An Answer To Tea Parties, "Why Now?"

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,828
1,790
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:

American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"

Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.

We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.

This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?


One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.


Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...
 
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.
 
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.
 
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:

American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"

Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.

We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.

This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?


One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.


Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...

Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?

And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.
 
Last edited:
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:

American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"

Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.

We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.

This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?


One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.


Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...

Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?

And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.

You missed the point on both.
 
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:

American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?

And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.

You missed the point on both.



Yep! she's pre-dialed to Bush Bashing WbbATT,, she dosen't get competing signals well,, it just "noise" to her! :lol:
 
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.

FYI, We never had a missle defence system Annie.

We had (and have) an offensive missle system, not a defensive system.

Nice try though.
 


I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

Missile defense system-the one that is now being cut.

FYI, We never had a missle defence system Annie.

We had (and have) an offensive missle system, not a defensive system.

Nice try though.

speaking of nice tries....

"Patriot is a long-range, all-altitude, all-weather air defence system to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft. Patriot (MIM-104) is produced by Raytheon in Massachusetts and Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Florida.

As well as the USA, Patriot is in service in Egypt, Germany, Greece, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Taiwan.

Patriot missile systems were deployed by US forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The systems were stationed in Kuwait and successfully destroyed a number of hostile surface-to-surface missiles using the new PAC-3 and guidance enhanced missiles."

Patriot Missile Air Defence System - Army Technology
 
Reagan had higher taxes on the 1% than Obama is proposing.

The Scotus has determined that gun laws are in line with the constitution.

Now why are the people carrying signs that say things like "Obama is a Kenyan".

These were tax protests by libertarians that republicans are turning into hate spews on democrats.

The signs they carry and the quotes they give at these rallys prove what they are really about.


When you look at the signs the gay rallys carry and quote the people at them you then can not come back and pretend they were about something other than the idividuals attending say it was.

The same is true of these puplic events.

Now the next one is set for July 4th. How much of the crowds are giong to be claimed by these people as they mix in with the regualr citizens celebarting?

The reason they have chosen this date is so no real number can be gleened on their actuall attendance.
 
Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?

And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.

You missed the point on both.

Yep! she's pre-dialed to Bush Bashing WbbATT,, she dosen't get competing signals well,, it just "noise" to her! :lol:

Aww, is your wittle feewing still hurt. sniff sniff.
 
The right lost the election. They can't deal with that, so now everything Obama and the left do has to be resisted for the sake of resistance.

You have no programs in the RNC, so just piss and moan.
 
Reagan had higher taxes on the 1% than Obama is proposing.

The Scotus has determined that gun laws are in line with the constitution.

Now why are the people carrying signs that say things like "Obama is a Kenyan".

These were tax protests by libertarians that republicans are turning into hate spews on democrats.

The signs they carry and the quotes they give at these rallys prove what they are really about.


When you look at the signs the gay rallys carry and quote the people at them you then can not come back and pretend they were about something other than the idividuals attending say it was.

The same is true of these puplic events.

Now the next one is set for July 4th. How much of the crowds are giong to be claimed by these people as they mix in with the regualr citizens celebarting?

The reason they have chosen this date is so no real number can be gleened on their actuall attendance.


Finally, someone said this!!! Around 250,000 people actually attended these "tea party" events around the country!! Ever notice why Fox News never showed a wide angle shot of
the crowds!!

250,000 out of 306 million..... 0.08% of the population---not bad!!!
 
We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

I don't believe that.

I do not believe that the masters are remotely interesting in protecting us or our children (indeed this nation itself) from harm.

Nothing that's been done in the last thirty years leads me to think they have our best interests at heart.

Name one major thing that has been done that have positive LONG TERM benefits for this nation.

I cannot think of a single example of policies that serve this nation's long term interests...not one.

This is all for the 2010 and 2012 elections. They are building their case against Obama and the Dems.

Yesterday I talked to a typical Republican. So god damned uninformed that the only reason I talked to him about politics was to expose him for the dumb fuck he is.

You should have heard him. (Freddy, Dodd, Pelosi, Reed, socialism, let the banks fail, let the big 3 fail). Straight from Rush & O'Reilly. Not an original thought in his head.

And he said that it was the Democrats that asked for the initial $350 billion tarp funds. Bush just gave it to them.

He's a small business owner. He has an emergency roadside service business. Broke ass. As if he's ever going to make enough to benefit from GOPanomics.

Do you think I bothered telling him that he's getting a tax break under Obama?

So all I did was explain how the financial meltdown happened, and I made sure to point out that it was deregulations that caused the mess.

That mortgage lenders hurried up and made as many bad loans as they could right before the bottom fell out.

And I didn't correct him about the original tarp. I just explained to him that the criminals there are the bankers, and the GOP always backs the bankers, so he can't possibly give the GOP a pass on this. And I explained how Paulson is Bush's appointee, and how he didn't want any oversite, and so we only got $66 for every $100 we gave the bankers, and now the $66 in stock isn't even worth $66, so we probably got bent over for half of the $350 billion.

Anyways, it is so difficult to explain this stuff to someone without going off on a tangent, because there are a lot of things that contributed to the mess we are in. How about the GOP giving tax breaks to companies going overseas? I might not blame Bush for them going if he didn't encourage them with tax breaks. Fucking traitor.

So I hope you all realize that the GOP and Corporate America are responsible for the mess we are in. They did it on purpose too.
 
For most of us, just answering that Obama is like Bush on steroids explains it pretty well. This goes a bit further and for me, answers the question with implications for politicians of all stripes. The whole article is worth reading, I'm just posting the issue that keeps recurring:

American Thinker: MSM's Tea Party Cognitive Dissonance

....Many posed the questions, during their Tea Party coverage, "Why all this anger now? Why are these people protesting now, when they weren't out in the streets during GW's eight years?"

Why indeed. The ordinary American -- normally quite-silent majority -- will take an awful lot of malfeasance and wasteful spending from our federal government. Most of the time, we are just too darned busy to protest anything. We are not getting paid to protest, unlike the anti-war and anti-poverty protesters our media covers in never-ending flurries of fury. We don't get federal tax dollars to protest, as does ACORN, and we have no sugar-daddy like Soros paying us stipends to lend a deceitful public-protest face to his personal views.

We're the productive class, the vast middle. We're busy living our own lives, busy building the businesses and earning our livings, busy raising our children and doing the host of volunteer services that infuse life into our Churches, Synagogues and civic organizations. We're the citizens doing the lion's share of those things which have made America the great and exceptional Nation she has been for the past 2-1/3 centuries.

Much of the anger now boiling over in protest has been building for the past 20 years, since the end of Ronald Reagan's presidential tenure. Much of it is aimed at Republicans, not just Democrats. And it goes to the heart of the size, scope and fundamental duties of the federal government as enumerated by our U.S. Constitution.

This mounting anger, aimed at the tyranny of a federal government -- completely off-the-rails of its Constitutionally-framed limited scope and power -- may be surfacing now due to a tipping in the fragile balance that was upheld during the G.W. Bush presidency. What was that fragile balance between our quietly continuing our personal business and our taking to the streets?


One thing and one thing only, in my opinion. As long as the federal government is doing the one job of protecting our national security and standing up for us in the face of the world's sleights, we will take a great deal of folderol from our elected officials. We will suffer the profligate spending and invasions on our personal freedoms when we - at the very least - believe our leaders are stridently bent on protecting our interests and our children from harm.

When a president cuts both those legs off at the knees, as President Obama has shamelessly done for 100 days, then frustration boils over into national protest.


Obama's first 100 days has been the last straw. ...



Very insightful.

Thank you.
 
Ahhh bobo, so you " schooled " this guy with all of your original "it's Bush's and the bankers faults" thoughts, fuckin sooper ..........
 
Ahhh bobo, so you " schooled " this guy with all of your original "it's Bush's and the bankers faults" thoughts, fuckin sooper ..........

Politics can be complicated. Its not easy to understand, especially if you aren't paying close attention. And this guy clearly is just regurgitating what he has been hearing from right wing sources.

And lets face it. No matter how good Obama does, you'll never admit it. Neither will he.

Just look at how the GOP raped the treasury of almost every penny right before they knew they were going to lose power in 06. Do you even remember that? Of course you don't, because Rush didn't tell you about it.

And then in the last month Bush goes on tv for one last $750 billion.

Had the Dems said no, the economy would have tanked the very next day and voters would have blamed them for the collapse.

Anyways, all you have to know is the difference between the first $350 billion and the second $350 to know the GOP are a bunch of crooks and the Dems are going to make sure the 2nd installment is a good investment.

Did you know that on the original $350 billion, for every $100 we gave, we only got $66 in stock? DID YOU KNOW THAT? That was under Paulson's no oversite rules. We were just supposed to trust them. :cuckoo:

And now the stock isn't worth $66 anymore, so we lost about half if not more. This comes straight from Elizabeth Warren. Obama appointed her to oversee the second tarp funds.

Ok, so now that you know Bush/Paulson and the GOP from 2000-2006 fucked us all, now let us watch and see how Obama treats the second $350 billion. Bet he won't be so irresponsible with it.

So you say we shouldn't give the bankers anything? I agree, but you can't just let them fail. The government would have to take them over. Its complicated, and you know it. Neither you or I have all the answers.

All I know is I see Obama handling it much better than Bush did.

And the idea that McCain would have handled this any better is laughable. He was part of the GOP that bankrupted us from 2000-2006. And he was also involved in the S&L scandal of the 80's. Imagine that.
 
Reagan was one of the biggest spenders increasing the size of Govt in recent history. Why is he excused from the ire?

And if the conservatives were so upset with Bush, they had a funny way of showing it. In 2004 they relected him to office.

Exactly. Sore losers is the only thing that fits these people. They know only that they don't like the current administration. Why do so few get so much media when the press is presumably liberal? Chin up cons, this is the way democracies work, don't like it, let me use a word you often use: Move.
 
If we moved, the entire productive economy would go with us. How would you run all of your soclialistic programs without any money? :lol:
 
I'm tired of this crap that the GOP raided the treasury. What part of "Faux money" don't you understand?

The Treasury was raped in 1929...and it has never recovered. The global economy works solely on the ability of the US to kick the ass of anyone that refuses to buy our crap or sell us their garbage.
 
In the interest of full disclosure, Reagan is the only presidential candidate I have ever voted for. The reason was simple: Johnson, Carter and Nixon did so many things to hurt the economy. I have, however, voted against Gore and Kerry.

If Reagan has been excused by the taxpaying public it is because so many good things came out of his presidency. There is an entire segment of the left political attack machine dedicated to disproving this. It still does not work.

But, as was quoted at the top, mainstream America no longer accepts the role of the masses are asses. Increasingly, they have had quite enough of the Washington-media-wall street-academia cabal. Frankly, so have I.
 

Forum List

Back
Top