal.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters nationwide finds 38% still oppose repeal, including 32% who strongly oppose it.

Anti-healthcare sentiment is probably the half of the country that does pay income taxes,plus a few more.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Tea Party Express concluded its cross-country,
> 34-city tour in Washington Thursday, Tax Day.
>
> House Republicanleader John Boehner, who spoke at
> an Orlando, Fla., Tea Party event this week, said
> Thursday Republicans were working to earn the
> support of the Tea Party followers, CNN said.


Well, that's too bad. I would hope that politicians of both sides would avoid getting involved in movements like this.

That Suckaass Punkbitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Well, that's too bad. I would hope that
> politicians of both sides would avoid getting
> involved in movements like this.

I know, fair taxes and a smaller government is a horrible future. We NEED a big government to take care of us. That is their proper role, after all.

We should ALL join that Oregon teacher and demolish the TEA PARTY!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-16-crash-tea-party-activist_N.htm?csp=34

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I Repeat - LEADERSHIP.
>
> Sarah Palin is a fucking leader of the Republican
> Party. So is Haley Barbour! So is John Boehner!

So, John Edwards another failed VP candidate is the leader of the Democrats? Palin is hardly a leader of the GOP.

Not really, but keep thinking so.

> Maxine Waters,

You mean Chief Deputy Whip Maxine Waters? - a post selected by Congressional LEADERSHIP?

> Lynn Woolsey

Co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?

> and Dennis Kucinich

THE posterboy for the progressives?

> don't lead shit when it comes to the Democrats.
>
> ..."Thanks for trying," my ass. Learn to fucking
> read.

Yeah, they are not leaderrs....

And more......

The co-founder of the radical anti-war group Code Pink has “bundled” more than $50,000 for Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and pro-troops groups are demanding that he return the money.

Jodie Evans, a Code Pink leader, gathered at least $50,000 from friends and associates and donated it to Obama’s presidential campaign, according to information compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group, Public Citizen.

A co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink, which has made a name for itself by interrupting hearings on Capitol Hill, is a fundraising bundler for Barack Obama.

Jodie Evans has pledged to raise at least $50,000 for Obama, according the Democrat's campaign site.


Enjoy your denial....and your code pink friends....

Where were the Tea Party protesters the 8 years George W. Bush was president?

AND

Where have all the anti war protesters gone, now that Barack Obama is president?


these fake Tea Party people weren't protesting when BUSH was expanding the
size of the federal government.

AND AT THE SAME TIME....

These fake liberals are no longer anti war now that Barack Obama is president.


Both sides of the political spectrum aren't thinking. There caught up in a left/right soap opera, rooting for their team to win.

What does it tell you when an individual who supported Bush for 8 years, ALL of a sudden is now bitching about the U.S. Constitution being violated?

and

Liberals protested the wars in the middle east while Bush was president, but they aren't protesting anymore....NOW that Barack is president,


I personally take this from it...
It shows that people aren't thinking.


NOTHING HAS CHANGED except for WHO is president.
AND the half of the country that is pissed.

Nothing has changed, Bush Era Policy isn't being overturned by OBAMA, it is being escalated. But Democrats are HAppy?

ANd Republicans are PISSED?

I don't get it!

Superman 4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing has changed, Bush Era Policy isn't being
> overturned by OBAMA, it is being escalated. But
> Democrats are HAppy?

Reminds me of a song by The Who.

---
The Change, It Had To Come
We Knew It All Along
We Were Liberated From The Fold, That's All
And The World Looks Just The Same
And History Ain't Changed
'Cause The Banners, They Are Flown In The Next War

There's Nothing In The Streets
Looks Any Different To Me
And The Slogans Are Replaced, By-The-Bye
And The Parting On The Left
Are Now Parting On The Right
And The Beards Have All Grown Longer Overnight

I'll Tip My Hat To The New Constitution
Take A Bow For The New Revolution
Smile And Grin At The Change All Around
Pick Up My Guitar And Play
Just Like Yesterday
Then I'll Get On My Knees And Pray
We Don't Get Fooled Again
Don't Get Fooled Again
No, No!

Meet The New Boss
Same As The Old Boss

> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I Repeat - LEADERSHIP.
> >
> > Sarah Palin is a fucking leader of the
> Republican
> > Party. So is Haley Barbour! So is John Boehner!
>
>
> So, John Edwards another failed VP candidate is
> the leader of the Democrats? Palin is hardly a
> leader of the GOP.
>
> Not really, but keep thinking so.
>
> > Maxine Waters,
>
> You mean Chief Deputy Whip Maxine Waters? - a post
> selected by Congressional LEADERSHIP?
>
> > Lynn Woolsey
>
> Co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus?
>
> > and Dennis Kucinich
>
> THE posterboy for the progressives?
>
> > don't lead shit when it comes to the Democrats.
>
> >
> > ..."Thanks for trying," my ass. Learn to
> fucking
> > read.
>
> Yeah, they are not leaderrs....
>
> And more......
>
> The co-founder of the radical anti-war group Code
> Pink has “bundled” more than $50,000 for Sen.
> Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, and
> pro-troops groups are demanding that he return the
> money.
>
> Jodie Evans, a Code Pink leader, gathered at least
> $50,000 from friends and associates and donated it
> to Obama’s presidential campaign, according to
> information compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog
> group, Public Citizen.
>
> A co-founder of the anti-war group Code Pink,
> which has made a name for itself by interrupting
> hearings on Capitol Hill, is a fundraising bundler
> for Barack Obama.
>
> Jodie Evans has pledged to raise at least $50,000
> for Obama, according the Democrat's campaign
> site.
>
>
> Enjoy your denial....and your code pink
> friends....

Here is a pick of Obama embracing code pink founder Jodie Evans. Is Obama considered a leader of the Democrats?

.


What about Howard Dean? If you consider Haley Barbour a leader of the GOP. Howard Dean must be considered a leader of the Democrats, right?

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/deanpink.jpg

Code Pink isn't advocating the over-throwing of the government or the demise of political leaders.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

bottom line is, where were these fuckers when bush sold our asses to china to go to war in the middle east. where were they? i know its just a bunch of crazy white guys but where were they when the stuff they are supposedly against was really happening? now it just seems like a race thing. there may be a few good guys but their ranks are littered with trash. good luck kids.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Code Pink isn't advocating the over-throwing of
> the government or the demise of political leaders.

Yeah, well your friends might disagree with you there.












Not to mention, you are fine with a guy who decided to kick off his political career in the living room of a guy who wanted to overthrow the government.

.

.
Attachments:

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Code Pink isn't advocating the over-throwing of
> the government or the demise of political leaders.

No, how about these friends of yours?

Start around 5:50 it gets really intersting around 6:20




This is YOUR party.

People were asleep during the Bush years, coming off of a Clinton high..

Now people are waking up to see that they elected A COMMUNIST....a full fledged believer in Marxism.....NOW, we are waking up.....

Can't wait for Nov.....time to stop this communist takeover of America.
Tea Party ROCKS!!!!

ps....love the marx/Obama poster....says it all..

fuck you libs!

I LOVE TEA!

­



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 06:06PM by chuckhoffmann.

Simple, Media is Liberal.

Wait I thought Clinton was going to take us all down the road to Socialism. What happened?

chuckhoffmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing I worry about is what happens when
> the Tea Party people realize that their leaders
> are just as full of shit as every other
> politician?
>
> There's a reason why I'm a registered independent
> (I think- it's been so long since I voted I can't
> remember).

I thought this site was for people who live in Fairfax, or at least Virginia?

­



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2013 06:10PM by chuckhoffmann.

Obama is a douche. He will not be elected again, we'll get some other dumb ass elected and it will be politics as usual.

50% will hate him, 50% will love him. It's going to be this way until people wake up and realize what is going on. It's the same shit different agenda.




Peter Schiff has always been right.

The original tea parties were protests against taxation without representation. Lots of people fought and died so that we can vote and choose our representatives (in theory anyway). Technically, in my opinion 'Tea Party' is a misnomer as it is used for this political group.

Corporations and their lobbying are our new 'King George' We need to use the power of the purse to boycott Corporations that promote political causes we do not agree with - that is our real power...

The big issue sparking the Boston Tea Party was a giant tax cut for the East India Trading Company. British Parliament decided that the East India Company should be allowed to ship tea to the colonies without paying import duties. Colonists were pissed because it essentially handed the East India Company a monopoly on tea imports. A tax cut for a huge wealthy corporation was the reason they staged a boycott and refused to let East India Company's ships unload their cargo.

Today's teabaggers are actually FIGHTING FOR tax cuts for the rich; their "tea party" moniker make no sense.


Tea Party - the name Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The original tea parties were protests against
> taxation without representation. Lots of people
> fought and died so that we can vote and choose our
> representatives (in theory anyway). Technically,
> in my opinion 'Tea Party' is a misnomer as it is
> used for this political group.
>
> Corporations and their lobbying are our new 'King
> George' We need to use the power of the purse to
> boycott Corporations that promote political causes
> we do not agree with - that is our real power...

hah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama is a douche. He will not be elected again,
> we'll get some other dumb ass elected and it will
> be politics as usual.
If Palin runs, Obama wins. Hands down. I won't even vote for her.

Looks like the GOP is starting to lose its shot at the Senate. Appears that the Tea Baggers don't appeal to normal people in non-fringe states.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like the GOP is starting to lose its shot at
> the Senate. Appears that the Tea Baggers don't
> appeal to normal people in non-fringe states.


Doesn't matter. It will be enough to gridlock more of Barry's big spend ambitions.
Castle winning in Delaware would have meant little, the gains in KY and UT of stricter, more fundamental conservatives will offset the moral victory the left will try to claim with a defeat of Tea Party candidates elsewhere.A total Tea Party takeover is never going to happen, and we're going to see these shitdicks on MSNBC claiming the defeat of a few TP candidates as armageddon for conservatives. Psychological warfare.

If the GOP flips PA.IL and NV,CT or CA, it will doom Barry's already doomed agenda.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Today's teabaggers are actually FIGHTING FOR tax
> cuts for the rich; their "tea party" moniker make
> no sense.


Speaking of not making sense, the tea party is calling for tax increases on the poor, right? Also, so you might get a little historical accuracy, google "Townshend duty."

The Tea Party victories with set the stage for fallout on the GOP national ticket in 2012. The Tea Baggers are calling out the GOP establishment. It should be fun watching Sarah Palin and Karl Rove wrestle for control of the party through 2011 and 2012.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like the GOP is starting to lose its shot at
> the Senate. Appears that the Tea Baggers don't
> appeal to normal people in non-fringe states.

The Senate was a pipe dream just a few months ago. The fact that Feingold, Boxer, Reid and Bennett are now in toss up races tells you the dire straits Democrats are in. If holding onto DE makes you all giggly and happy, you aren't seeing the big picture. Also, have fun spending millions to defend the President's Senate seat. You were so high on Charlie Crist a few months ago. How is that working out for you?

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> Speaking of not making sense, the tea party is
> calling for tax increases on the poor, right?

The teabaggers I know in person do.

> Also, so you might get a little historical
> accuracy, google "Townshend duty."

Those taxes were in place for years, and yes, the colonists didn't like paying taxes without being able to vote for parliament. "No taxation without representation" sentiments were common. I'm just pointing out that the Boston Tea Party event was sparked by the outrage over the tax cut given to the British East India company. Not because of the taxes imposed by the Townshend Act, six years earlier.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >
> > Speaking of not making sense, the tea party is
> > calling for tax increases on the poor, right?
>
> The teabaggers I know in person do.

Oh, personal, unprovable, anecdotal evidence. How compelling.

> > Also, so you might get a little historical
> > accuracy, google "Townshend duty."
>
> Those taxes were in place for years, and yes, the
> colonists didn't like paying taxes without being
> able to vote for parliament. "No taxation without
> representation" sentiments were common. I'm just
> pointing out that the Boston Tea Party event was
> sparked by the outrage over the tax cut given to
> the British East India company. Not because of
> the taxes imposed by the Townshend Act, six years
> earlier.

The historical accuracy of your analogy is severely lacking.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Oh, personal, unprovable, anecdotal evidence. How
> compelling.

My opinions are based on real-life experience and not Fox News. Imagine that!

>
> The historical accuracy of your analogy is
> severely lacking.

The Tea Act of 1773 cut taxes on the tea sitting on those ships in Boston Harbor. That's why the colonists were boycotting it. They weren't boycotting it because of high taxes- there were no taxes on it at all!

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Oh, personal, unprovable, anecdotal evidence.
> How
> > compelling.
>
> My opinions are based on real-life experience and
> not Fox News. Imagine that!

You seem to think insulting Fox News will somehow upset me. You couldn't be more off base. As for your opinions, they are just that, opinions. They have no basis in reality or facts as evidenced by your understanding of the events leading up to the Boston Tea Party.

> > The historical accuracy of your analogy is
> > severely lacking.
>
> The Tea Act of 1773 cut taxes on the tea sitting
> on those ships in Boston Harbor. That's why the
> colonists were boycotting it. They weren't
> boycotting it because of high taxes- there were
> no taxes on it at all!

No taxes at all? Really?

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You seem to think insulting Fox News will somehow upset me. You couldn't be more off base. As for your opinions, they are just that, opinions. They have no basis in reality or facts as evidenced by your understanding of the events leading up to the Boston Tea Party.

So, then why did the colonists in Boston protest and refuse to let those ships unload their cargo? Let's hear it.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You seem to think insulting Fox News will
> somehow upset me. You couldn't be more off base.
> As for your opinions, they are just that,
> opinions. They have no basis in reality or facts
> as evidenced by your understanding of the events
> leading up to the Boston Tea Party.
>
> So, then why did the colonists in Boston protest
> and refuse to let those ships unload their cargo?
> Let's hear it.

The reasons have already been pointed to in previous posts. Are you still standing by the "there were no taxes at all" bull shit? If so, there is no point in attempting to educate someone who is unable to be educated. Have you graduated hisgh school yet?

Think we can avoid the namecalling "teabagger" garbage? If you're including that in your post, it looks like you've got nothing better.

Same for the "have you graduated high school" stuff. Really. This is how adults argue?

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think we can avoid the namecalling "teabagger"
> garbage? If you're including that in your post,
> it looks like you've got nothing better.
>
> Same for the "have you graduated high school"
> stuff. Really. This is how adults argue?

I was actually posing a legitimate question. If he hadn't I'd be more willing to cut him some slack for having his facts wrong.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The reasons have already been pointed to in
> previous posts.

Cop-out #1

> Are you still standing by the
> "there were no taxes at all" bull shit?

The Tea Act of 1773 gave special permission to the British East India Company to sell tax-free tea to the colonies. I'm not sure if Boston harbor had some kind of local port tax, but that's not relevant. I am referring to the special exemption of the East India Company from paying import duties.


> If so, there is no point in attempting to educate someone
> who is unable to be educated.

Cop-out #2

>Have you graduated
> hisgh school yet?

Yeah. I'm also an avid tea drinker who likes to read about the history of tea.

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think we can avoid the namecalling "teabagger"
> garbage? If you're including that in your post,
> it looks like you've got nothing better.

It's not a slur. I've heard "tea party" people refer to themselves as "teabaggers", in real life and on TV.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The reasons have already been pointed to in
> > previous posts.
>
> Cop-out #1

Hardly, I have pointed you in the direction of the Townshend duty.

> > Are you still standing by the
> > "there were no taxes at all" bull shit?
>
> The Tea Act of 1773 gave special permission to the
> British East India Company to sell tax-free tea to
> the colonies. I'm not sure if Boston harbor had
> some kind of local port tax, but that's not
> relevant. I am referring to the special exemption
> of the East India Company from paying import
> duties.

According to historian Benjamin Labaree, The Tea Act retained the three pence Townshend duty on tea imported to the colonies. Some members of Parliament wanted to eliminate this tax, arguing that there was no reason to provoke another colonial controversy. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer William Dowdeswell, for example, warned Lord North that the Americans would not accept the tea if the Townshend duty remained. But North did not want to give up the revenue from the Townshend tax, primarily because it was used to pay the salaries of colonial officials; maintaining the right of taxing the Americans was a secondary concern.

> > If so, there is no point in attempting to
> educate someone
> > who is unable to be educated.
>
> Cop-out #2

Really, still think so?

> >Have you graduated
> > hisgh school yet?
>
> Yeah. I'm also an avid tea drinker who likes to
> read about the history of tea.

Maybe you should read up a bit more. Many Colonists opposed the Act, not so much because it rescued the East India Company, but more because it seemed to validate the last remaining duty imposed by the Townshend Acts of 1767, the tea tax.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Think we can avoid the namecalling "teabagger"
> > garbage? If you're including that in your
> post,
> > it looks like you've got nothing better.
>
> It's not a slur. I've heard "tea party" people
> refer to themselves as "teabaggers", in real life
> and on TV.

And you use the term with the utmost respect?

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think we can avoid the namecalling "teabagger"
> garbage? If you're including that in your post,
> it looks like you've got nothing better.


We can't help it the Tea Baggers are too fucking stupid to look up what "tea bagging" means...



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Think we can avoid the namecalling "teabagger"
> > garbage? If you're including that in your
> post,
> > it looks like you've got nothing better.
>
>
> We can't help it the Tea Baggers are too fucking
> stupid to look up what "tea bagging" means...

Judging by those signs, I think they know exactly what it means.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Kardinal Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Think we can avoid the namecalling
> "teabagger"
> > > garbage? If you're including that in your
> > post,
> > > it looks like you've got nothing better.
> >
> >
> > We can't help it the Tea Baggers are too
> fucking
> > stupid to look up what "tea bagging" means...
>
> Judging by those signs, I think they know exactly
> what it means.


Which would make them gay.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Kardinal Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Think we can avoid the namecalling
> > "teabagger"
> > > > garbage? If you're including that in your
> > > post,
> > > > it looks like you've got nothing better.
> > >
> > >
> > > We can't help it the Tea Baggers are too
> > fucking
> > > stupid to look up what "tea bagging" means...
> >
> > Judging by those signs, I think they know
> exactly
> > what it means.
>
>
> Which would make them gay.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> it seemed to validate the last remaining duty
> imposed by the Townshend Acts of 1767, the tea tax.

Like I said, "no taxation without representation" sentiments had been high for years. Colonists were angry over the Boston Massacre too, so I guess one could say that the tea party was a revenge act for the massacre.

But it wasn't until those first shiploads of tax-exempt tea showed up in Boston that people got seriously pissed enough to fight back. In fact, tea smugglers, whose businesses were most threatened by the new tax-exempt status, played a big role in the boycott of the East India tea shipments in Boston.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > it seemed to validate the last remaining duty
> > imposed by the Townshend Acts of 1767, the tea
> tax.
>
> Like I said, "no taxation without representation"
> sentiments had been high for years. Colonists
> were angry over the Boston Massacre too, so I
> guess one could say that the tea party was a
> revenge act for the massacre.
>
> But it wasn't until those first shiploads of
> tax-exempt tea showed up in Boston that people got
> seriously pissed enough to fight back. In fact,
> tea smugglers, whose businesses were most
> threatened by the new tax-exempt status, played a
> big role in the boycott of the East India tea
> shipments in Boston.


If only the tea shipments were tax exempt, you might have a point.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> shipments were tax exempt, you might have a point.

Cop-out #3

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > shipments were tax exempt, you might have a
> point.
>
> Cop-out #3

Since when are facts a cop-out? When they don't support your unfounded assertions? The true cop-out is your inability to point to one single reference point that the tea was untaxed.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The true
> cop-out is your inability to point to one single
> reference point that the tea was untaxed.

Like I said, the Tea Act of 1773.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Think we can avoid the namecalling "teabagger"
> > garbage? If you're including that in your
> post,
> > it looks like you've got nothing better.
>
> It's not a slur. I've heard "tea party" people
> refer to themselves as "teabaggers", in real life
> and on TV.

Yes it is, and you know it. Raise the level of conversation, OK? Show some respect in these discussions and you're likely to get more back.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The true
> > cop-out is your inability to point to one
> single
> > reference point that the tea was untaxed.
>
> Like I said, the Tea Act of 1773.

What?!?! The Tea Act of 1773 required payment of the Townshend import duty of three pence a pound. FYI, a "duty" is a "tax."

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes it is, and you know it. Raise the level of
> conversation, OK? Show some respect in these
> discussions and you're likely to get more back.

So, in a thread full of "gay" references and Hitler/Obama comments, where pretty much every response I've gotten is an ad hominem, I'm guilty of ruining the converstation because of the commonly accepted term "tea bagger."

I mean really.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kardinal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Yes it is, and you know it. Raise the level of
> > conversation, OK? Show some respect in these
> > discussions and you're likely to get more back.
>
> So, in a thread full of "gay" references and
> Hitler/Obama comments, where pretty much every
> response I've gotten is an ad hominem, I'm guilty
> of ruining the converstation because of the
> commonly accepted term "tea bagger."
>
> I mean really.

Haven't read every post. I just noticed that and made a request.

You're also mischaracterizing the "Hitler/Obama" comments; they were in reference to the fact that there were NO references to Hitler/Obama, which is a good thing frankly.

I'm with you on the "gay" stuff; that's garbage and has to go, too.

I hear that tea baggers are actually debt-ridden virgin wiccans. This sure beats that Joe the Plumber fella they brought out last time.

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> What?!?! The Tea Act of 1773 required payment of
> the Townshend import duty of three pence a pound.
> FYI, a "duty" is a "tax."

Yeah, but until then, the East India company also had to pay taxes in England on that same tea. The 1773 Act allowed them to be exempt from those higher taxes they had been paying. In other words, a "tax cut". They got a huge tax break that really pissed off the colonists.

capt. obvious just got obviously pwned.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > What?!?! The Tea Act of 1773 required payment
> of
> > the Townshend import duty of three pence a
> pound.
> > FYI, a "duty" is a "tax."
>
> Yeah, but until then, the East India company also
> had to pay taxes in England on that same tea. The
> 1773 Act allowed them to be exempt from those
> higher taxes they had been paying. In other
> words, a "tax cut". They got a huge tax break
> that really pissed off the colonists.

Make up your mind. First you are saying there was no tax, now you are saying it was a tax cut implying that there is a tax. There was still a tax imposed upon the colonists. Even during the debate in Parliament regarding the Tea Act of 1773, members recognized keeping the tax on the colonies would not sit well with the Americans and that they were likely to refuse the tea. That is why many of them argued for the removal of the Townshend duty on the tea. Without the Townshend duty, there was no jusitification for the "tea party."

Actually if you look at the time stamps, you'll see the first thing I said was "The big issue sparking the Boston Tea Party was a giant tax cut for the East India Trading Company". Further down it was incorrect for me to refer to this tax cut as "tax-free", but it was still a large tax cut like I said in my original comment.

Question: why did the tea smugglers and merchants react so strongly to the Tea Act? They weren't paying that tax anyway. The reason: a huge tax break for the British East India Company that was going to put the smugglers out of business.
. Obvious Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
>
> Make up your mind. First you are saying there was
> no tax, now you are saying it was a tax cut
> implying that there is a tax. There was still a
> tax imposed upon the colonists. Even during the
> debate in Parliament regarding the Tea Act of
> 1773, members recognized keeping the tax on the
> colonies would not sit well with the Americans and
> that they were likely to refuse the tea. That is
> why many of them argued for the removal of the
> Townshend duty on the tea. Without the Townshend
> duty, there was no jusitification for the "tea
> party."

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Actually if you look at the time stamps, you'll
> see the first thing I said was "The big issue
> sparking the Boston Tea Party was a giant tax cut
> for the East India Trading Company". Further down
> it was incorrect for me to refer to this tax cut
> as "tax-free", but it was still a large tax cut
> like I said in my original comment.
>
> Question: why did the tea smugglers and merchants
> react so strongly to the Tea Act? They weren't
> paying that tax anyway. The reason: a huge tax
> break for the British East India Company that was
> going to put the smugglers out of business.

Yes, the tax cut hurt the smugglers, but that didn't prompt the overall public outcry. The imposition of the Townshend duty did. It is in all of the historical records of the time. See for yourself. Go look at the debates in Parliament in 1773. You do realize not everyone smuggled tea, right?

Well I would actually like to say the debate was interesting - it was sort of. That said it appears Meeper has indeed won the day here. Meeper never stated there was no tax he merely stated that it was an exemption granted East India Co. that pissed off the cols. Now you certainly may debate that but the claim that the exemption was an instigating event is interesting.

After all, why tea? Why then?

Splitting Hairs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Meeper never stated there was no tax he merely
> stated that it was an exemption granted East India
> Co. that pissed off the cols.

Really?

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/2/335865/413421.html#msg-413421

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They weren't boycotting it because of high taxes- there were
> no taxes on it at all!

Capt. Obvious Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes, the tax cut

Like I said, the colonists were vehemently opposed to the tax cut for a big company like East India Co. But today's teabaggers actually fight FOR tax cuts for the wealthy. Their name makes no sense.

> The imposition of the Townshend duty did.

The colonists vehemently opposed taxation without representation. Today's teabaggers shout "no taxation without representation" even though they live in a democracy, have representation, and can vote. Again, they make no sense.

Note the colonists were not opposed to taxes per se - they were opposed to taxes being set without the opportunity to have their interests represented in the government.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Capt. Obvious Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Yes, the tax cut
>
> Like I said, the colonists were vehemently opposed
> to the tax cut for a big company like East India
> Co. But today's teabaggers actually fight FOR tax
> cuts for the wealthy. Their name makes no sense.

Yeah, I hear what you are saying, I am just not buying it. The opposition to the tax break on EIC was minimal compared to the outrage over the Townshend duty. And, as far as I can tell, the tea party folks seem to want to extend all tax cuts, not just those for the wealthy. I am not really in the mood to get into a protracted battle over your class warfare tactics.

> > The imposition of the Townshend duty did.
>
> The colonists vehemently opposed taxation without
> representation. Today's teabaggers shout "no
> taxation without representation" even though they
> live in a democracy, have representation, and can
> vote. Again, they make no sense.

Eh, fine. Maybe they should all go back to school.

Same shit different day