When will the Republicans recover from Bush?

[padren]

I could understand if the Republicans were opposed to the idea that these spending programs will help the country return to a balanced budget sheet. If they were highlighting critical flaws that demonstrated the futility in spending our way out of debt.

 

But to hit taxes are too high and the government is taking our money away from us instead of giving it back? Did we pay off every cost of the Cold War, and every big spending endeavor since then in which we basically mortgaged our kids to protect this country so that people could remain here with safe borders and um, accumulate wealth? Do we get car loans and then mail tea bags to Ford because we don't want to pay for what we've benefited from?

Is there a magical way that cutting everyone's taxes would suddenly undo or even help the crippling debts that we incurred?

 

 

At least the democrats are arguing that we need to worry about these debts, and by raising taxes, borrowing more, running stimulus and social programs will allow us to get a handle on this problem.

If the republicans want to argue that the plan is horribly flawed, or that they have a better plan - lets hear it, because I'm all ears and not exactly trusting that the democrats can discipline themselves in a vacuum. But they aren't arguing that - and they have no plan for getting on track - just a series of loud arguments about how they don't like the way things are with no regard for where we need to be. That's why they seem irrelevant to me at this point.

[ParanoiA]

I'm saying you both things couldn't be any more different. Like you said. But you might agree the tea bag's imagery has enough symbolic umph to be misinterpreted easily.

 

Heck -- Washington' date=' DC should put tea bags on their license plates, it'd be more relevant to their cause. [/quote']

 

And I'm saying that using that detail as some kind of grand partition for using tea as a protest prop or not is utterly ridiculous.

 

It's a tax protest. It's that simple. You have to invest a lot of calories in detail to strawman it, and you have, twice now. No one is arguing about representation, they're arguing about unfair taxation. "Unfair" can be "no representation", or "discriminatory", or "too complex" or whatever floats your boat. But you can bet any tax protest is going to involve tea, as a symbolic reference to that great tax protest.

 

And it's only misrepresentative when you make believe they're making the same case as they did in 1773. And not even the conservative thieves are doing that. Hell, spending wasn't even part of the dynamic in 1773, but it IS in this one - at least half of the issue is the spending side. You're way off on this one.

 

Where in there do we see pure hard work, ingenuity, and talent?

 

Who said hard work has to be part of it? Ingenuity and talent is definitely present on those stations I hate. They've done a bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out of the art of music and pop culture in general.

 

Would the best group of primates be the ones that could miraculously calculate polynomials, or the ones that survive and multiply better? Just because you equate hard work with positive output, doesn't mean it's the best way.

 

No, instead it's the way of individual liberty when you follow through. To rationalize redistributing property by subjective seizure is not freedom - it's a joke. To judge another citizen's resources as "too much" and delude yourself into believing it's perfectly ok to use law and take it from them while being a proponent of liberty, is as hypocritical as it gets, and is just another repeat of oppressing a minority.

 

We always think it's justified, at the time, when we oppress minorities.

 

The stream of mindless commercials, garbage products, studid fads, Amercian Idol, bad music, which helps the $$ flow to the richest, also helps keep many of the consumers from over-achieving. They're only asking the richest 1% pay a bit more to for the dandy $$-raking system that's mostly funneling the nation's $$ into the fewest pockets.

 

Yes, all of those things are your american countrymen exercising their liberties. They're pretty stupid huh? I imagine some people think my stuff is pretty stupid too. That's the funny thing about real liberty - you really do have to practice tolerance. Yep. That's not just a one-sided lecture for your southern red neck friends on racism and gay bashing. It's also expected of you, and me too.

 

Those people love their american idol product - so they keep buying. Good product. It's a good product because it's what they want. It may not be good to me, or to you, but it's good to them. And that's the measure. So the guy who makes that product, deserves to be rewarded.

 

Just to turn this around (in spite of the fact I hate american idol...). Think about how much violence is on TV. Think about how much negativity, destruction, oppression, propoganda - all on TV validating our thirst for violence and decadence. The TV is dominated with these dynamics.

 

But american idol? It's a show that rewards self improvement. It's a show that glorifies the no-names and gives us all a chance to kind of participate in something positive that does not involve violence and debasement. And it's a prime time craze. What an improvement in what humans use to entertain themselves.

 

Yes, I see the meritocracy at work here, and it's exactly what I'd expect. We get the products we want, they get the profit they want - everyone wins. And they didn't get it by rationalizing passing law to take it from me. They persuaded me. They understand freedom better, I guess.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well to turn it around, ParanoiA, our laws benefit the rich more than the poor. Our laws forbid us from taking their things, or from freely copying their ideas. On the other hand, our laws charge them more taxes. Charging the rich more taxes is absolutely necessary if you want to reward the people who work hard.

[ParanoiA]

Well to turn it around, ParanoiA, our laws benefit the rich more than the poor. Our laws forbid us from taking their things, or from freely copying their ideas. On the other hand, our laws charge them more taxes. Charging the rich more taxes is absolutely necessary if you want to reward the people who work hard.

 

 

Our laws equally benefit the poor. Our laws keep the rich from hiring mercanaries to mow us down and make them warlords. Our laws benefit everyone.

 

I have no desire to reward the people who work hard. Working hard, in and of itself is a statement of energy expenditure. It carries no value within itself. I have a desire to reward the people who work smart.

 

But even that isn't a statement about liberty since one should be free to not find value in work at all, or to find all of their value in it. My desire is for maximized personal liberty, with a real follow through on equality by removing the power to disproportionately tax the citizenry based on subjective judgements by the republic, particularly voting the tax burden onto some minority group, in this case, the rich.

 

Edit: This is only an issue because our government has grown so huge, and has taken on so many duties that it either should *not* or should leave to the citizenry - that this kind of debate comes up. They're absorbing so much money, and have become such a huge part of our life, that we actually have to talk about who's more able to provide half of their freaking income to pay for it.

Edited April 14, 2009 by ParanoiA

[ecoli]

Who are the organizers? The only one I've been able to find, besides Fox News, Glenn Beck, and his 9/12 project, is Citizens for a Sound Economy:

 

http://www.taxdaycoalition.com/

 

My group is hitching on to this one. I think there are a couple of other independent organizers as well.

[bascule]

http://www.taxdaycoalition.com/

 

My group is hitching on to this one. I think there are a couple of other independent organizers as well.

 

FreedomWorks seems to be the main group active in bringing about the entire "tea party" meme, and appears at the top of the list of sponsors of that site:

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks

 

They're part of Citizens for a Sound Economy, which is run by a former Bush counsel, and has been instrumental in helping bolster support for Republican policy (see link)

 

I see this as less a grassroots libertarian awakening and more of Republicans drumming up anti-Democratic support through mouthpiece organizations (source)

 

This video:

 

"I'm not paying taxes anymore. I quit. [...] You've got kids in college? Get them out of college. They're brainwashing them. [...] BURN ALL THE BOOKS! [...] Understand we've got an enemy here. This is not just an election. It's a battle for survival"

 

...was particularly telling to me. A libertarian shows up to a Glenn Beck 9/12 meeting, and practically gets booed for talking about libertarianism. Then a complete nutjob starts going off about, well, the above quoted items and they eat it up with a spoon.

 

I think, rather than Republicans jumping on the libertarian bandwagon, it's the other way around. Republicans have guised the tea parties in faux libertarianism.

[ParanoiA]

Damn, if that's true that really sucks. And what's a libertarian doing at a Glenn Beck 9/12 meeting? Yeah, no wonder he got booed, he doesn't put belief in god first and actually expects america to be good before labelling itself good...and that's just the first two Beck principles.

[iNow]

Bascule, I think you're spot on. The worst part is that there are some really bright, really passionate libertarians out there who are going to be duped into "siding" with these republicans. It's a shame, really...

 

Either way, your argument is well supported, and aligns quite well with the way republicans have in recent history proven themselves to be hypocrites and empty ignorant ideological gas bags.

[The Bear's Key]

And I'm saying that using that detail as some kind of grand partition for using tea as a protest prop or not is utterly ridiculous.

 

It's a tax protest. It's that simple. You have to invest a lot of calories in detail to strawman it, and you have, twice now.

Reread my posts a bit more carefully, you'll see I didn't say the protestors were complaining about representation. I pointed out how it wasn't about that. So far, we're in agreement -- except that when I pointed out the folly of using tea bags (as the modern protest isn't about representation), you somehow perceived me accusing them of false pretext. No, I just meant it's either silly or ignorance.

 

Thus the reason I wrote....

 

Slapped by a full-detail history lesson, they might come to realize: never did the event planners say "No Taxation 'Cause We don't Wanna Pay"

 

See, no one is arguing the modern protest wants representation. (except for DC maybe)

 

You've been countering against a personal error of your misperception, and not to what I really said.

 

Who said hard work has to be part of it? Ingenuity and talent is definitely present on those stations I hate. They've done a bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out of the art of music and pop culture in general.

Then let's hear such kind words for the "liberal" media, "conservative" pundits, Hollywood, religious cons, lawyers, etc. They've done a bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out every twisted fact and/or political view, simply for mad $$ and regardless if they even believe their own garbage/hype.

 

Would the best group of primates be the ones that could miraculously calculate polynomials, or the ones that survive and multiply better? Just because you equate hard work with positive output, doesn't mean it's the best way.

Neither of us can show evidence of the best way, however, global trends do exist showing what usually occurs when certain variables are present in a system.

 

Anyway, I disagree. It takes smart work, but it's hard regardless unless you're going to depend on luck. In that case, might as well depend on the lotto as your path to success.

 

No, instead it's the way of individual liberty when you follow through. To rationalize redistributing property by subjective seizure is not freedom - it's a joke. To judge another citizen's resources as "too much" and delude yourself into believing it's perfectly ok to use law and take it from them while being a proponent of liberty, is as hypocritical as it gets, and is just another repeat of oppressing a minority.

Again, you're rebutting a personal misperception, and not what I said.....

 

• A lot of big players accumulate wealth mostly by knowing how to play the system, rather than by pure hard work, ingenuity, and talent
  
• People see an injustice of the power brokers setting up things so the richest 1% in the U.S. is richer than the lower 90% of people's combined wealth
  
• Not to mention....the power brokers hijack our government with a flood of lobbyists.
  
• Nothing wrong in being rich, fabulously wealthy. Yet they can only be so within the safe confines of a system paid into by all. That system favors keeping 1% richer than the lower 90% due to their playing the system...at our expense.
  
• If 25-30% were richer than only the lower 50%, it'd be a far different, healthier society.
  

 

I'm very pro-business (yet more pro-citizen) and wouldn't tolerate forced sharing. My proposals are mainly for system changes that weaken the loopholes of unethical "business" cartels, and I don't propose to force wealth redistribution. But if you think everything's being done legit on the power brokers' end, and the 1% > 90% is the result of simple, honest business practices, you have a bit more educating to give yourself, perhaps.

 

Just to turn this around (in spite of the fact I hate american idol...).

My error. I'm not here to judge particular shows. It's actually not that bad, just wouldn't TiVo it myself Yet it does make certain people happy.

 

My point was that your labeling the other classes of wealth as underachievers is counterproductive. If they all did in fact elevate themselves to "high class", we'd be left with all companies/businesses and few workers. So, the mindless radio you shut off in digust is actually good for your status quo -- plus there's a huge audience for the inane drivel, the result of their awesome bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out of collective mindrot.

 

Next time you'd complain how stupid people (if you ever do complain about them) might be so frustrating or perhaps need to be *fill in _____ the blank* just remember and smile with pride: it's the effects of "ingenuity" at work. You know, ads/products that lie, empty your wallet, and make brainless lifestyles enticing. Thus for the sake of individual liberty, give the people responsible a tax break.

 

It's much overdue and deserved.

[Mr Skeptic]

Our laws equally benefit the poor. Our laws keep the rich from hiring mercanaries to mow us down and make them warlords. Our laws benefit everyone.

 

I have no desire to reward the people who work hard. Working hard, in and of itself is a statement of energy expenditure. It carries no value within itself. I have a desire to reward the people who work smart.

 

Working hard, working smart, whatever. The thing is, someone who is rich will have an advantage because they can invest their money. They don't even need to work at all. They could hire someone to invest their money for them, and from the investment earn more than someone who was working as smart and as hard as he can. Or they could also work and get even more money. All else being equal, the system rewards both work and being rich. The richer you are, the more the system rewards you, so eventually there is more reward for being rich than for working hard, working smart, or working at all. Meanwhile, the poor need to spend a larger proportion of their money on their basic needs, so they can't save as much to invest in anything. A progressive tax system promotes individual freedom: you are less of a slave to your economic situation.

 

But even that isn't a statement about liberty since one should be free to not find value in work at all, or to find all of their value in it. My desire is for maximized personal liberty, with a real follow through on equality by removing the power to disproportionately tax the citizenry based on subjective judgements by the republic, particularly voting the tax burden onto some minority group, in this case, the rich.

 

But a progressive tax is more equal (so long as it is not overly progressive).

 

Edit: This is only an issue because our government has grown so huge, and has taken on so many duties that it either should *not* or should leave to the citizenry - that this kind of debate comes up. They're absorbing so much money, and have become such a huge part of our life, that we actually have to talk about who's more able to provide half of their freaking income to pay for it.

 

I definitely agree that the government is too big. But no matter how big or small, it still needs money.

[bascule]

 

(And note: when I talk about Republicans usurping the Tea Party movement, I'm not talking about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a libertarian with an R next to his name)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now that they are no longer in power, Republican pundits are starting to question the case for comprehensive government action against domestic terrorism now that the US government is investigating right wing extremist groups.

 

Yeah, antiterrorism is great until you're considered a potential terrorist there, eh? To take a line from Glenn Greenwald, it seems conservatives have a newfound appreciation for terrorist rights, and are now against the government protecting the homeland from terrorists.

Edited April 15, 2009 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

I think it's a huge mistake to dismiss these Tax Day tea parties as Republican misinformation, or people being "duped into siding with Republicans". Did people sleep through the '08 election or something? This isn't a case of the tail wagging the dog. The dog bit the tail right freaking off and told it to go to hell.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

 

There is no political party behind these rallies, no grand right-wing conspiracy, not even a 501© group like MoveOn.org.

 

So who's behind the Tax Day tea parties? Ordinary folks who are using the power of the Internet to organize.

 

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."

 

I've seen this sentiment expressed on so many conservative discussion boards that you just would not believe it unless you've seen it with your own eyes. Sure, some conservative groups have pushed it here and there, but once again it seems that people have failed to comprehend why so many conservatives latch on to those inane talk radio demagogues.

 

This event underscores the fact that this country's support for Obama is not a liberal mandate, but rather a highly conditional, highly skeptical majority (and barely a majority at all), that will not tolerate business as usual in Washington. In my opinion Obama understands this. But most Democratic elected officials in Washington absolutely do not.

[ParanoiA]

Reread my posts a bit more carefully, you'll see I didn't say the protestors were complaining about representation. I pointed out how it wasn't about that. So far, we're in agreement -- except that when I pointed out the folly of using tea bags (as the modern protest isn't about representation), you somehow perceived me accusing them of false pretext. No, I just meant it's either silly or ignorance.

 

You're arguing that it's a folly to use tea bags since the original party was about representation, and I'm saying it's correct to use tea bags since the original party was about protesting taxes. Your take is in the detail, mine is in the theme. I think it's ridiculous to use detail like that to invalidate the symbology of using tea to protest taxes.

 

You've been countering against a personal error of your misperception, and not to what I really said.

 

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you dismiss using "tea" as a prop for a tax protest based on detail buried in the debate. I guess you also rejected comparing Iraq to vietnam since vietnam was in Asia.

 

Then let's hear such kind words for the "liberal" media, "conservative" pundits, Hollywood, religious cons, lawyers, etc. They've done a bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out every twisted fact and/or political view, simply for mad $$ and regardless if they even believe their own garbage/hype.

 

Yes, they're all selling a product people want. Sure, I wish they didn't want it. But who the hell am I to tell you or anybody else what you should want? I guess you're comfortable with that, but I'm not. If the entire country were made up of people I hate, I would still advocate their full liberties. I try to practice real tolerance. I use my freedoms to speak against that which I don't like, not to legislate against it. That's chickenshit civil engineering.

 

Neither of us can show evidence of the best way, however, global trends do exist showing what usually occurs when certain variables are present in a system.

 

Right, because it all comes back to defining "good" or "best". To each his own. Capitalism lets free society determine what they feel is good or best with their pocket book. Why do you feel you're a better judge of what's good for them, than them? I would never make such a presumption, so I'll never define "good" for you, or anybody else. I'll let plurality decide. Free trade enables this.

 

Again, you're rebutting a personal misperception, and not what I said.....

 

No, I am not rebutting what you said in that statement, it was part of the development of my point that we always seem to see "hard work" as noble. And anyone who makes money "easy" as somehow, unfair, and certainly ignoble since they didn't burn a lot of calories or something.

 

I don't believe that. I think we naturally resent the upper classes, the overachievers for whatever reasons, and so we look for and assume the worst. I think more often than not, their "easy money" was actually a smart maneuver that could teach us something - that we miss, because we're too busy being indignant since it wasn't "hard work".

 

Your next 4 points are the excuses poor people use to justify sitting on the couch with that bong in their lap, instead of doing something. Yes, making money gets easier as you make more, which is part of the reward you get for taking a chance, or providing services we all need - gambling instead of choosing a secure paycheck. And because of that, it's easier to stay rich. But there's room for so much more. It's not a zero sum game, where we can only have X number of rich people. It's a class that can shrink and stretch as well.

 

And capitalism depends on the idea that people are not anchored to the class they were born in and that everyone enjoys the same opportunity, in terms of law. Since men are not equal, then there will always be classes. Since men do not define success universally, there will always be classes. Individuality really does mean, individuality.

 

I'm very pro-business (yet more pro-citizen) and wouldn't tolerate forced sharing. My proposals are mainly for system changes that weaken the loopholes of unethical "business" cartels, and I don't propose to force wealth redistribution. But if you think everything's being done legit on the power brokers' end, and the 1% > 90% is the result of simple, honest business practices, you have a bit more educating to give yourself, perhaps.

 

No, I agree on checking unethical practices, and I do have big issues with lobbyism. It's a sticky can of worms, that deserves it's own thread. I disagree on disproportionately pushing the tax burden on the rich based on these paranoid, class resentment fallacies that the blue collars eat up like candy.

 

The class envy thing has been successful for democrats, so much so, that when we think of a "rich guy", we think of AIG execs, con-men CEO's, Bailouts, Wal-Mart...no one thinks of the that guy down my street that sells John Deere Tractors. He's rich. He didn't get bailed out. He didn't steal anyone's pension, or use 401K to inflate his bank accounts. He didn't lay anyone off. No one is upset with him, and in fact, no one is very interested in the tractor business.

 

But we need him to provide this service and product. He doesn't deserve to have his property disproportionately taken from him because everyone is pissed off about AIG or Bailing out rich bankers. Remember, we're talking about tea party tax protests and that's the part I object to.

 

My point was that your labeling the other classes of wealth as underachievers is counterproductive. If they all did in fact elevate themselves to "high class", we'd be left with all companies/businesses and few workers. So, the mindless radio you shut off in digust is actually good for your status quo -- plus there's a huge audience for the inane drivel, the result of their awesome bang up job of marketing and selling the hell out of collective mindrot.

 

Well I believe in the movement between classes and the shrink and stretch of those classes. Classes is just an arbitrary line we draw to categorize people's value in property ownership. Since we are not equal, and since we all develop and change over our lives, it's a dynamic system driven by merit more than any other.

 

When a grown man works at McDonald's, he has made a choice. He's made a choice to stay poor (provided he's not investing in the stock market with his modest paychecks that is...). Maybe he made that choice because music means more to him and he has no interest in material inflation, other than music stuff. Or maybe he's given up, thinks he's stupid and can't compete. Or maybe he just doesn't define his success by monetary gain at all.

 

When a teenager works there, it could be transitory, learning how to sell one's labor. Maybe it works well with his college class schedule. Or maybe he's always dreamed of cooking fries. Or maybe he wants to meet Ronald McDonald.

 

There's nothing stopping either of those people from trying harder for more. But they each have their reasons for where they're at. That's the classes. That's individuality. It's not always about poor people beaten down by Wal-Mart. "Class" is not an insulting term to imply value or importance to human beings - it's merely a measure of the value of the property they own - their money. That's all it is. And it's not automatically about being "forced" into that class.

 

Next time you'd complain how stupid people (if you ever do complain about them) might be so frustrating or perhaps need to be *fill in _____ the blank* just remember and smile with pride: it's the effects of "ingenuity" at work. You know' date=' ads/products that lie, empty your wallet, and make brainless lifestyles enticing. Thus for the sake of individual liberty, give the people responsible a tax break.

 

It's much overdue and deserved.[/quote']

 

Oh, I'm very much aware of this. I accepted the disadvantages of freedom years ago.

FM radio sums it up really well actually as they've poisoned my reason for living: Music. But my ideas of music is not what they want apparently.

 

I don't have to like everyone's choices for their freedoms and I speak out against them all the damn time, and I have no intention of stopping. And in the face of the most disgusting exercise of freedom I could witness, I would still advocate their liberty to do so. Including FM radio, no matter how stupid the people want it to get.

[Sisyphus]

You're arguing that it's a folly to use tea bags since the original party was about representation, and I'm saying it's correct to use tea bags since the original party was about protesting taxes. Your take is in the detail, mine is in the theme. I think it's ridiculous to use detail like that to invalidate the symbology of using tea to protest taxes.

 

I'm having a hard time figuring out how you dismiss using "tea" as a prop for a tax protest based on detail buried in the debate. I guess you also rejected comparing Iraq to vietnam since vietnam was in Asia.

 

Depends on what you consider the main point, and which the detail. I'm with TBK on this one. The problem was not with the idea of taxes, but with lack of representation in deciding any of their laws, of which a host of new taxes were just a particularly annoying example.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, antiterrorism is great until you're considered a potential terrorist there, eh? To take a line from Glenn Greenwald, it seems conservatives have a newfound appreciation for terrorist rights, and are now against the government protecting the homeland from terrorists.

 

Yeah, no kidding. Maybe this would be a good time to call them out on their patriotism and how "naive" they are about keeping the country safe. And then, as icing on the cake, Obama should remind everyone every few months how he as kept the country safe. I would like to see the GOP field all that.

 

Working hard, working smart, whatever. The thing is, someone who is rich will have an advantage because they can invest their money. They don't even need to work at all. They could hire someone to invest their money for them, and from the investment earn more than someone who was working as smart and as hard as he can. Or they could also work and get even more money. All else being equal, the system rewards both work and being rich. The richer you are, the more the system rewards you, so eventually there is more reward for being rich than for working hard, working smart, or working at all. Meanwhile, the poor need to spend a larger proportion of their money on their basic needs, so they can't save as much to invest in anything. A progressive tax system promotes individual freedom: you are less of a slave to your economic situation.

 

Sorry, Skeptic, I missed your post before.

 

This is the best argument I've heard for a progressive tax structure. The key being that the richer you are, the more risk you can take, and the more "free" cash you can invest with - it's more money above the survival necessities than those in the lower classes. That kind of analysis avoids the resentment and punishment nature of the arguments I typically hear out of the left - trying to engineer righteousness instead of cold, sterile analysis.

 

I think it can be essentially remedied by a sales tax structure that doesn't tax needs, but wants. In this way, you avoid the sticky nature of picking on a minority since you're not taxing an income after a subjective review, you're taxing a product that is not a need. Yeah, sure it's not like it can't still be used to discriminate against a class minority, but if all goods and services are taxed and categorized in one of those two labels, it would be hard to make a case that a minority group is being singled out for taxation.

 

There are other ideas I'm sure, that essentially divide the line between money needed to survive and money above that minimum, that only tax above that minimum, proportionately. I would sign on to that kind of idea enthusiastically.

Edited April 15, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

8i-OWDjOQfI

[ParanoiA]

Did anyone catch the bit on Fox News' Cavuto lying about the turn out? The Daily Kos, or whatever that's called, apparently got some off-air footage of Cavuto and some producer talking about how there were maybe, 5,000 there, at best. Then 9 minutes later he's on-air declaring they were expecting 5,000 but that there were easily double that, maybe triple.

 

But yeah, they're just covering this event...that's all.

 

I will back off if it comes out that in that 9 minutes they got a better count - after all this is a conversation between Cavuto and his producer guessing how many folks were there. But listening to that exchange it sure sounded like they were cooking up the numbers.

 

Oh, and funny video there iNow. I wonder if Obama has learned anything from that tongue lashing.

[ecoli]

RE: Inow's video, Krugman's so wrong at 1:10. This is NOT an event planned by Dick Armey and Newt Gingrinch. Of course, Krugman has to believe that because he can't imagine a world in which people grassroots wouldn't be ecstatic about large scale redistribution. That guy annoys the hell out of me.

 

More likely, bascule is right and the GOP/Fox news hijacked this thing from the libertarians. From the moment I heard Rush Limbaugh get excited about the tea parties I knew it wouldn't be good.

 

Does anyone think this will actually affect policy?

 

PS - hilarious video from MSNBC. Fox really deserved it. I thought they did a good job at taking punches at GOP and Fox, while leaving the actual 'teabaggers' mostly unscathed.

[ParanoiA]

Absolutely not. And at this point, I'm not sure who organized what. It was seemingly a grassroots effort when the media was silent about it and I was getting pummelled with emails about it. Then a couple weeks before this thing is ready to launch, and suddenly everyone is talking about it; how Fox news and the republicans are spearheading this thing, which checked out the moment you turned on the Fox news channel.

 

I have no idea what happened. It was either a cool idea that got ruined by neo-cons hijacking it or it was never the grassroots movement we thought it was.

[ecoli]

somehow, I just don't think that old school networks are smart and skilled enough in new social media to plan something like that.

[bascule]

More likely, bascule is right and the GOP/Fox news hijacked this thing from the libertarians.

 

Actually I was saying one of the principal organizers appears to be FreedomWorks/Citizens for a Sound Economy, headed by Republican Dick Armey, former House Majority Leader:

 

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=FreedomWorks

[Pangloss]

The thing I keep wondering is where was the rush to expose the influence of MoveOn.org and other special interest groups on the peace rallies and anti-Iraq demonstrations during the Bush administration?

[bascule]

The thing I keep wondering is where was the rush to expose the influence of MoveOn.org and other special interest groups on the peace rallies and anti-Iraq demonstrations during the Bush administration?

 

Oh, it's certainly there. But I don't think anyone's trying to argue that those rallies didn't come largely at the behest of members of the Democratic Party.

[iNow]

RE: Inow's video, Krugman's so wrong at 1:10. This is NOT an event planned by Dick Armey and Newt Gingrinch. Of course, Krugman has to believe that because he can't imagine a world in which people grassroots wouldn't be ecstatic about large scale redistribution. That guy annoys the hell out of me.

That much is obvious, since Krugman never spoke on the video. The announcer simply attributed comments to him, and we don't know in context precisely what Paul Krugman said. So, it seems likely that your distaste for this Nobel Prize winning economist has primed you to look for things in his words which aren't there.

 

On that note, I could be totally wrong, and you could be absolutely correct, but I wouldn't concede the point until I saw/heard/read what Krugman actually said... Not just a reference to him by a commentator in a video about tea bagging and liars.

 

 

PS - hilarious video from MSNBC. Fox really deserved it. I thought they did a good job at taking punches at GOP and Fox, while leaving the actual 'teabaggers' mostly unscathed.

Yeah, turns out they covered the Million Man March a full year before the Faux News channel was even formed!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It was either a cool idea that got ruined by neo-cons hijacking it or it was never the grassroots movement we thought it was.

I think it's probably the first (where it was a cool grassroots thing that got hijacked), however, you raise a rather interesting conjecture that it may have been planned all along by people with false motives. In all honesty, I'm a bit jaded and that wouldn't surprise me in the least (it would be like standard operating procedure, actually).

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The thing I keep wondering is where was the rush to expose the influence of MoveOn.org and other special interest groups on the peace rallies and anti-Iraq demonstrations during the Bush administration?

 

Aren't you the one normally saying stuff like "two wrongs don't make a right" when people make comments like this?

Also, to supplement Bascules response, it's not like the Democrats pretended that it was something organized locally and "spontaneously." It seems that not only are the Republicans (at least of the FNC variety) hypocrites, but they are liars, frauds, and charlatans who will make up so-called "truths" if it helps them achieve or further their desired purpose and goals.

Edited April 17, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[abskebabs]

That much is obvious, since Krugman never spoke on the video. The announcer simply attributed comments to him, and we don't know in context precisely what Paul Krugman said. So, it seems likely that your distaste for this Nobel Prize winning economist has primed you to look for things in his words which aren't there.

 

 

You're right he wasn't on the video, but I think ecoli's statements of Krugman's statement fairly accurately reflect what he said in the following NYT piece, no doubt the anouncer was referring to:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13krugman.html

 

In the relevant quotation from this article, Krugman says:

 

Last but not least: it turns out that the tea parties don’t represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They’re AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey, the former House majority leader, and supported by the usual group of right-wing billionaires. And the parties are, of course, being promoted heavily by Fox News.

 

I also very much dislike the intellectual "authority" he seems to have gained with the "nobel prize" in economics(awarded by the highly enlightened and impartial Swedish central bank of course:rolleyes:) when he babbles about how war, even the Iraq war he publicly opposed; is not bad for the economy:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/an-iraq-recession/?scp=1-b&sq=krugman+war+recession&st=nyt

 

The guy has absolutely no cognition of the broken window fallacy, though I suppose he wouldn't be an interventionist if he did.

Edited April 17, 2009 by abskebabs