Anti-Tax Tea Parties Held Across U.S.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what do you advocate?

Energy independence, fiscal responsibility, true political leadership and letting the marketplace weed out inefficient companies.

And banning autotune. I'm tired of hacks in politics and music.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

people who once put their trust in him came to see him and the Republican congress as Democrats Lite in regards to federal spending, illegal immigration and finally the bank bailouts.

if all these people are taking these positions, and all these people are Republicans, doesn't that make them Republican positions?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Energy independence, fiscal responsibility, true political leadership and letting the marketplace weed out inefficient companies.

could you be more specific? would you have bailed out AIG? what programs would you cut? how would you raise revenue? am i right to assume that raising taxes are verboten? where does energy independence come from? does it inclue, say, high speed rail?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

if all these people are taking these positions, and all these people are Republicans, doesn't that make them Republican positions?

Republican yes, conservative, no. As they say, power corrupts.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Whether they like it or not taxes will have to be raised to balance the budget. The spending has been through the roof for a long time. Obama is just continuing what Bush already was for.

All the Neo-Keynesians want to do now is get inflation up because inflation to them is a "recovery". Staff at the Fed also mentioned that they don't want to raise interest rates too soon to create probably another recession so they are obviously going to make the public eat more inflation than they are used to in the coming years. It's looking more and more like the '70s. I think I need some platform shoes and bell-bottoms.

Agreed, a perceptive and succint analysis.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

I don't think I have. Paying for the military is GOOD. Military for me is just as important as roads. There is no freedom without political freedom. You would think September 11th would teach people that. Even if they don't like the Iraq mission, certainly Afghanistan was worthy and you would need a military for that. Yes taxes should have been raised to pay for it but it becomes much harder when Bush wanted to increase domestic spending along with it and lower taxes. Not all tax cuts pay for themselves. Everyone knows that Europe has all those social programs because the U.S. spends more on the military so that they can be free to do so. If they want to cut social programs on their side and do more military spending so the U.S. can spend less on military that would be fine by me. Of course that won't happen.

Plus much of the social spending that Bush did didn't result in improvements so having Democrats do what he did doesn't make it somehow more efficient spending. We are talking about government here. If government was more cost efficient we should have government everywhere. It's getting so cynical that it looks like political opposition just criticizes because they want power more than implementing meaningful changes.

Most of the western world wanted to have their cake and eat it too during the post-Soviet era, that was called the "peace dividend", and the threat to freedom didn't actually go away and now decadent westerners want to shower themselves with benefits and pretend that there are no challenges with Iran/Russia/China etc. The debt is getting so big that I may be an old man before I see any meaningful changes.

The manner in which Russia and China conduct their business is none of our business, to be honest. Provided they comply with the international trade agreements and don't start pre-emptive wars. Like, you know, your neo-cons did.
I'd allow Iran is problematic.

Explain to me why there have no significant Islamist terrorist incidents in France and Germany.

[Bluer White]

Olbermann just had a guest on tonight. She says the tea parties are all about Racism. Rednecks hating on a black man in the White House. Keith was gushing.


(the guest was Janeane Garofalo.)

[U2isthebest]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Olbermann just had a guest on tonight. She says the tea parties are all about Racism. Rednecks hating on a black man in the White House. Keith was gushing.


(the guest was Janeane Garofalo.)

While the idea that the sole ideas behind the tea parties was racism is pretty ridiculous, but one would be fooling themselves if they didn't think that racism wasn't at least one factor (whether it be towards President Obama himself or other minorities) in more than a few peoples' minds. Just take a look at some of the signs posted in this thread.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

GWB's approval ratings his last term.

There aren't enough anti-war protesters, Bush-haters or even partisan Democrats around to get him down to 20%. His ratings were historically low because people who once put their trust in him came to see him and the Republican congress as Democrats Lite in regards to federal spending, illegal immigration and finally the bank bailouts.

We thought the country was "moving in the wrong direction" too. The direction, unfortunately, Obama is now fasttraking.

So if Obama sat back and did nothing, and just let the market heal itself, you would thinking the country is heading in the right direction?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Olbermann just had a guest on tonight. She says the tea parties are all about Racism. Rednecks hating on a black man in the White House. Keith was gushing.


(the guest was Janeane Garofalo.)

There was a lot of racism at these "parties" but I would never go as far as saying that's all they were.

They were bitch fests plain and simple from folks that have no plan, and they would not be out there if it was McCain.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

how would increased military spending have prevented September 11?

be specific.

The response to September 11th.

[BVS]

The response TO would have prevented the ATTACK?

Yes, a time machine would be nice. Maybe that's where the stimulous money should go...

Anyone have a Deloreon?

[coolian2]

yeah, but if you go back in time and prevent the attacks then you don't get the opportunity in the future to go back in time and prevent the attacks, thus the attacks still happen, except if they happen you can go back in time to prevent them, but that means you won't be able to go back in time to prevent them, thus they'll happen anyway, which means you can go back in time to prevent them, and so on.

come on people, don't we understand basic time travel principles in fym?

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by financeguy

The manner in which Russia and China conduct their business is none of our business, to be honest. Provided they comply with the international trade agreements and don't start pre-emptive wars. Like, you know, your neo-cons did.

Well Taiwan and Georgia are problem situations with China and Russia respectively. I don't think the U.S. has the ability to prempt with those countries considering their nuclear arsenal. It's more of a cold war chess game. If the U.S. really draws down with their military spending it will tempt those countries to enact what they already want to do. That's why many in the middle east want nuclear weapons. With a nuclear weapon a country can decay as much as they want and threaten neighbors and more disturbingly, they can give small nuclear weapons to terrorists so they can detonate them and and say "it wasn't me. It was some _______ splinter faction". This is a large motivation for Neo-Con premption ideas.

Originally Posted by financeguy

Explain to me why there have no significant Islamist terrorist incidents in France and Germany.

France certainly do have problems with Algerian tensions. Germany I'm not so sure. Smashing Al Qaida and the Taliban helped the whole world IMHO. As long as Sharia law is not implemented in the West the only fear is terrorist attacks getting through; but the successful attacks we've seen are in the east (recently Mumbai) and I think the thesis that taking the war to them keeps it off our soil is still holding up.

I'm happy that Obama will continue to support smashing what's left of the Taliban. Their executions of women and acid bombings of girl students piss me off. The success or failure of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be based on how much the infrastructure is complete before NATO & the "Coalition of the willing leave". If the institutions are not adopted in the long run then the reconstruction part of the war will be a failure. Bush's example, Japan, was already industrializing before the U.S. reconstructed over there so having a population that is interested in these changes makes it easier. It's a hard sell that all humans, regardless of culture background, want democracies and the question is still up in the air. I personally think that once a generation gets the habit for education institutions and democracy they will want to keep it. When the U.S. pulls out they will still need to have close ties with Iraq and Afghanistan in case Iran and Pakistan get naughty with them.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

The response TO would have prevented the ATTACK?

Yes, a time machine would be nice. Maybe that's where the stimulous money should go...

Anyone have a Deloreon?

Sorry I misread his post. He quoted my post that iterated that military spending is as important as roads. No, military spending can't prevent a terrorist attack unless you have ADEQUATE intelligence to act on. After September 11th you would need a military if you wanted to respond in Afghanistan. That's what I was aiming at.

Jeeezzz you guys!!!

[yolland]

The Taliban weren't and aren't "smashed," just pushed across the border where they can destabilize a nuclear state instead, which they're currently doing quite effectively, and not just in the northwest anymore either.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by yolland

just pushed across the border.

They used to run Afghanistan. I don't think that's an unimportant feat. The war isn't over yet and Pakistan poses a motivation problem but we will have to be patient and wait until the increase in troops get to the region. Pakistan is unstable with or without the Taliban.

[yolland]

I didn't say that was unimportant, but "motivation problem" doesn't even begin to describe how grave the situation in Pakistan has the potential to become. Previous "instability" would pale in comparison to a Taliban-driven revolution, which while far from likely is looking a lot more possible than it did two years ago.

But, this is getting off-topic.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

If the U.S. really draws down with their military spending it will tempt those countries to enact what they already want to do. That's why many in the middle east want nuclear weapons.

Do you realize how much nuclear weaponry we have?

Rush told you Obama wants to cut military spending, how dare he, oh my!!! The proposed cuts are mostly in future nuclear weapon development. You honestly think anyone is thinking "the U.S. doesn't have enough to hurt us, now that they stopped we got them right where we want them."

[Tiger Edge]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Some of us reject this.

I don't get your point.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

Do you realize how much nuclear weaponry we have?

Rush told you Obama wants to cut military spending, how dare he, oh my!!! The proposed cuts are mostly in future nuclear weapon development. You honestly think anyone is thinking "the U.S. doesn't have enough to hurt us, now that they stopped we got them right where we want them."

I don't care about nuclear disarmament when the U.S. can still have enough to nuke the enemy several times over. As long as the U.S. has enough to keep China from being tempted to take over Taiwan and Russia from taking over any number of neighbors I'm okay with that. Rush is going to attack everything and we all know that. This is partly because he sees the left do that same and be totally partisan that he feels no guilt in being partisan in return. Ideological warfare is real. I agree with much of what he says but not all things. To me it's small fish to fry. There's so much more to complain about (cap and trade, deficit spending, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, ACORN). Without Rush paving the way for right wing media there would be a blackhole of debate right now. I'm so happy to see that there is more competition nowadays.