Today were "Tea Party" protests in dozens of cities across the nation. You can see my coverage of the Seattle protest here.
Posted by byrond at February 27, 2009 05:23 PM | Email ThisI would venture to say that at least half of the country feels this way now, but a portion of those felt that way when Bush was in power. I hope that we start to recover...well before the end of the year, but after seeing the stock market plummet more this week, I have my doubts. Socialism sure as hell is not the answer - it will only serve to neuter future economic growth. Those who don't care will think twice when they see how it sucks the opportunity right out of this land.
Posted by: KS on February 27, 2009 07:03 PMWould you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Posted by: Steve on February 27, 2009 07:08 PMFunny, because the Nazi's were socialists (Nazi IS short for Nationalist Socialist Party in German, after all). What Obama is proposing is a heckuva lot closer to what the Nazis did than what the Republicans want to do.
Posted by: Mike H on February 27, 2009 07:30 PMhope democrats taste like chicken cause I'm
hungry. Any recipes? Bueller? Posted by: mark on February 27, 2009 09:51 PM
Sorry I didn't hear about the Tea Parties earlier. I would have liked to have organized one in Portland. (Yes, there are conservatives in Portland)
Posted by: conservativenorthwest on February 27, 2009 09:57 PMIf we all did this, the republic would go bankrupt in a year.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on February 27, 2009 10:49 PMWelcome the ACORN representative. He must have gotten his first stimulus check and his next fix.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on February 28, 2009 07:18 AM"Washington, D.C., February 23, 2009--Sales of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008."
--snip--
"Americans are flocking to buy and read 'Atlas Shrugged' because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day" said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights."
Posted by: Bill H on February 28, 2009 09:09 AMI seem to recall similar arguments being made on the left a few years back against spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a senseless war in Iraq. At least this time the money will stay home and pay for things we can use rather than for blowing up and destroying things that belong to someone else.
Seems like you folks turned into fiscal conservatives about the same time Bush left office. No?
Posted by: Unkl Witz on February 28, 2009 09:59 AMYou're correct, the answer is "no". There were a lot of us who were upset with the spending habits of the Republicans after Newt Gingrich resigned. Remember that it was the Republicans under Newt who passed Welfare Reform (and finally got Clinton to sign it on the third (I believe) try), and who balanced the budget. After Newt left, the Republicans turned into Democrats as far as being profligate spenders and Bush did NOTHING to reign them in. It turns out the Reps were pikers compared with the current Dems, however!
Posted by: Bill H on February 28, 2009 11:19 AMMike G
What does that mean, everyone has a 100 foot yacht or do we force those that have them to give rides to all those who don't?
You sound like the Italian communists, to everyone a mink coat and a fast car!
In the USSR everyone was equal, unless you held
public office, then you were a little more equal than others.
WTF are you thinking? You'd be the first to complain when the gov't takes away your toys.
Posted by: dan on February 28, 2009 12:27 PMThe idea that 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' is a government guarantee to own your own home, car, and anything else you want is absurd.
You are not entitled to whatever lifestyle you want. You are entitled to do whatever you need to do to attain your desired lifestyle.
Posted by: Mike H on February 28, 2009 12:43 PMGeorge Bush Jr's occupation of Iraq just produced a $3 trillion dollar bill. Between 2000-early 2008 his gov't brought the national debt from $5trillion to nearly $10 trillion. After the debt bubble fostered by his gov't popped in mid 2008 - his party put us under additional debt obligations of $4-8 trillion, if you include Fannie Mae and the hard-to-estimate actions at the Federal Reserve.
These people seem very unsophisticated to suddenly spring into action, calling the democrats the big spenders. For all his flaws Clinton had declining debt at the end of his term.
You guys are a small minority of small-minded fools who think that tax cuts will spur the broken economy - when all the evidence says they don't work. Do you enjoy beating that dead horse?
What a sorry bunch of intellectually bankrupt, idea-less fools. Yeah, "socialism" is sure gonna scare people - especially those who have lost their jobs due to the Bush economic mess.
And the complaints about spending are just too funny. Where were you idiots when Bush put out the largest budget deficits in history and did not even include the war spending in the accounting (trying to hide his spending as usual)?
Hypocrites.
You loved spending for waste in Iraq (billions went unaccounted for) and there were all those no-bid contracts and inflated prices. Not a peep about the over 1 trillion wasted in Iraq?
Or the bank bailout pushed through by Bush and Paulson because of lax regulations?
The republican response by Jindal was not only poorly delivered, but Jindal was caught lying about the Katrina story. Is the truth too tough to handle for republicans - do they need to make things up?
Posted by: correctnotright on February 28, 2009 12:48 PMI believe he's nearing that with his profligate spending ways and it should only take a couple of non-mainstream social issues - gun bans and gay marriage/military come to mind - to reach a tipping point where the majority of voters realize that Mr. O ain't so moderate after all.
If the GOP can get it's act together and present a viable alternative regaining one of the houses of congress in 2010 will be within striking distance.
Posted by: threeoddnumbers on February 28, 2009 12:49 PMMike H. Understand, most people don't have the luck or opportunity to acquire massive assets which really belong to all of us. Tell me how a homeless person can afford the best schools, job, social status, etc. We need to level the playing field. Many of the far right stall the opportunity for the rest of us. It just isn't fair. I can't afford nor do I care to work all those extra hours or spend all that extra effort to get there. I am entitled to the simple pleasures of life just like anyone else. We need to share more and the best way to do it is to tax the filthy rich...
Mike.
Guess what, I grew up on government cheese with all my clothes coming from Goodwill. My parents considered it shameful, and worked their way out of it by busting their asses off. They still are solidly middle class. And they think what Obama is doing (after they voted for him) is wrong.
Newsflash... life is not fair. It never has been. It never will be. Sorry, I don't begrudge the filthy rich having all kinds of things I don't. Some were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Many, if not most, got it by working long, hard, ridicules hours. Either way, it's not my stuff and I don't want it. The fact that you are unwilling to do the same, that you have stated you are unwilling to earn it, doesn't entitle you to take their stuff. You didn't work for it. You didn't earn it. It's not yours.
I don't wake up in the morning complaining that I don't have a huge home or a yacht, and whining how unfair it is. I'm not that shallow and materialistic. If you want that stuff so bad, work for it. There is nothing stopping you. But please don't bitch and complain that those that did work for it should be forced to share with you when you're unwilling to work for it yourself.
As far as homeless not affording it. I'm sorry, but most homeless are there because of choices they made in their life. Either they have substance abuse problems, or they have mental health issues that they were unwilling do deal with. Those that are incapable of dealing with their mental health issues should be institutionalised for their own well being.
Many simply don't want to be responsible for themselves, and don't like the idea of having a job and doing what others tell them.
Those that truly are down on their luck rarely stay that way for long. There are countless stories of homeless people getting their act together and succeeding in life.
The people who are successful in life are the ones who don't complain how "unfair" life is, take whatever life throws at them in stride, and bust their asses off.
It's the people like you who bitch and moan, and say you don't want to put in the hours others do who are the perennial losers. And then you have the gall to demand that those that do work their tail off give you what they earn.
You're nothing but a freeloader. Disgusting.
Posted by: Mike H on February 28, 2009 01:33 PMAyn Rand called people like Mike G "moochers". A fitting description, IMO... Posted by: Bill H on February 28, 2009 01:53 PM
"should be willing to share"
What's the operative word there Mike?
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."
As has been evidenced in a mere month, government a la the democrats in power is destructive not just for us but for our children and the grandchildren I have yet to have.
Government cannot regulate the ideas that run the engine of capitalism; government cannot regulate the courage that IS the engine of capitalism. However, over-regulation, an interfering and dicatatorial government and onus taxation will surely stifle and kill both of those. It is NONE of governments business how much a private company deems its workers and executives are worth. They only have to be accountable to their shareholders. That interference will lead to a 'why bother?' attitude. Why bother to be an expert to be paid as a grunt? Why bother to expend energy, knowledge, talent for no reward or a government proscribed/limited reward? Would we have Microsoft under those conditions? Would we have lazer eye surgery or earth-moving equipment or cell phones or electricity generating windmills? Why bother to invent or perfect them if there is no chance of reward? Risk = reward. That's the whole premise of state (government) sponsored lottery. Anyone notice the hypocrisy there?
When the government taxes from a few to redistribute to others in an unevenhanded manner, IT IS A THIEF. In my opinion, Robin Hood was nothing but a thief. His "intentions" don't matter: he took what others earned through their labor and gave it others who didn't earn anything. That is stealing. The altruism of the thief changes nothing.
"Good government" doesn't lie to people by telling them they are entitled to the fruits of someone elses labor. "Good government" doesn't allow AND encourage people to purchase things for which they are unqualified and have no means to repay. "Good government" doesn't reward the bad behaviour of fatherless families, of a lazy citizenry, of corrupt politicians. "Good government doesn't spend frivolously while condemning private companies for the same. "Good government" doesn't allow people to believe results matter less than good intentions.
But THIS government does by redistributing the money YOU earn, by forcing banks to give loans to the unqualified, by rewarding with welfare, by not punishing corruption in the ranks of government, by spending on nonsensical programs whose sole purpose is the political capital to keep them in office.
The effects of this nightmare the democrats are creating are alreading being seen: private charitable contributions are devastatingly down (that whole "willing" thing Mike); people are not investing in Wall Street. The dirty little secret is that NO ONE can make (legislate!) us spend or invest. There is a great wave of Americans who refuse to participate by opting out: we are not taking what little we have left in our investments but we sure as hell are not investing more: not more stocks, not IRA contributions, not even pitiful savings accounts. We are not BUYING. The dirty little secret is that this government depends on our cooperation: they need our buying, saving and investing. They have told us to go out and "spend". (Hey! Weren't 'they' the same ones who excoriated GW for THAT message after 9/11??)
I will not. I have stopped buying, stopped investing and my savings are out of the system. We are taking OUR MONEY out of the equation. We won't abdicate our responsibilities, we won't shirk our taxes, but we also won't play the game they absolutely needs us to play. We're getting a whopping $13/ week back in our paychecks. Nope, we won't be buying Girl Scout Cookies with it... or anything else. We'll be hoarding CASH. Let's all see how the grand plan works without willing victims. The stock market is not a reflection of what's happening today. It reflects the faith WE investors have for the future. It's down over 1000 points since the democrats took over.
My mind is boggling at the likes of Mike G.
Where the hell do they get such ideas? I too am
not spending anything because I fear for the future. According to Mike, there should be a gov't agency that will come to me to force me to spend my money!!
UNF****INGBELIEVABLE.
Posted by: dan on February 28, 2009 02:26 PMRagnar, there is one minor problem with your argument. In Robin Hood's time, the rich were the nobility, and the nobility were government. As such, much of their wealth came from taxes on their subjects. I think that is something lost on both the left and right when it comes to Robin Hood allegories. It's kind of apples and oranges to today.
Posted by: Mike H on February 28, 2009 02:52 PMThe altruism of the thief changes nothing.
NO ONE is entitled to that which legitimately belongs to others. Ted Kennedy inherited his wealth, does that me entitled to his home in the Hamptons, does it excuse me if I rip off his Florida estate?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 03:39 PMand smother you with a pillow? Are you allergic
to down? Oh, wait that wont matter will it. Posted by: mark on February 28, 2009 03:56 PM
I have contacted the organizer about posting info on his group to the Unite4Liberty Network as well. We're hoping to maintain the momentum...
Posted by: KayElle on February 28, 2009 04:01 PMI'm just saying that it's not quite the same to compare Robin Hood to the government when it raises taxes on the rich. Or anyone who robs from the rich today to give to the poor. The rich today didn't get rich by forcing unwilling subjects to be poor. And the rich today aren't the government. It's apples and oranges.
Posted by: Mike H on February 28, 2009 04:06 PMYou forgot to mention that Obama also voted for that public subsidy of private failure. Have you lunged at anyone lately Pritchard?
Posted by: Lunging Lawyer on February 28, 2009 06:20 PMThe rich today didn't get rich by forcing unwilling subjects to be poor. And the rich today aren't the government.
Read YOUR words again.
Those forced to pay (taxes) for those that don't (welfare) ARE UNWILLING SUBJECTS.
You don't like the taxes/welfare analogy, well how about taxes/abortion: I AM AN UNWILLING SUBJECT BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR ABORTIONS.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 07:05 PMBetter buy more guns and ammo.
Posted by: joebandmember on February 28, 2009 07:07 PMIF you can find it.
We're hoarding. Evidently every other right thinking American is too.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on February 28, 2009 07:18 PMTea bags and pork rinds:
The Toddler in Chief
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
If an oppressive government took my hard earned money against my will to use as they see fit, and a third party said, hey, that's not right, and managed to "steal" some of it back and returned it to me, I have a hard time calling him a thief. That is what Robin Hood did. That is why I think the Robin Hood analogy is not a good one. That's all.
Posted by: Mike H on February 28, 2009 07:51 PMMay I suggest, a Seattle latte party and dump Starbucks or Seattle's Best Coffee into the drink and do something newsworthy instead of a few signs (some were pretty good) and try outrageous - otherwise it looks like the leftwingers.
Posted by: KS on February 28, 2009 10:50 PM* work for the government
* are on welfare
so no risk for them.
Posted by: Crusader on February 28, 2009 11:29 PMFor the record I have NEVER attended a political rally but these are amazingly scary times and we are on the verge of throwing our futures away. I'm ready to act.
Posted by: Frank on March 1, 2009 10:22 AMI see since they have NO statistics that large capacity magazines lead to more crime lately, the commies are saying we have to ban them because they're getting into Mexico.
My smartazz saying to that: Those guns are sneaking across the border doing jobs the Mexicans won't do. Posted by: PC on March 1, 2009 11:49 AM
What can't be denied is what happened from 2000-2006 and how the Republicans in office got us into this current predicament.
Posted by: KS on March 1, 2009 07:57 PMAs mentioned before, all you need now are some gigantic Obama/Osama/CCCP/Hammer&sickle marionettes, & you'll be well on your way towards political oblivion.
DOH! I forgot: "It's the media's fault for not paying attention" (overheard at every lefty protest)
GO YOU!
Posted by: mercifurious on March 2, 2009 12:17 PMhttp://www.freerepublic.com/tag/teaparty/index?tab=articles
"Call to action: Tea Party USA!"
Another step into the abyss. Keep walking - ignore the choking canaries!
Posted by: mercifurious on March 2, 2009 12:37 PMPosted by: Cato on March 2, 2009 01:09 PM
You and I are twins separated at birth, but I do have to correct the common misconception about Robin Hood: if you read the ORIGINAL, he re-possessed (a word you should LIKE, based on your screen name!) from the Sheriff of Nottingham (read: government) and gave it back to its rightful owners (read: taxpayers.)
He DID NOT "steal from the rich and give to the poor." He righted a wrong.
Posted by: Richard on March 2, 2009 01:16 PMAnd so bambi and his merry band of congress believe THEY are doing.
It's still stealing.
The altruism of the thief changes nothing.
The motive of the thief changes nothing.
The good intention of the thief changes nothing.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 2, 2009 02:56 PMAmen, Ragnar - now forward march (please!)
I say Just Do It. Why not take back what is "rightfully yours", and STORM THE GATES!. No more metaphorical so-called "tea party" reinactments. Go out and actually DO what THEY DID! http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm
Here's the addresses of Seattle "Sherriff of Nottinghams", and evil red-coats that have stolen your tax $$$:
City Hall
600 Fourth Avenue #1
Seattle, Washington 98104
Metropolitan King County Council
516 Third Ave., Rm. 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Remember: No more protests. Your goal is not to make yourself feel better, or make a symbolic gesture. Your goal is to take back what is rightfully your's. (If you have the courage of your convictions, why not?)
OH! and don't forget to pass along the info to the other FreeperFolk.
The people on the right have productive jobs that help pay for your lifestyle and other responsabilities.
Contrast that with the left that pay people to not work so they are able to protest when their masters demand it.
Posted by: Protest Differences on March 2, 2009 04:20 PMPosted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 2, 2009 05:02 PM
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on March 2, 2009 05:09 PM
Yeah, I know. You've capitalized
THEFT - so you must feel strongly about it. Now do something: No more symbolic, metaphoric, reinactments (ie Protest).
Were the people involved in the Boston Tea Party "protesters"? No
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/teaparty.htm
Were Robin Hood's "Merry Men" holding protest signs? NO!
They were taking back what was rightfully there's.
No go forth!