Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
And when Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow share a good laugh over the idea of throwing rocks through Fox News' and Rupert Murdoch's windows, isn't violence the next step?



note you said "share a laugh."

did you listen to Beck's tone? quite different.
 
I take it you haven't seen the signs or heard the rants of people literally saying to hunt down the rich, kill them and eat them.

And when Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow share a good laugh over the idea of throwing rocks through Fox News' and Rupert Murdoch's windows, isn't violence the next step?

Well first of all that has nothing to do with what Beck stated, he wasn't commenting on their signs.

Secondly "eat the rich" is an old saying, being using for 100s of years and has actually resulted in little violence.

And no I haven't seen any "kill them" signs yet, but I'll be honest I haven't paid too much attention to this whole ordeal.
 
And when Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow share a good laugh over the idea of throwing rocks through Fox News' and Rupert Murdoch's windows, isn't violence the next step?

This is just absurd. It just makes me think that you haven't the faintest clue about the nature of political violence. Political violence is not some game to be played out by talking heads on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News. If there is ever a second American revolution, I assure you that Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow will have absolutely nothing to do with it, either as instigators or anything else.

As a matter of interest, though - and purely because I am genuinely curious as to the thought processes of the comparatively few remaining true believing neo-con supporters in America - are there any hypothetical circumstances whatever in which you think that the violent overthrow of a plutocratic oligarchy is morally justifiable?

Are there any circumstances whatever in which you would cease shilling for the plutocracy and join the majority? Say if they cut taxes for the wealthy to zero and made an 80 work week compulsory for the non-wealthy 99%, for example? Say if they completely abolised all social welfare and unemployment assistance and made union membership illegal? What then?
 
This is just absurd. It just makes me think that you haven't the faintest clue about the nature of political violence. Political violence is not some game to be played out by talking heads on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News. If there is ever a second American revolution, I assure you that Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow will have absolutely nothing to do with it, either as instigators or anything else.

As a matter of interest, though - and purely because I am genuinely curious as to the thought processes of the comparatively few remaining true believing neo-con supporters in America - are there any hypothetical circumstances whatever in which you think that the violent overthrow of a plutocratic oligarchy is morally justifiable?

Are there any circumstances whatever in which you would cease shilling for the plutocracy and join the majority? Say if they cut taxes for the wealthy to zero and made an 80 work week compulsory for the non-wealthy 99%, for example? Say if they completely abolised all social welfare and unemployment assistance and made union membership illegal? What then?

Wow. You're making a tremendous leap there, and I really don't know where it's coming from. Is it because I have issues with the Occupy folks? Is it because I'm calling out prominent liberals for suggesting (or at the very least not denouncing) violence, especially when conservatives/the Tea Party are excoriated for supposedly doing the same and especially in the wake of Gabby Giffords? Help me out here.

And please- your last paragraph is pathetic. What makes you think I believe any of that?
 
i generally agree with you, but can you see the difference between one comedian and one MSNBC host chatting vs. the half-term governor of Alaska and 2008 GOP VP Nominee's "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric?

i think elected officials are much different from "prominent liberals."
 
- are there any hypothetical circumstances whatever in which you think that the violent overthrow of a plutocratic oligarchy is morally justifiable?

Not being picky but trying to safe you some typing: a plutocratic oligarchy is often referred to as a plutarchy. (True, look it up)

But why concern ourselves with hypothetical situations when the very real, very empirical hypothesis that Western civilization may soon crumble under the weight of our own debt, apathy and moral decay - is staring us directly in the face?
 
But why concern ourselves with hypothetical situations when the very real, very empirical hypothesis that Western civilization may soon crumble under the weight of our own debt, apathy and moral decay - is staring us directly in the face?
Ready to take your hat and go home?

n29Go.jpg
 
And please- your last paragraph is pathetic. What makes you think I believe any of that?

Fine. Show me your posts critiquing corporate welfare, bank bailouts, tax evasion by the wealthy, and fraudulent wars. My record of drawing attention to these matters stands for itself. Where's yours?
 
Not being picky but trying to safe you some typing: a plutocratic oligarchy is often referred to as a plutarchy. (True, look it up)

But why concern ourselves with hypothetical situations when the very real, very empirical hypothesis that Western civilization may soon crumble under the weight of our own debt, apathy and moral decay - is staring us directly in the face?

It's not hypothetical. The plutarchy (thanks for the heads up. I like this word, and will use it in every post from now on) created that situation. They're the ones to blame.

So the “99% versus the 1%” theme is beginning to look like an acute class analysis after all, and it’s the guys in the 1% who made it so. Over the years, they have systematically hollowed out the space around them: destroying the industrial working class with the outsourcings and plant closures of the ’80s, turning on white collar managers in the downsizing wave of the ’90s, clearing large swathes of the middle class with the credit schemes of the ’00’s—the trick mortgages and till-death-do-we-part student loans.

In the ’60s we dreamed of uniting people of all races and collar colors into “one big working class.” But it took the billionaires to make it happen.


The Guys in the 1% Brought This On | Barbara Ehrenreich | The Progressive
 
Fine. Show me your posts critiquing corporate welfare, bank bailouts, tax evasion by the wealthy, and fraudulent wars. My record of drawing attention to these matters stands for itself. Where's yours?

Because I don't make it a priority to post everyday about those things means I support them? Trust me, I oppose all four of the things you just mentioned. You're acting like I'm not angry. I am. My anger, however, is much more directed at reckless government that it is at Wall Street. That's where the Tea Party and OWS differ.

Again, I'd love to see your train of thought that led you from my criticism both of OWS and of the incredibly wealthy people on the left who support it to meaning that I'm a neo-con who wants a country such as the one you described in your earlier post. :wave:
 
I sincerely want to know. I figure it's a much more beneficial discussion talking about that than about whose protestors are more crazy.
 
reckless government ... Wall Street
Not much daylight between the two. If you've been cheated out of much of your savings by someone, you don't just need to trim your budget to start rebuilding your reserves, you also need to stop the plundering so you don't lose whatever you have left. Like anitram said, who's the boss here?
 
2861U2 said:
My anger, however, is much more directed at reckless government that it is at Wall Street. That's where the Tea Party and OWS differ.

Everyone should read this. It speaks volumes!!! It speaks to how uninformed the tea party is overall. It speaks to how you've all been rooked into doing the top 1% dirty work.

I hope statements like this start to open more eyes.
 
My anger, however, is much more directed at reckless government that it is at Wall Street. That's where the Tea Party and OWS differ.

And that's why the Tea Party and the OWS are largely a bunch of fucking fools. The Govt is reckless precisely because it -more or less- has no principle other than to serve special corporate interests. All sides.

Direct your anger at Democrats and Republicans and even those who ape the party line, no matter how 'independent' or non-partisan they really believe they are. And sure, there are plenty of so-called enlightened Leftists in this very forum who do it all the time. This is the problem. The Tea Party being sucked into the corporate Republican monster means it is no better than any other arm of Republican bullshit. And bending over backwards to defend the idiocy of Obama and the Dems is the same sort of thing.


Why else would we cut revenues and spend more all at the same time?
That's lunacy brought about by a tax religion brought about by corporate lobbyist interests and the ignorance that buys into the religion itself.

The spending lunacy is also part of the same problem, Democrats love bureaucracy and they love their pet programs. Because they took money to install them, and care about re-election just as much as Republicans love to get re-elected using money from members of the Tax Religion.

Steps to solutions:
Begins with 1) Term limits
and the next logical step is 2) Banning Lobbyists from Congress.
That's the only place it can start. Trust me.


After that happens, we can worry about having more viable political parties.

And nothing happens without a more educated public on the subject of self-interested PARTISAN BULLSHIT. But that goes without saying. And it's also futile...evidenced clearly by the Tea Party and OWS...they can't help but be sucked in by the partisan monster...because the constituents are partisan themselves. Partisan towards two Parties that are inherently corrupted by the influence of corporate money.

This isn't 'conspiracy theory'. It's transparent and true.

Term limits will lower the partisan rhetoric and introduce more principle and sanity into the mix. It's not going to fix everything but it has to happen. We have to get the focus on fixing real problems rather than a focus towards ambition for re-election. It's the only place to begin.
 
Steps to solutions:
Begins with 1) Term limits
and the next logical step is 2) Banning Lobbyists from Congress.
That's the only place it can start. Trust me.

I completely agree with you. But the problem is, Congress will not set term limits for themselves. It will take a very humble person in position of power to do that, and that's a rare human being.

If there were any protests I would get involved in, it will be to demand politicians to set term limits for themselves. And also for Presidents and other office holders to have only one, six-year term.
 
Steps to solutions:
Begins with 1) Term limits
and the next logical step is 2) Banning Lobbyists from Congress.
That's the only place it can start. Trust me.

I agree on both. Always have. How about that, finguy?


I completely agree with you. But the problem is, Congress will not set term limits for themselves. It will take a very humble person in position of power to do that, and that's a rare human being.

They exist. While there are certainly people on both sides who object, the blame is not equal. There are infinitely more calls for term limits coming from the right than from the left.

Term Limits Congress | DeMint Constitutional Amendment | The Daily Caller

Thursday South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would apply term limits to members of Congress. Ten Republican Senators joined DeMint in his call to limit U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms in office. Co-sponsors to S.J. Res. 11 included New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson, Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, and Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter.
 
The bigger government gets; the more money they spend, the more bills they pass, the more they regulate, the more things they tax, the more they mandate.

The more lobbying firms open up in Washington D.C.

You'd think folks wouldna noticed that by now.
 
The cost of your elections is a big one too. $1b for President. That's a lot of influence and/or favours.

I also agree that a single Presidential term would be better. Longer than six years, but as it is at the moment, a President really only has about, if they're lucky, 5 of the 8 years for 'gettin' shit done' anyway. Obama has been wholly switched to re-election for some time now. It's virtually the same as lame duck.
 
The bigger government gets; the more money they spend, the more bills they pass, the more they regulate, the more things they tax, the more they mandate.

The more lobbying firms open up in Washington D.C.

You'd think folks wouldna noticed that by now.

I always find it baffling how some people are convinced that, left to their own devices, most corporations would police themselves accordingly and keep middle-class America's best interests in mind. Especially considering the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
 
Last edited:
it seems logical that corporations seek to increase their profit. yes, many people can and do benefit when corporations do well. and accruing political power is a great way to create rules that will help you increase your profit. hence, that's why they do it.

and that's why there's a need for regulation. i don't see what's so fascist about that. :shrug:

balance.
 
The bigger government gets; the more money they spend, the more bills they pass, the more they regulate, the more things they tax, the more they mandate.

The more lobbying firms open up in Washington D.C.

You'd think folks wouldna noticed that by now.

Are you okay with fewer lobbying firms still being able to effectively 'buy' Congressional votes? Just as long as it's not 'a lot' of them?

Lobbying firms also work to keep the status quo.

Insurance lobbies, tobacco lobby, oil and gas lobby, pharmaceutical lobbies, etc. For a specific example, there is no amount of Government expansion that affects the NRA's influence over the Republican party. They continue to fund re-election campaigns with unstated 'promises' to keep Republicans voting against gun control, whether there is any regulation proposed OR NOT.

But the real problem isn't simply that they exist or continue to open up.
It's that they manage to hold dramatic undue influence over lawmakers.

In other words, the problem is that they are so incredibly effective in the first place. Smaller Government doesn't make them less effective. It arguably makes it less pervasive, but it still leaves open the door to legally 'buy' congressional votes. And that's the real problem, period. Keep your eye on the ball, stop trying to twist it into a partisan argument.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMDtp-bII9Y

And to combat this:

Over 1000 days since the Democrat controlled Senate passed a budget.

Last years budget submitted by our president was voted down 0-97 in the Senate

And the president's 2013 budget with new taxes on the rich? By 2022 the debt balloons to $25 trillion with interest payments alone at $20 billion a week. Our debt/GDP ratio surpasses Greece's current ratio.

House passed budgets and entitlement reforms set idle in the Senate. The president fund raises and campaigns.

The Tea Party stirs.
 
Back
Top Bottom