Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[PhilsFan]

Indeed they are. In my state, the GOP has had a stranglehold on the state because of it. My hometown is one of the most gerrymandered areas in the country.

But yes, it is a problem that both parties share blame for.

[INDY500]

Glenn Beck's Tea Party rally on the Mall. Organization, civility and an uplifting message are looking better with each passing day.



Watching the Occupy movement spiral out of control isn't even funny anymore. It was too tempting to make fun of the ridiculous of it. But I'm done now. The country faces monumental problems. People truly are hurting, mad and apprehensive. The last thing we need is division, rancor, agitation and envy.

Conservatives and moderates were hurting, mad and apprehensive in 2009 as well. But we did something about it. The picture above is also "what democracy looks like." Were they beyond criticism? No. Did you have to agree with them? No. But really, shame on those that dismissed, mocked or falsely charged the Tea Party with racism.

And shame on those stirring discontent among the populace today.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Glenn Beck's Tea Party rally on the Mall. Organization, civility and an uplifting message are looking better with each passing day.

Pretty entertaining that you have fallen for Beck's faux message. He's only in it for the Benjamin's, Indy. I'm sorry.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

The last thing we need is division, rancor, agitation and envy.

Did you actually type that with a straight face?

[MrsSpringsteen]

I didn't know quite what to make of it either

No offense

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Glenn Beck's Tea Party rally on the Mall. Organization, civility and an uplifting message are looking better with each passing day.



Watching the Occupy movement spiral out of control isn't even funny anymore. It was too tempting to make fun of the ridiculous of it. But I'm done now. The country faces monumental problems. People truly are hurting, mad and apprehensive. The last thing we need is division, rancor, agitation and envy.

Conservatives and moderates were hurting, mad and apprehensive in 2009 as well. But we did something about it. The picture above is also "what democracy looks like." Were they beyond criticism? No. Did you have to agree with them? No. But really, shame on those that dismissed, mocked or falsely charged the Tea Party with racism.

And shame on those stirring discontent among the populace today.

Indeed, division and debate are really even worse than thought crime.

1984 George Orwell Movie Trailer (1984) - YouTube

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

But really, shame on those that dismissed, mocked or falsely charged the Tea Party with racism.

And shame on you, Beck, Hannity, and all the others who dismissed and swept the racism under the rug.

EVERY single time we pointed out specific moments of racism you ignore it, or worse yet defended it.

Honestly you have NO right shaming anyone.

[PhilsFan]

I'm much less offended by the occasional Tea Party racist than I am by the overwhelming stupidity of their ideas for public policy. Stupidity is the most offensive thing in the world, to me.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Glenn Beck's Tea Party rally on the Mall. Organization, civility and an uplifting message are looking better with each passing day.
The last thing we need is division, rancor, agitation and envy.

Yesterday on air Beck said that these people want to kill you. So much for your non-divisive bullshit story.

The fact that you posted that with absolutely no sense of irony shows how buried under his bullshit you really are.


Glenn Beck: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Will 'Kill Everybody' (VIDEO)

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by BVS

Yesterday on air Beck said that these people want to kill you. So much for your non-divisive bullshit story.


Glenn Beck: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Will 'Kill Everybody' (VIDEO)

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?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

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.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

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?

[2861U2]

Originally Posted by financeguy

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?

[Irvine511]

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."

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by financeguy

- 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?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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

nah. it's really just a revenue problem. society is a contract.

the globe has actually never been more moral than it is today.

Steven Pinker Talks End of Violence With Sam Harris - The Daily Beast

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by 2861U2

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?

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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