Protesting is bad except when it's something I like!

Discuss.

At least we actually had something to protest on logical grounds. This stuff is just insanity.

They can protest all they want, but they need to be called to the floor and asked what exactly they are protesting and who has been in charge of organizing this whole affair. Ask tough questions like "where were you when Bush was spending us into economic oblivion? Cheering him on?".

So..if it is a good thing, you can protest. If it is a bad thing, you should not.

My point is that they should be subject to the same scrutiny as we have been. We didn't have a media organization pimping our efforts and a willing group of talking heads recruiting for the cause in a very public and visible way. It was clear what we were protesting - this is not.

But they can protest all they want. It's their right. It's also their right to look like idiots and it's our right to question the veracity of their claims and the entire strength of their movement.

During the Bewsh administration, there was the REAL "grassroots" movement.

When your event is getting love from the most right-wing media station of them all, it's not "grassroots" and it's even more pathetic when it falls flat on it's face.

They'd scream "Get a Job" when we protest but we were protesting on the weekend, when the majority of us aren't really required to work.

Here they are protesting in the middle of the work week during working hours. Don't these assholes have a job? Wouldn't more people join in the protest if they held it during a time people could actually attend?

Then again these people are protesting for the rights of the wealthiest 1%. They really haven't thought any of this thru, have they?

When I see the pro-war, anti-choice, anti-gay groups out there: I may not like what they are protesting but at least they have a clearly defined cause they are protesting about.

These teabaggers have NO clue what the hell they are protesting. If they really thought about it - they are protesting a stimulus program that actually BENEFITS them. In reality they are out there doing the bidding of Fox News and the Wealthiest 1% - the people most impacted negatively with Obama's plan. It's like the serfs out there protecting their rights to be shit upon by the lord of their land.

I think this is just anger in general, directed at the most convenient target. But that does not mean that there is not value in it.

At some point, these insane levels of government spending must end.

It's not like Obama wants to spend all this money but many of the programs are geared towards working class people.

But had these protests existed during the Bush administration then they would make sense - hell I might even be out there.

When Clinton was randomly bombing and sanctioning the hell out of Iraq, the Left didn't exactly go nuts.

Changes in policy + changes in control = Energizing of base

If Obama sends tens of thousands of new troops into Afghanistan or starts more missions into Pakistan or starts sending military and paramilitary aid to Mexico (all of which seem likely, do you think the anti-war movement will have huge juice.

I don't think there is any comparison of the two events. While not dismissing the Clinton administrations behavior towards Iraq, it didn't destroy our economy and leave countless millions dead, injured, or affected in some way.

I somehow doubt Obama would take those kinds of drastic steps without sound reasoning. However, I would like to think that if that should happen, most of us would rally against it irregardless of who is President.

Mexico should be a nice bubbling cauldron by then if the events I am reading about in the Texas papers are accurately described.

as there has been against Obama from virtually day one.

Most people gave Bush the benefit of the doubt.
The far left and anarchists didn't like him, but they didn't like Clinton either (remember the "Battle in Seattle" was in '99).

Benefit of the Doubt?

Do you know where you are are and what day it was created?

At that time DU was considered the "lunatic fringe", a tiny minority.

I wasn't really paying attention before 9/11 so I don't really know what the LW was up to before then (apart from the anri-capitalist and anti-globalization stuff).

On edit: Also, as I understand it the teaparty website was set up in August '08, so it's possible these people were planning their opposition even before Obama was elected.

And know quite well how this place started. And the months after 9/11 when it was revealed that Bush knew about the possiblities of attacks AND the lead-up to the war in Iraq - that's when the membership of DU exploded and this place changed from tiny little website liberal discussion board to a major player in the online democratic movement.

I don't think any of the owners expected DU to turn out the way it did when they first started.

give that rat bastard Bush the benefit of the doubt. I mean come on.

The "far left"?????

I was way more middle of the road - left when Bush was elected - I liked Clinton. It was seeing what the neocon agenda was doing that forced me to become "far left."

I think you would enjoy a less lefty site... But then, maybe insulting us is just fun?

And I tend to enjoy policy and politics more than whining. I've been trying to direct conversation in a more reasonable path ever since I got here in...jeez...2002? 2003? Can't remember.

Anyway....I'm also a smart ass.

You are a "democrat not a lefty?"

:eyes:

So, you deny being on the left? where are you?

But, these morans, are protesting fear of the other. They have no idea what they are even saying. It is a xenophobic group, sponsored by corporate media, promoted by hate speech.

They can try to mask it all they want by throwing some issues on the table, but they are just pissed that they "lost" and they can't stand it.

I've always pondered how the elite of The Confederacy got the poorest who never had a chance in hell of owning their own plantations with slaves and all the trappings to go fight their war against the north. It must not be hard, because their ideological descendants are somehow still managing to get these fools to do their bidding.

At the core, what it's really all about is President Obama. He represents the biggest single threat to the "White Male Christian Power Structure" that O'Really referred to by name. So, the stooges get their marching orders and a vague explanation of why they should be mad. Pitiful :eyes:

god forbid the little people get the power and have equal rights.

At least that's what they want us to believe, that if a few people aren't kings of the world, all will be lost. God, the times I spent on picket lines fighting the bastards when I was younger, some days it just seems it was all for nothing :(

Pfffffffft. More power to them. I haven't read anything saying it's bad the wittle Weagan Wepuwicwats can't have their temper tantrum.

Kind of helps to know what you're protesting about, which at least WE all do during ours. These people don't even seem to have a clear idea, which makes it more farcical than relevant.

If you have 80,000 marchers, you have 80,000 messages.

I've been to anti-war rallies where people were marching for Native American rights and the ERA. There were probably people demanding the free coinage of silver too, but I missed them.

And I make far less of a deal about the ANSWER people's sidebars than many here do. When it comes down to it, war and occupation ARE human rights issues. We're violating them just about everywhere (including those of our own citizens), and if that needs to be brought to our attention, I hardly see how that's a bad thing.

Our anti-war protests for the most part stay on message and don't need the help of the most right-wing media channel there is.

Which is not to say that they are good nor bad. Just that I'm intrigued by what makes a "successful" rally.

In the years I lived in DC (which ended in February because I had to move to Texas which makes me sound suspisciously like a Bush white house staffer but is really just a huge coincidence and anyway I am probably moving to Florida soon, thank God), I saw exactly three large-scale gatherings that seemed powerful, meaningful, and of potential lasting importance. They were:

1 The Million Man March. Never saw so many buses in all my life.
2. The Promise Keepers Rally. I'm sorry, but anything that gets that many white, middle-aged men off the golf course and onto a stuffy church van is kind of amazing.
3. The Obama Inauguration. Mainly, because it was absolutely, terrifyingly freezing that day. And still that many people came because they cared that much.

you know that all of the groups agree on at least one thing... they are all "anti-war".

What does a "teabag" rally mean? It's nonsensical.

I have been marching and protesting the war for at least 5 years... Of course there is always a few goofballs off message but the overwhelming majority is marching AGAINST THE WAR.

I have not seen anything like you describe. Just a lot of people who want an end to an illegal war and occupation.

If it's that we're being unfair to the poor little teabaggers, then go perform unspeakable acts with a pineapple.

that that's what DUers are saying about the teabaggers. it ain't true. No one here has said that the rights of these people shouldn't be protected. making fun of them and noting that this is an astroturf protest isn't saying that their rights should be curtailed.

That has been suggested.

Discuss.

Do we?

Could just be teenagers goofing around trying to get a rise out of someone for all we know?

Can't take everything seriously on an anonymous chat site.

Discuss.

Don

It should be pretty clear what I am saying.

These protests are a bait-and-switch sort of thing. They claim to be against "tax-hikes," and "socialist-ideals," but in reality there's an underlying goal by its creators to push Bush policies that failed in the last eight years.

Not to mention Glenn Beck's sensationalism is fueling it.

But yes, let them protest. It's their right. I haven't seen anyone here claim that they should be arrested, or anything like that.

I'm also a big fan of the "Who the hell are we to tell someone how to run their country. Wait, they're doing something I don't like? We need to send someone over there ASAP to tell them to knock it off."

should be exposed for what it is.

Sid

I actually like it when they show off on a national scale how miserably stupid and disorganized they are.

Discuss.

barely made a splash this weekend (Democrats).


Too early to say they failed.

They are officially a laughingstock.

Watch the news tonight and you will see that they are already OVER.

I could tell.

not an activity I engage in.

Predicting the freepers massive fail is based on all prior freeper "protests."

Hardly a silly prediction.

noisy freepers as you call them will get the press. but there are a lot of angry people out there of all strips.

carry on.

for the most part I think it is hypocritical of the Democrats to belittle these people. From what I have read many of us have some things in common. Many are protesting the tax money going to bailouts. I agree with them on that account (and the long term debt we are and have built up).

I think the big names such as Newt and those others who have cashed into the original protests will diminish any good coming out of the Tea party gatherings.


On the other hand, they are learning to network and use technology to voice their issues (I am referring to the regular folks). Democrats are not the only groups who can do the grassrooting. Will they be a force to reckon with? I do not know. Time will tell.

1. They are protesting a rather loose concept rather than anything specific. You can say that they are protesting TARP, but three years from now - hoefully - no one will know what TARP means. There is always energy against "taxing and spending." But it is a hard thing to sustain anger against with a specific sin.

2. I don't think the people involved have the means nor the time to take advantage of the technology. Obama's use of technology was centered around college students and people in their 20s and 30s. People who have integreated Facebook and Twittering and Texting into their daily lives. Newt Gingrich is not going to appeal to anyone who can really use new technology this way - even though Newt might have a better grasp of its power than anyone.

it does have the potential to coalesce into something bigger. We will see.

And basically I agree with your points on the use of technology. But I am thinking that on the whole, they will be attaching some of the younger folks back (if they can get rid of the blowhards) IMHO.

it as a bipartisan protest, then you see sign held that say "I hope Obamas plan fails", "impeach obama and Pelosi" and "remove democRATS from power" so say what you will but these guys are frigging nuts.....and very right wing....

Actually, that doesn't surprise me at all! Your posts are consistent, I will give you that.

:rofl:

I've noticed it too. ;-)

I guess things aren't going well for them!

:rofl:

They're dressing this up as a grassroots thing, and it is not.

You see the same thing all over Central America, btw. I've seen it myself first hand in Mexico and Costa Rica. The tiny, super wealthy portion of the population gets angry, and the entire media apparatus swings into gear, servicing their complaints and pushing their massive, expensive astroturf operations.

These people have every right to speak. I just think they should stand up and do it with their own fucking voices.

but you're deluding yourself if you think that those at the protests are largely regular people who aren't wealthy.

He is neither wealthy nor powerful nor terribly bright.

My last message to him was "Calm the fuck down or I turn the hoses on you."

I'd be shocked if there was a single wealthy person at *any* of these "tea parties". I suspect their crowds are mostly middle class people who've been convinced they're wealthy. Suckers, in other words.

Perhaps we define wealth differently.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html


* APRIL 15, 2009

Tax Day Becomes Protest Day
How the tea parties could change American politics.




By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS



..............The movement grew so fast that some bloggers at the Playboy Web site -- apparently unaware that we've entered the 21st century -- suggested that some secret organization must be behind all of this. But, in fact, today's technology means you don't need an organization, secret or otherwise, to get organized. After considerable ridicule, the claim was withdrawn, but that hasn't stopped other media outlets from echoing it.

There's good news and bad news in this phenomenon for establishment politicians. The good news for Republicans is that, while the Republican Party flounders in its response to the Obama presidency and its programs, millions of Americans are getting organized on their own. The bad news is that those Americans, despite their opposition to President Obama's policies, aren't especially friendly to the GOP. When Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele asked to speak at the Chicago tea party, his request was politely refused by the organizers: "With regards to stage time, we respectfully must inform Chairman Steele that RNC officials are welcome to participate in the rally itself, but we prefer to limit stage time to those who are not elected officials, both in Government as well as political parties. This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around."

Likewise, I spoke to an organizer for the Knoxville tea party who said that no "professional politicians" were going to be allowed to speak, and he made a big point of saying that the protest wasn't an anti-Obama protest, it was an anti-establishment protest. I've heard similar things from tea-party organizers in other cities, too. Though critics will probably try to write the tea parties off as partisan publicity stunts, they're really a post-partisan expression of outrage.

Of course, it won't be the same everywhere. There are no national rules, and organizers of each protest are doing things the way they want. And that's the good news and the bad news for Democrats. It's not a big Republican effort. It's a big popular effort. But a mass movement of ordinary people who don't feel that their voices are being heard doesn't bode well for the party that positioned itself as the organ of hope and change.

Will these flash crowds be a flash in the pan? It's possible that people who demonstrate today will find that experience cathartic enough -- or exhausting enough -- that that will be it. But it's more likely that the tea-party movement will have an impact on the 2010 and 2012 elections, and perhaps beyond.

What's most striking about the tea-party movement is that most of the organizers haven't ever organized, or even participated, in a protest rally before. General disgust has drawn a lot of people off the sidelines and into the political arena, and they are already planning for political action after today.

Cincinnati organizer Mike Wilson, a novice organizer who drew 5,000 people to a rally on March 15, is now planning to create a political action committee and a permanent political organization to press for lower taxes and reduced spending. Tucson tea party organizer Robert Mayer told me that his organization will focus on city council elections in the fall as its next priority. And there's lots of Internet chatter about ways of taking things further after today's protests.

This influx of new energy and new talent is likely to inject new life into small-government politics around the nation. The mainstream Republican Party still seems limp and disorganized. This grassroots effort may revitalize it. Or the tea-party movement may lead to a new third party that may replace the GOP, just as the GOP replaced the fractured and hapless Whigs.

being manipulated by an organized group of wealthy individuals and corporations.

hoping, it seems, for a renaissance in the Libertarian party with the teabagging currently going on today!

"This influx of new energy and new talent is likely to inject new life into small-government politics around the nation. The mainstream Republican Party still seems limp and disorganized. This grassroots effort may revitalize it. Or the tea-party movement may lead to a new third party that may replace the GOP, just as the GOP replaced the fractured and hapless Whigs."

Wishful thinking, Instapundit, wishful thinking.

The "my way or the highway" attitude tossed around here is pathetic. Protests are the American way no matter the subject.

I am also not one of the crowd that thinks they pay too little in taxes. 40-45% out of my paycheck seems too much in fact.

President Obama is lowering taxes for the majority of the population. He is not raising taxes on the wealthy. He merely let the Bush tax cuts expire. The rate for those making above $250,000 will be around 39%. Do you make above $250,000 per year?

If he/she is counting Social Security and State Taxes, 40 percent could be correct.

I would be surprised if the poster answers.

Do you think 40-45% of a paycheck under 100k/year is too much, too little or just right?

You are not being taxed 40-45% on your Federal Income tax.

And it's too damn much for what little I make. I'm sorry if you think I should pay even more.

You will be paying less. However, I think you would like to ignore that important detail.

It's not enough now to make up for the many many years since 1972 that I have been getting robbed.

$13.55/ 2 weeks is not an "important detail" unless you make under 15k a year. Why the hell would you say it
is an important detail?

So, people who make less than 15K are not important?

I pay just a smidge under that and earn half that much, of course I get health care and received a decent education and if needed I can get non time limited unemployment benefits for that not just a shitload of weapons of mass destruction and endless wars for empire so I'm more than happy to pay it.

It does not take into account property, sales, sin, 911, phone and thousands of other taxes.

If anyone here really thinks we are under taxed I would like to hear from them.

And it's not anything new that irks me either. I make much less than 100k and have been paying 40-45% taxes right
off the top of my paycheck for a long time. It's too much and I'd much like it to be closer to 20%.

What can I do about it besides protest or lower my wages to <30k?

40 to 50%? If you're paying that much, you need to learn how to properly fill out the 1040.

I make almost $150k, and my total tax load doesn't even begin to approach $60k.

Nice try.
GAC

Are you adding in what you pay for Health and Dental also? That's the only way you'd get to 40-45%.

I want to ride by them and yell out the window and give the one-finger salute...as some of them did at the rallies 6 years ago.

Pointing out that the message is asinine or the protest design is flawed is not the same as rejecting the idea of protesting/demonstrating...

AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT TEABAGGERS! :patriot:

The more coverage the freepers and company get with their teabag movement the better! It's the joke that keeps on giving! LOL!

after a hard day and turn on the tv to see these jackasses prancing around with teabags?

Speaking of this lol...

I was talking to neighbor's a few days ago and the topic of these teabagging parties came up--my neighbors said WHAT?

I said oh yeah the Republicans are having teabagging parties to protest Obama and the stimulus.

The neighbors (who are in their 20's) said they might want to find out what that means before they call their protests that--then they laughed and said I couldn't be serious.

Yeah they're appealing to the public alright! LOL!

The repub PR machine has gone off the rails in a seriously bad way. Poor things.

And we're perfectly free to make fun of them. :rofl:

we want them involved. They have no idea of exactly what is going on. This will completely muddy the waters on the right by expectations of results (which will be met by Obama's plan)-we give up almost nothing.

It has the potential of growing--into what is to be determined.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html


* APRIL 15, 2009

Tax Day Becomes Protest Day
How the tea parties could change American politics.




By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS



..............The movement grew so fast that some bloggers at the Playboy Web site -- apparently unaware that we've entered the 21st century -- suggested that some secret organization must be behind all of this. But, in fact, today's technology means you don't need an organization, secret or otherwise, to get organized. After considerable ridicule, the claim was withdrawn, but that hasn't stopped other media outlets from echoing it.

There's good news and bad news in this phenomenon for establishment politicians. The good news for Republicans is that, while the Republican Party flounders in its response to the Obama presidency and its programs, millions of Americans are getting organized on their own. The bad news is that those Americans, despite their opposition to President Obama's policies, aren't especially friendly to the GOP. When Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele asked to speak at the Chicago tea party, his request was politely refused by the organizers: "With regards to stage time, we respectfully must inform Chairman Steele that RNC officials are welcome to participate in the rally itself, but we prefer to limit stage time to those who are not elected officials, both in Government as well as political parties. This is an opportunity for Americans to speak, and elected officials to listen, not the other way around."

Likewise, I spoke to an organizer for the Knoxville tea party who said that no "professional politicians" were going to be allowed to speak, and he made a big point of saying that the protest wasn't an anti-Obama protest, it was an anti-establishment protest. I've heard similar things from tea-party organizers in other cities, too. Though critics will probably try to write the tea parties off as partisan publicity stunts, they're really a post-partisan expression of outrage.

Of course, it won't be the same everywhere. There are no national rules, and organizers of each protest are doing things the way they want. And that's the good news and the bad news for Democrats. It's not a big Republican effort. It's a big popular effort. But a mass movement of ordinary people who don't feel that their voices are being heard doesn't bode well for the party that positioned itself as the organ of hope and change.

Will these flash crowds be a flash in the pan? It's possible that people who demonstrate today will find that experience cathartic enough -- or exhausting enough -- that that will be it. But it's more likely that the tea-party movement will have an impact on the 2010 and 2012 elections, and perhaps beyond.

What's most striking about the tea-party movement is that most of the organizers haven't ever organized, or even participated, in a protest rally before. General disgust has drawn a lot of people off the sidelines and into the political arena, and they are already planning for political action after today.

Cincinnati organizer Mike Wilson, a novice organizer who drew 5,000 people to a rally on March 15, is now planning to create a political action committee and a permanent political organization to press for lower taxes and reduced spending. Tucson tea party organizer Robert Mayer told me that his organization will focus on city council elections in the fall as its next priority. And there's lots of Internet chatter about ways of taking things further after today's protests.

This influx of new energy and new talent is likely to inject new life into small-government politics around the nation. The mainstream Republican Party still seems limp and disorganized. This grassroots effort may revitalize it. Or the tea-party movement may lead to a new third party that may replace the GOP, just as the GOP replaced the fractured and hapless Whigs.

who is also, BTW, owner of your favorite network, Fox News, and behind these tea parties. Grassroots my ass.

and waiting in anticipation for today which has already provided much to laugh about. I haven't seen any OPs nor posts saying protesting is bad, quite the opposite actually.

:shrug:

bother to show up the 50 plus times I showed up to protest the war????

I have been in crowds of thousands and not a single news camera.

It's okay to protest in favor of big business - which is exactly what the teabaggers are doing.... but evil to protest an illegal war and subsequent illegal OCCUPATION.

I think they should have shown up when our tax dollars began funding a fucking war. Fuck them and their little minds.

Oh, and I do not give one single hair on a rats ass if they hop in bed with the corporatists greed bags.

smart protesting is better, ignorance is not so good... I have no problem with protesters but I reserve the right to make fun and question the validity of the 'tea-baggers' -they were silent as the Bush Administration was sending US further in debt... tha fact denies them credibility... sure gives the impression that they are protesting a 'black democrat' in the White House. We can't legislate stupidity, but we sure as heck shouldn't encourage it.

When you protest nonexistent problems, or you protest that someone or thing is "fascist" when you don't know what the word means, than I reserve my right to call you an idiot.

Furthermore, when you characterize people who criticize these protests by saying that they think protests are bad if they are about something they don't like, well, you are free to say that too. And again, I reserve my right call you an idiot.

as much as I want to.

I'll also call them racists because of who supported these protests and because of racist signs they're holding.

all living under the past 30 years? The debt and our problems come from THEIR party!

Protesting for good causes is a good thing to do.

Protesting for bad causes is a bad thing to do.

Just as voting for a good political party and voting for a bad political party are not morally equivalent, nor are protesting for good and bad causes.

What that *doesn't* mean, of course, is that whether or not a political tactic or means of protest is legitimate or not, or above or below the belt, or what policing strategies should be applied to it, should have anything to do with the cause. Just as I want people to be able to vote Republican, I want them to be *able* to protest for bad causes; I just don't want them to do so.

It's a wonderful time when the friends, family and neighbors can come together to show their true, inner selves.

IMO they need to let it all hang out--it'll keep them out of the presidency for a LONG time.

:eyes:

Always day late and a dollar short, hehe.