Elected Officials Riling Up the Masses

[Pangloss]

Recently the subject has been coming up here about Republicans riling up the masses and inflaming the tea party movement. This often seems to be presented as a new thing, and something Democrats would never do, or that Republicans should logically be perceived as worse than Democrats, as if that actually makes sense.

 

I think this is a great example of selective memory based on ideological preference. I offer this video as evidence that not only have Democrats done this themselves, but they know full well that their supporters won't hold them accountable for it.

 

dg29GWk2nMc

[bascule]

I think Fox News is the larger problem when it comes to "inflaming the tea party movement". Also, the anti-war protests were protesting war, whereas the tea party protests seem to be protesting Democrats in power

[moth]

maybe dems see a difference between getting uppity to try and stop a war that would kill ten's of thousands of innocent people, a war that the public was mis-informed about,(70% of the public at the time believed saddam was involved in 9-11,along with many other lies) and (mis-informed)people getting uppity about their fellow citizens getting access to healthcare.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's nice to see that someone has made a video to show the hypocrisy in several* of the Democratic Congresscritters.

 

*where several is larger than zero.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I think Fox News is the larger problem when it comes to "inflaming the tea party movement". Also, the anti-war protests were protesting war, whereas the tea party protests seem to be protesting Democrats in power

 

Because it's not hypocrisy if it was for a good cause.

[Pangloss]

*where "good cause" is defined as "whatever we happen to believe in."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here's a similarly interesting story, in which we learn that the Florida doctor who put a sign on his door turning away supporters of the President's health care plan has been branded a 'racist' by a member of his own congressional representative.

 

In return for expressing his opposition to a government gone too far, Cassell has been labeled a racist by the man who represents him in Congress, Rep. Alan Grayson, the apparently daft Democrat who has said Republicans want sick Americans to "die quickly."

 

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=529344

Edited April 7, 2010 by Pangloss
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is why we have polls in secret -- to avoid political persecution so people are not afraid of retaliation for their vote. The guy says he's still giving treatment to the folks, which makes him a liar. If I put up a sign in my restaurant saying "if you are black go elsewhere" but don't actually follow it, I'm still going to be labeled a racist.

[toastywombel]

maybe dems see a difference between getting uppity to try and stop a war that would kill ten's of thousands of innocent people, a war that the public was mis-informed about,(70% of the public at the time believed saddam was involved in 9-11,along with many other lies) and (mis-informed)people getting uppity about their fellow citizens getting access to healthcare.

 

I agree, I do not understand the logic of some people who think that preemptive war is a good way to spend money but healthcare for everyone, which makes us a healthier, safer society is just outrageous.

 

In a sense they would rather have their taxpayer dollars go towards destruction rather than promotion of health. This also implies that many tea party groups find that hurting their enemies is a greater priority than helping their friends.

 

This type of individualism is quite ignorant, many of the individuals don't seem to understand that their whole quality of life and survival is dependent on other fellow citizens.

[jryan]

This is why we have polls in secret -- to avoid political persecution so people are not afraid of retaliation for their vote. The guy says he's still giving treatment to the folks, which makes him a liar. If I put up a sign in my restaurant saying "if you are black go elsewhere" but don't actually follow it, I'm still going to be labeled a racist.

 

 

That doctor doesn't check to see if anyone actually supported the bill before he gives treatment. Also, you can't take the leap that he is a racist by using a completely different scenario where the person really was racist.

 

You can label the doctor as anti-Obamacare because of the sign in his window... and he would agree with you. But he isn't a racist as Grayson claims.

[bascule]

Because it's not hypocrisy if it was for a good cause.

 

*where "good cause" is defined as "whatever we happen to believe in."

 

You two are seriously defending across-the-board comparisons between the teabaggers and the Iraq War protests?

 

I don't think I can overemphasize how much I don't buy it. Fred Phelps protests stuff too. Why don't we lump him in because he's protesting too? All protests are the same.

[Mr Skeptic]

Who said it was about the protests? I thought this was about her commentary on the protests, and how it differed depending on whether she agreed with the protesters. Ie, hypocrisy.

[bascule]

Who said it was about the protests?

 

Well, that seems to be the subject under discussion here.

 

I thought this was about her commentary on the protests

 

Pangloss seemed to be trying to make a point about Democrats in general. I have never heard of Maxine Waters before and the she doesn't represent me. I also don't know of anyone on these forums specifically complaining about Republicans egging on the teabaggers (unless those Republicans happen to work at Fox News)

 

and how it differed depending on whether she agreed with the protesters. Ie, hypocrisy.

 

Yes, in that video, she is being a hypocrite. Case closed?

 

I don't see how you can apply this case instance to "Democrats" generally as Pangloss is trying to do in the OP.

[Pangloss]

Of course I posted about Democrats. The myriad recent opinions posted here about the tea party crowd (or as you so objectively refer to them, the "teabaggers") are one-sided and appears intended to convey that this is a wholly new invention by conservatives and/or Republicans.

 

My suggestion is that what was done by politicians with the anti-war crowd is logically comparable with what's been done by a different set of politicians with the tea party crowd. Whether a riled-up individual leaves a rally and either shoots a conservative talk radio host or bombs an abortion clinic, the cause and effect for our purposes is the same.

 

The question of THIS thread is:

1) Are our politicians encouraging bad behavior?

2) Is such encouragement, by members of EITHER party, acceptable?

 

Personally, I have mixed feelings about it. I don't think it matters most of the time, and I do think people certainly have a right to demonstrate for what they believe. And frankly politicians have a right to join them. But I also believe that demagoguery will be a big part of the downfall of our civilization, if it ever happens, and I think partisanship is a serious problem that demagoguery makes worse. I wouldn't mind so much if this were a rare thing, but it's not. So I am concerned.

 

(Have I mentioned my thoughts on the tea party movements destruction of Charlie Crist's Senate bid? One of the most moderate Republicans on the planet, often cited right behind Ahhhnold, he took Obama money, and now they're making him pay, and as a result we're either going to get Marco Rubio, who's in bed with the religious right, or we're going to get Kendrick Meek, who's so far left he makes Al Franken look like Rush Limbaugh.)

[bascule]

The myriad recent opinions posted here about the tea party crowd (or as you so objectively refer to them, the "teabaggers") are one-sided and appears intended to convey that this is a wholly new invention by conservatives and/or Republicans.

 

My suggestion is that what was done by politicians with the anti-war crowd is logically comparable with what's been done by a different set of politicians with the tea party crowd.

 

Except again, the anti-war protests were protests of the war, and the Tea Party is a protest of Democrats.

[ParanoiA]

Or is it the tea party is a protest of government encroachment and fiscal fraud and the "anti-war" crowd was a protest of republicans?

 

My suggestion is that what was done by politicians with the anti-war crowd is logically comparable with what's been done by a different set of politicians with the tea party crowd. Whether a riled-up individual leaves a rally and either shoots a conservative talk radio host or bombs an abortion clinic, the cause and effect for our purposes is the same.

 

Nailed it. Right on.

 

The question of THIS thread is:

1) Are our politicians encouraging bad behavior?

2) Is such encouragement' date=' by members of EITHER party, acceptable?[/quote']

 

No, to number 1 (although I haven't seen that Maxine Waters vid up top, she's a nutcase and was voted one of the 15 most corrupt politicians in 2009 by CREW for a reason. However, I will not repeat the same association fallacy I see used against the Tea Party and republicans).

 

No also to number 2, generally. I say generally because at some point, and I would think you'd agree with this in theory, taking the government by force could be a necessary option. History has made this extremely clear. And when do you take your government back? When you subjectively determine you should - so we're right back to justification dependent upon who is observing.

[bascule]

Or is it the tea party is a protest of government encroachment and fiscal fraud and the "anti-war" crowd was a protest of republicans?

 

If that were the case, why didn't the tea party protest the Republicans too?

[Pangloss]

Except again, the anti-war protests were protests of the war, and the Tea Party is a protest of Democrats.

 

Or to spin the partisanship the other way, the anti-war protests (who have evaporated under the Obama administration in spite of the fact that the war continues) were anti-Republican, and the Tea Party movement is a protest against federalism/taxation/whatever.

 

 

If that were the case, why didn't the tea party protest the Republicans too?

 

I just gave you an example of how they are doing exactly that, undermining the election campaign of Republican Charlie Crist of Florida.

[bascule]

I just gave you an example of how they are doing exactly that, undermining the election campaign of Republican Charlie Crist of Florida.

 

Okay, so you recognize the blatant partisanship and hypocrisy going on at the tea parties...

 

Or to spin the partisanship the other way, the anti-war protests (who have evaporated under the Obama administration in spite of the fact that the war continues) were anti-Republican, and the Tea Party movement is a protest against federalism/taxation/whatever.

 

...but still write it off as partisan spin? (even worse, redundantly as your remarks are almost identical to the ones ParanoiA made)

 

If the teabaggers really believed what they claim to believe now, they should've been protesting the republicans as well. But they didn't.

[Pangloss]

Yes, two wrongs don't make a right. They've become a bunch of tools AND it's partisan to focus exclusively on Republicans for blame.

[jryan]

If the teabaggers really believed what they claim to believe now, they should've been protesting the republicans as well. But they didn't.

 

You've never heard of "enough's enough"? Your argument could be made whenever a population reaches it's last straw... but your argument is never reasonable.

 

You might as well be asking why a table broke when you put 400 lbs on it when it didn't break when I put 200 lbs on it. The reason is simple: it could handle 200 lbs, but not 400 lbs.

 

The more important question is why were Democrats complaining about deficit spending in 2004, but now find 7 times that spending rate perfectly fine.

 

The Republicans are rational here, the Democrats are irrational.

 

Not to mention, Republicans weren't all on board with Bush's spending.

 

.. How soon the left conveniently forgets....

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

From that first article:

 

"The deficit is going to be a symbol of their credibility problem, and the budget is going to be the document we use" to make that argument, said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

 

Oh Rahm...

[bascule]

The more important question is why were Democrats complaining about deficit spending in 2004, but now find 7 times that spending rate perfectly fine.

 

The deficit is high right now because tax revenue is down, not only because of tax cuts, but because of lost tax revenue due to the recession.

 

This is opposed to increased spending while maintaining low tax rates when the economy was certainly not in need of additional stimulation.

 

Granted the deficit is deplorable now, but it's not something that's easily addressed. Meanwhile Bush mananged to rack up the most debt in history during times when we weren't in a recession.

 

The Republicans are rational here, the Democrats are irrational.

 

I'm not sure what context in which you're talking about "the Republicans" being rational, but I can assure you the teabaggers are not:

 

pilG7PCV448

[Pangloss]

Well of course income tax revenue is down. According to this Associated Press article posted earlier today, 47% of Americans don't even pay income tax!

 

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

 

In fact the bottom 40% RECEIVE money:

 

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

 

So you wanna try and tell me again why the anti-war crowd has a valid point and only wants what's best for everyone, but the "teabaggers" can only be bad for the country?

[ParanoiA]

If that were the case, why didn't the tea party protest the Republicans too?

 

If that weren't the case, why didn't the anti-war crowd protest Obama and his increase in troops? Lack of closing Gitmo?

 

I could do the association fallacy that Rachel "Look at me, I got a doctorate" Maddow uses all the time and point out that Bush was protested by Cindy Sheehan long after the war started - yet she doesn't camp out in front of Obama's house does she?

 

Gee, if it was about the war, then there should be no reason to quiet down.

 

But see, that's just stupid too. The only point I was making with my one liner is that it's all relative and that despite your attempts to make believe there's an objective case to loft one party above the other, at the end of they day these are people that really do give a crap about what's going on.

 

The war, liberty and fiscal fears and concerns are passionate subjects for people and it shows. The stakes are high, and that's exactly what to expect out of it. Marginalizing legitimate concern alienates your opponent. I'm not sure if you oppose that or not, I guess it depends on how important this competition between red and blue is to you.

[bascule]

If that weren't the case, why didn't the anti-war crowd protest Obama and his increase in troops?

 

Uhh, not that I support this sort of thing as I think a troop increase in Afghanistan is warranted, but the anti-war crowd is protesting Obama:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/20/thousands-protest-in-dc-f_n_507159.html

 

I could do the association fallacy that Rachel "Look at me, I got a doctorate" Maddow uses all the time and point out that Bush was protested by Cindy Sheehan long after the war started - yet she doesn't camp out in front of Obama's house does she?

 

You're talking about the same Cindy Sheehan who was arrested for helping lay coffins outside the White House at that same protest last month?

 

At least eight people, including activist Cindy Sheehan, were arrested by U.S. Park Police at the end of the march, after laying coffins at a fence outside the White House. Friday marked the seventh anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

 

*facepalm*

 

The war, liberty and fiscal fears and concerns are passionate subjects for people and it shows. The stakes are high, and that's exactly what to expect out of it. Marginalizing legitimate concern alienates your opponent.

 

Have you ever watched video of the 9/12 protests? You should really watch the one in my previous post. Their concerns aren't exactly legitimate or well-reasoned.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well of course income tax revenue is down. According to this Associated Press article posted earlier today, 47% of Americans don't even pay income tax!

 

In fact the bottom 40% RECEIVE money:

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

 

So you wanna try and tell me again why the anti-war crowd has a valid point and only wants what's best for everyone, but the "teabaggers" can only be bad for the country?

 

Okay, among other things, at the same time the tea party people whine about the deficit, they also think Obama has already raised or is going to raise their taxes, even though their taxes have gone down under Obama:

 

http://winstongroup.net/2010/04/01/behind-the-headlines-whats-driving-the-tea-party-movement/

 

That's just one of many cases of teabagger doublethink. These people do not have a logical or coherent position. They don't have actual specific grievances with the government. They speak in vagueries that have no logical cohesion.

 

Pangloss, have you watched videos of their protests? I watched your video. I think you are giving the teabaggers far too much credit.

Edited April 8, 2010 by bascule
Consecutive posts merged.

[jryan]

The deficit is high right now because tax revenue is down, not only because of tax cuts, but because of lost tax revenue due to the recession.

 

This is opposed to increased spending while maintaining low tax rates when the economy was certainly not in need of additional stimulation.

 

Granted the deficit is deplorable now, but it's not something that's easily addressed. Meanwhile Bush mananged to rack up the most debt in history during times when we weren't in a recession.

 

You seem to forget Bush dealt with his own recession following the .COM bust that had an almost identical hit to tax revenue.

 

Where I fault bush is in his spending in general, but his explosion in spending after 2007 when Medicare Part D, TARP, and a few other programs went into full bloom.

 

I'd be happy to repeal Medicare Part D and the new Health Insurance reform and replace them both with something sane... as well as finally let the markets sort through their troubled assets and stop inflating them with incentives. But Obama didn't cut spending by a dime... for as bad as Bush's spending was, Obama took that and piled more bailouts and entitlements on top of it.

 

Had McCain won in 2008 and done the same things that Obama did there would still be a Tea Party movement today... it would just be lead by Democrats.

 

Also, keep using the "teabagger" line, bascule. It helps put your points in proper context.

[toastywombel]

You seem to forget Bush dealt with his own recession following the .COM bust that had an almost identical hit to tax revenue.

 

What specific measure did Bush present to deal with the .COM burst, can you tell me?

 

I also would like to point out that citing the Heritage Foundation for facts is not a good tactic in trying to persuade anyone who is not right wing.