Why I dont buy the "tea party" protests

reply to post by Southern Guardian


There is an old adage the say that the best defense is a good offense.

Let's face it; Americans have to have a hand to hold and they have to have a leader.

It doesn't matter that they are being led by the same people that they claim to rally against; it has become a big game and a competition for the talking heads.

Maybe this is even the first leg of the race to put Rush Limbaugh in the White House.

It is certainly the beginning stages of a plan for something and you better believe that it will not benefit us.

Hey the MSM has control of all that you see and hear.

There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... The Outer Limits. — Opening narration – The Control Voice – 1960s

Thank you to cbianchi513 for answering my questions.
I do welcome all of you who support the protests answer as well.

Originally posted by SGTChas
ever-increasing numbers the American electorate is being reeducated in the principles of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and the true intent of the Founding Fathers.

****snip****

the powers that be will never again be able sell the lie that the Constitution is a “living” “elastic” document that’s meaning can be morphed into whatever the leader of the moment wants it to mean. The American people have started to awake to that lie and are demanding the government return to its Constitutional boundaries.

Oh boy.


There is currently the most interesting movement going on:
Suddenly...everyone is a Constitutional Scholar and a Historian....or an economist.

But I will get to that in a minute.

First and foremost, the Tea Party Movements "talking points" are vague-and quite frankly all over the place. Are you calling the bailout unconstitutional? How interesting...a good convo we could have. However, what does "restoring a free-market" (taken off the national website) have to do with the Constitution? In fact, historically, terms such as capitalism and free-market had not yet been coined. Regardless of capitalism or socialism or insert -ism here...well the American system of economics is and always has been mixed market. As I continue to research the said creed of those who plan on attending - I can only reclarify the fact that anyone with any dissatisfaction in Obama's Presidency is welcome to join (i.e SGTChas "The enemy of my enemy is my friend") Inspired by Rick Santelli's infamous rant (who wants absolutely nothing to do with any of this and will not be attending, unfortunately) it is half grassroots and half "astroturf"; funded by some of the most ridiculous anti-tax lobby groups that continue to say how much they love the Constitution yet continue to claim the 16th Amendment is "unconstitutional" (oh the irony) or illegal...or claim filling out a tax return violates their 5th Amendment Rights to prevent self-incrimination or whatever other completely baseless arguement that has continually been heard yet shot down by any court of any level as complete imaginative fallacy.


You claim the bailout is unconstitutional? All I ever hear is some sketchy translation of the nondelegation doctrine (and come on honey, you arn't a law student) and extreme lack of context in the regard its uses...
Perhaps then I could meet you at Starbucks for a coffee and a Marlboro Light and then we can discuss possible uses of the commerce clause in this situation. We could probably chat all day...without stepping into partisanship.
I would be willing to entertain the bailout as unconstitutional....until you start repeatedly incorrectly using the terms "facism" or "socialism" which is becomming quite annoying, thank you.

But thanks anyway, Heritage Foundation, for offering me a free pocket constitution with every t-shirt.....

When you couple Constitutional interpretation...with the continued hatred for all things liberal or Obama or "KoolAid"....
the same people the continually call Obama a Muslim...even if he was they must have skipped the part about "no religious test to hold office"...
then I know this is no longer about constitutional law and/or interpretation... but POLITICS. Bleh.

However there do remain so many of these "Constitution Supporters" involved. It reminds me so of the flag waving days of the last adminstration...history so often repeats itself..but so soon?
"You don't love the Constitution like I do!"
"Don't tread on me!"
"It is not a living document"
"Our founding fathers this...that..."

Its a new bleepin' cult!!!!!

Hey guys, hows that Air Force treatin' ya? You know the one not in the Constitution...because we didn't have planes...hmmm...Original Intent anyone?

And so many times do I continually see misguided context in relation to documents of our founding fathers, and the documents of those who influenced them.



Scalia will tell you himself, Constitutional Interpretation is done by some of the best minds, Originalist and Non-Originalist, and its handled by the Supreme Court and not by any political faction whatsoever...as per the Constitution!
I don't think they need Joe Six Packs help.

I won't really get into all of it here...but the relatively young system of government (all 300 years of it) based on our fabulous constitution also contains two very important aspects...HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND PRECEDENT.




So please, don't trample on MY CONSTITUTION either, which will not be used by any partisan groups whatsoever to further an agenda.

I am not saying that everyone who calls themselves a "Constitution Supporter" is a conservative in sheeps clothing.
It just smells rotten to me, thats all.
Especially when you have Fox News doing your dirty work.
And Newt Gingrich attending...yikes.

i don't get it, what exactly are the tea-party protests about?

i look online and all i get is a bunch of sites that present no clear idea or message, so what is it all about guys?

being pissed?

a particular action? what?

reply to post by Animal


I already answered your question in this post on page four. They are basically protesting the out of control spending and taxes.

reply to post by Jenna


thanks for the list not as bad as the rational i expected but still not the type of thing i would buy into.

interesting how biased it it towards big-business and the upper class yet being touted as for 'we the people'.

oh well, not a surprise there.

enjoy the tea party guys.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Animal]

reply to post by Animal


The Tea Party protest are Americans from all past political affiliations coming together to demand that our government return to its Constitutional boundaries; that it stop over taxing to redistribute our wealth; that it quit printing money to finance really big government, and that it heed the voice of the people rather than continue to ignore us. So, grab a sign and join us for this peaceful and nonpolitically aligned, but united and determined protest!

Originally posted by SGTChas
reply to post by Animal

 

that it stop over taxing to redistribute our wealth

so 1/10th of the population should have the majority of the wealth? link link

that it quit printing money to finance really big government

Of course you mean really big military, right? link Link link

and that it heed the voice of the people rather than continue to ignore us.

This we can agree on.

So, grab a sign and join us for this peaceful and nonpolitically aligned, but united and determined protest!

Sorry I don't do ANY work for big business and the oligarchies of this, or any, nation.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Animal]

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by Jenna

 

As a liberal I can say that we... those of us who objected with the Republican and bush minor policies over the past 8 years were labeled as hating America and blame America first and traitors and siding with terrorists and so forth... now we are being labeled as socialists...

I call for a truce so that we can come together (although it may be too late) to save our country.

Posts such as the OP only serve to further divide. If the OP really wanted what's best for America, he/she would avoid divisiveness.

[edit on 12/4/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]

Hate to break it to you, but the far right are the ones who've been leading the charge in creating division in this country.

For years, their attitude, as demonstrated by their actions, has been exactly how Limbaugh put it at their latest Bundt meeting. He basically said that for them, compromise meant only taking it all a bit at a time, rather than all at once. You give us a little now, and a little more later, and so forth. That's neocon compromise. And the left kept on saying, Well, okay, here, you can have this, in the interests of being bipartisan - but that's all (until next time).

Just watch any given hour of Faux News in the evening. You'd think that Hitler and Stalin and Ghengis Khan had moved into the White House. 100 days? THey didn't even wait 100 minutes.

reply to post by awake_awoke


I hate nothing ‘liberal’ if defined as true liberals once were; nor do I hate Mr. Obama, as a Virginian who has always been against the evils of segregation, his election brought new joy to my heart for us having come so far. Had he really been the centrist Democrat he campaigned as, he would have my support. I just knew he was not what he had portrayed himself as, because I had actually read his pre-presidential campaign writings.

You can argue about many things, but our American birthright is being sold into a globalist hell. I would never trample on your Constitutional right to remain inactive and caustic to the current struggle for our liberty, as I have bled to maintain those rights. You may criticize and ridicule me but I will stand to defend the Constitution, alone if necessary. This I will defend: Long Live This Republic!


[edit on 4/14/2009 by SGTChas]

Originally posted by Animal

so 1/10th of the population should have the majority of the wealth?

Many of them worked hard to earn their wealth or inherited it from their parents. Granted there are some who did nothing but manipulate the system or other people to gain their wealth, but there are many who didn't. Why should people who earned their money be punished? If those who are wealthy choose to give part of their money away, more power to them that's their choice. They should not, however, be forced to hand it over just because they have more money than someone else. And I say this as part of a working class family.

Originally posted by Amagnon


The divisions your media taught you are false divisions - the amount that Americans have been steeped in this kind of brainwashing is incredible. I can see that even those of you who are becoming aware of the level of brainwashing are still hard pressed to avoid its subtle influences.

What they truly fear is someone who starts talking about AMERICANS - be that person.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Amagnon]

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Amagnon]

Well I certainly agree about the manipulation... I think there are many influences trying to juggle and coopt people.

I find it vert interesting that the PTB FOX/NEWSCORP in this case, is promoting the whole happening like a NY city RAVE. Last time I checked, the richest and most powerful public/ corporate entities ran their commercials OVER and OVER on FOX like they always do.
This fact tells me something...

There is a huge market for POPULIST rage and the actions/protests FOX is PROMOTING WILL NOT challenge the SUPREMACY of ANY entity THAT holds this country hostage.
IF the NWO is a force controlling the governments of the world, funded by big $$$$$$$$$$ they sure don't seem very scared, if you ask me...

I think FOX is capitalizing on RAGE and fear just like the WAR ON TERROR, this fits the pattern. To a large degree I think FOX could give a damn about "LIBERTY" - they are thinking

JEB 2012 -Palin 2012 -

GET serious people...

FOX could give a damn about LIBERTY and TAXES ( besides the CEOs ) for if they did they would have not SMASHED all of BUSH'S lies directly down your throats +
the proxy tax of a $1,000,000,000,000.00 war which only liberates OIL and TAX payer $$$$$$$ from the tax payer.

On another note why DO ANY OF YOU TRUST programing that receives its funding from the world power base via ad revenue?

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by Animal

so 1/10th of the population should have the majority of the wealth?

Many of them worked hard to earn their wealth or inherited it from their parents. Granted there are some who did nothing but manipulate the system or other people to gain their wealth, but there are many who didn't. Why should people who earned their money be punished? If those who are wealthy choose to give part of their money away, more power to them that's their choice. They should not, however, be forced to hand it over just because they have more money than someone else. And I say this as part of a working class family.

I understand your position, I do...

But one man with $450,000,000,000.00 ?

Gather all this money, give it a name and the entities consistently buy our politicians
and undermine our LIBERTY.


However I cannot understand for the life of me why people are losing their homes to pay for catoustrophic illness...

anyhow this is my version of populist rage...

I'm not saying steal peoples money or do anything in particular but just because we believe it is fine to be apathetic to stuff that effects EVERYONE does not mean it is the only way or the best way.

Of coarse my speaking forth gets a stigma stuck to it that sound nefarious, hardly in reality, I'm true blue eagle scout and all.

Originally posted by Jenna
Why should people who earned their money be punished?

A VERY reveling statement.

I said NOTHING about punishment, that is purely a product of your personal bias.

However, I do not support the ability of a small minority to gather the majority of the wealth of a society.

That doe snot mean there can be rich and poor, the hard working and the lazy, the fortunate and unfortunate, only that there are LIMITS to the extremes e allow to exist in our society.

It all comes down tot what separates us from animals, our capacity for REASON.

This is one issue I will not falter on and one of many why I will not be attending a tea party.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Animal]

To say that ALL economic hardships are the product of lack of hard work would be complete fallacy.
Most socioeconomic problems we face are the result of something our government has done in the past....

Would you not say this especially rings true in this present situation we face?

Originally posted by awake_awoke
To say that ALL economic hardships are the product of lack of hard work would be complete fallacy.
Most socioeconomic problems we face are the result of something our government has done in the past....

Would you not say this especially rings true in this present situation we face?

But, WHO influences the politicians of our government to pursue and adopt these faulty
measures executed by the government???

That is the question that these TEA PARTIES do not address...

IF WE got rid of every single DC politician and replaced them do you all not realize this would only happen again?

TO only address the government is a huge MISTAKE - for the government is OUR
instrument - WHO IS MISUSING and TURN OUR INSTRUMENT AGAINST US?

You could burn down and rebuild DC ten times over and you will find the same thing happen for time and memorial.

DO you all forget 30/1 derivative instruments???

HAVE you even loaned $100,000 when you only had $100.00 in your pocket???

WHO INFLUENCED OUR HOUSE TO DO THIS?

reply to post by mental modulator


Well spoken.

The tea partys should be about the abolition of the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax being illegal needs addressed, and the Patriot Act repealed.

for STARTERS!!!

MSM has turned the entire process of peaceful assembly and protest into a circus. I am certain the message will be heavily diluted by design.

Luckily, people reading this thread will be in attendance tomorrow across the republic. Perhaps seek out a member of this organization, which I find in agreement with most of my personal values:

www.restoretherepublic.com...

Let us hope the message is spread accurately, whatever your own personal values may be.

Let's get this right the second time around.

Edit: added link

[edit on 14/4/09 by cbianchi513]

Originally posted by mental modulator
I understand your position, I do...

But one man with $450,000,000,000.00 ?

If that's how much they earned, then it's theirs plain and simple. I can't understand why anyone would want that much money, but I've never really cared how much money I have so long as my families needs are met.

Try looking at it from the other side. Imagine for a moment that you came from a working class family. One day you have a brilliant idea for a service or product and figure out how to make money off it. A few decades later you have millions of dollars from the work you put into selling your service or product. You went from almost losing everything trying to get your idea off the ground to being very well off. Would you think it was right for someone else to come in and say that you shouldn't have that much money because you don't need it? You might not need it, and if you have millions you likely don't need all of it, but that isn't the point. You worked your entire life to get to where you are and someone else gets to decide whether or not you should have the money that came from all your work? Does that really seem right to you?

I agree that there are very few people who could make a legitimate claim to needing millions upon millions of dollars. And I agree that if you have that much you should want to help others with it. BUT it is not my place to tell someone else what to do with the money they earned, just as it isn't yours or anyone else's. We can share our opinions about it, but the final decision is not and should not be ours to make.

Originally posted by Animal
A VERY reveling statement.

I said NOTHING about punishment, that is purely a product of your personal bias.

How is taking money away from someone merely because you think they have too much not punishing them?

However, I do not support the ability of a small minority to gather the majority of the wealth of a society.

That doe snot mean there can be rich and poor, the hard working and the lazy, the fortunate and unfortunate, only that there are LIMITS to the extremes e allow to exist in our society.

Actually, you do. With every product you buy and every service you pay for you support the ability of someone else to get a little bit richer.

There will always be those who are richer than the rest of us. There will always be those who do nothing but sit on their butts all day and then wonder why they have no money. There will always be those who expect everyone else to take care of them. If the world were a perfect place those who have more money than they know what to do with would all help those who need a hand. If the world were a perfect place everyone would be able to take care of themselves and there would be no poverty. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. I cannot for the life of me understand why Bob should be limited in how much money he can have just because Bill wasn't fortunate enough to be the one who made millions.

You really want to fix the huge gap between the richest and the poorest? Don't impose limits on Bob, he'll just take his money elsewhere so you can't take it from him. Give him an incentive to keep the jobs here instead of outsourcing them. Punish him if he hires someone who is here illegally just cause he wants to save a few bucks. Give Bill a hand up with the understanding that he needs to do something with himself because he won't be getting help forever. Give Bill the ability to learn a trade or get an education so that he is qualified for the jobs Bill has open. How about putting limits on college tuition? What reason does Bill have to go to college and get an education or learn how to do something if he's just going to be in debt from it for the next 20 years? Or even better, how about giving the entire education system an overhaul so that little Billy doesn't think he can't do anything just because he lives in the city and the teachers either don't know what they are doing or don't care?

It all comes down tot what separates us from animals, our capacity for REASON.

And reason would tell you that there are many different things that can be done to shorten the gap between the richest of us and the poorest of us that don't involve taking Bob's money away just because Bill doesn't have as much.

reply to post by Jenna


Jenna at face value your argument is both compelling and sound yet under scrutiny it begins to fall apart.

What is it you think is the right way to deal with both taxes and the gathering of wealth within this finite?

We have to work collectively to make this system work, there would be no commerce without roads, or law enforcement, or electricity, or education or any of the many things provided through our collective efforts (taxes).

Also in terms of generating wealth shouldn't those who rely more heavily on these collective systems pay more to ensure their maintenance?

And when it enough enough? In a closed and finite system there is only so much to go around, why should one person starve and another sit on a pile of gold that can not be spent in a life time?

I do not want to punish anyone, that is your take on the situation. Limiting the stratification of wealth, taxing the incredibly wealthy more than the poor is not punishment is a rational approach to dealing with finite resources.

Originally posted by Animal
Jenna at face value your argument is both compelling and sound yet under scrutiny it begins to fall apart.

Which part did I lose you on? Perhaps I could have explained it better.

What is it you think is the right way to deal with both taxes and the gathering of wealth within this finite?

I am by no means a tax expert, but for starters our taxes could be spent in much better ways than $1.8 million in swine odor and manure management research or $1.9 million for the Pleasure Beach water taxi service project. LINK

We have to work collectively to make this system work, there would be no commerce without roads, or law enforcement, or electricity, or education or any of the many things provided through our collective efforts (taxes).

Agreed. However, telling Bob he can't have more than a certain amount of money isn't going to entice Bob to keep his money in the country. Bob will just move somewhere that won't limit his assets. Once he does that, the money going into the collective pot diminishes greatly and we have less tax money to spend on fixing roads and educating people.

Also in terms of generating wealth shouldn't those who rely more heavily on these collective systems pay more to ensure their maintenance?

The rich pay more in taxes than the rest of us. That's how it works. The more you make the more taxes you owe. People who spend two hours sitting in traffic or call the cops on their neighbors weekly generally aren't going to be the people who can afford private jets. So those who rely more heavily on the roads being fixed and the cops being paid aren't the ones footing most of the bill.

And when it enough enough? In a closed and finite system there is only so much to go around, why should one person starve and another sit on a pile of gold that can not be spent in a life time?

I'm assuming the system you are talking about is the US. Our system (country) is neither closed nor finite. A closed system is one that is isolated. A finite system is one that is limited. The US is not isolated from the rest of the world, therefore it is not a closed system. The US is not limited or restricted in terms of population (also known as taxpayers), therefore it is not finite. The birth to death ratio in the US is 14.2 to 8.3 per thousand. LINK There are almost twice the number of people being born as there are dying. Therefore our system is expanding, and will continue to do so barring a major catastrophe.

As I said before, those who have more money than they know what to do with should be helping others because they want to, not because they are forced to. Perhaps if governmental spending was controlled better there wouldn't be anyone starving here. Have you looked at the monthly income limits for food stamps? A family of three cannot have more than $1907 a month in income. LINK This is why so many people are starving.

Ever tried supporting three people on $1908 a month? Just one dollar over the limit, but you wouldn't be eligible for assistance. It would be impossible to pay your rent/mortgage, car payment, utilities, and then buy gas and groceries for three people for $1908 a month. But according to the government you can and don't need any help from them. How about cutting out that $13.5 million for the International Fund for Ireland, which includes funding for the World Toilet Summit LINK, and using it to help some families that need it instead. Nah, it would make too much sense for Congress to do that.

I do not want to punish anyone, that is your take on the situation. Limiting the stratification of wealth, taxing the incredibly wealthy more than the poor is not punishment is a rational approach to dealing with finite resources.

They are already taxed more than the poor. The more money you make, the more you have to get taxed on, the more taxes you pay.