The folks who actually pay taxes were probably at work during the tea parties. College-age Obama supporters and gray-ponytailed Boomers have tons of free time.

Ah yes the Decemberists, the band that sings about killing their children and burying or burning the bodies...

Link (The Rake's Song)

Elvis_Bogart: The folks who actually pay taxes were probably at work during the tea parties. College-age Obama supporters and gray-ponytailed Boomers have tons of free time.

that, or the obama rally featured an extremely popular and historic presidential candidate known for his oratory skills, while the teabagging rally featured talk radio hosts and impotent rage.

Elvis_Bogart: The folks who actually pay taxes were probably at work during the tea parties.

The sad part is that the people protesting were likely ALL getting a break on their taxes, but are just too dumb to realize it.

I'm getting an extra few bucks per pay.

Con_Authority: The sad part is that the people protesting were likely ALL getting a break on their taxes, but are just too dumb to realize it.

So much this

This gets greenlight consideration with all of its interesting content and potential for educated discussion, and a link comparing Obama and Bush's charitable donations gets a redlight?

Boooo on that.

Con_Authority: Elvis_Bogart: The folks who actually pay taxes were probably at work during the tea parties.

The sad part is that the people protesting were likely ALL getting a break on their taxes, but are just too dumb to realize it.

I'm getting an extra few bucks per pay.

Can I "THIS" as well?

KaponoFor3: This gets greenlight consideration with all of its interesting content and potential for educated discussion, and a link comparing Obama and Bush's charitable donations gets a redlight?

Boooo on that.

Are we on the same site?

I Said: Are we on the same site?

OK fine you are probably right, but I think that other thread had much more potential than this one might have.

Also, I want to add: I don't think this is a fair comparison. I think a better comparison (and one that's been done) is when you compare these rallies to rallies for other causes, not rallies for people, especially presidential candidates during a general election.

KaponoFor3: OK fine you are probably right, but I think that other thread had much more potential than this one might have.

This one has the flamewar in easy pictoral format. It's easier for the liters to spew venom this way.

Next up: Apples vs. Oranges. In pictures

Con_Authority: Ah yes the Decemberists, the band that sings about killing their children and burying or burning the bodies...

Link (The Rake's Song)

Because a narrative song always describes a band's personal philosophy.

So that means Great Big Sea are Devil worshipers (new window).

The Rolling Stones are rapists (new window).

Etc.

It's hilarious to see CNN fawning over the Tea Party thing. Convenient how this gets more coverage than a year's worth of anti-war protests did in 2002-2003. Liberal media my farking ass.

Elvis_Bogart: The folks who actually pay taxes were probably at work during the tea parties.

So what you're saying is that the people at the tea party rallies don't pay taxes? What were they protesting then?

Don't forget, the Stones are devil worshippers too (Sympathy for the Devil).

Tastes Like Chicken: Convenient how this gets more coverage than a year's worth of anti-war protests did in 2002-2003.

To be fair, those were played out by 1971.

Con_Authority: The sad part is that the people protesting were likely ALL getting a break on their taxes, but are just too dumb to realize it.

I said in another thread that the Dems ought to say to these people, "we hear you and when this budget passes, almost all of you will get a tax cut." Spin it as if they're doing these protesters a favor, when the cut was going to happen anyway. Take the wind out of the Repubs' sails.

It's not really a fair comparison.

On one hand, you have a presidential campaign.

On the other hand, you have a contrived political 'movement' brought about by talk-show hosts.

I Said
Also, I want to add: I don't think this is a fair comparison. I think a better comparison (and one that's been done) is when you compare these rallies to rallies for other causes, not rallies for people, especially presidential candidates during a general election.

Fine. In January 2003, about 500,000 people attended an anti-war protest in Washington DC. That's about double the number of people at one location than attended all the tea party protests across the nation yesterday. In 2006, about 500,000 people protested for immigration rights in Los Angeles alone.

Tastes Like Chicken
It's hilarious to see CNN fawning over the Tea Party thing. Convenient how this gets more coverage than a year's worth of anti-war protests did in 2002-2003. Liberal media my farking ass.

This.

Tastes Like Chicken: Convenient how this gets more coverage than a year's worth of anti-war protests did in 2002-2003.

The anti-war protests didn't have the backing and support of a major news network. These were practically Fox News rallies.

Bored Horde: KaponoFor3: OK fine you are probably right, but I think that other thread had much more potential than this one might have.

This one has the flamewar in easy pictoral format. It's easier for the liters to spew venom this way.

Yes, but as I mused in the charitable donation thread, the April 16 charitable donation flame war had become something of an annual tradition around here. I love artificial sanctimony about other people's donations especially when it involves a couple of wealthy politicians who both donated more in one year than half the people arguing have made in a decade.

Con_Authority: Ah yes the Decemberists, the band that sings about killing their children and burying or burning the bodies...

Yep, gonna see them this June. Should be a great show.

Weren't there a bunch of "tea-party" protests? So isn't it rather silly comparing one such protest to a centralized event?

Tastes Like Chicken: It's hilarious to see CNN fawning over the Tea Party thing. Convenient how this gets more coverage than a year's worth of anti-war protests did in 2002-2003. Liberal media my farking ass.

Were we watching the same CNN yesterday? I saw Susan Roesgen belittling one rally and dismissing it as an "anti-CNN rally" hosted by FOXNews.

I liked the person on TV who was being intervieweed saying they were protesting against socialism, and then they were asked if they wanted to get rid of social security, and they said "what does that have to do with socialism".

Nabb1: Tastes Like Chicken: It's hilarious to see CNN fawning over the Tea Party thing. Convenient how this gets more coverage than a year's worth of anti-war protests did in 2002-2003. Liberal media my farking ass.

Were we watching the same CNN yesterday? I saw Susan Roesgen belittling one rally and dismissing it as an "anti-CNN rally" hosted by FOXNews.

So much THIS!
CNN is a commie rag

CtrlAltDelete: The anti-war protests didn't have the backing and support of a major news network. These were practically Fox News rallies.

Basically.

As I said in another thread, the only unifying of the one I saw was that "Obama is bad". That's it.

Some think he's bad because "he's going to raise everyone's taxes", some think he's bad because "he's muslim", some think he's bad because "he's appointing spies" to high levels of the gov, some because he never produced a birth certificate, and one guy thinks he's bad bc he's in the NWO. Which would would be awesome if it were actually true, as I have high hopes for a Secretary of Defense Scott Hall.

SmashLimousines: Weren't there a bunch of "tea-party" protests? So isn't it rather silly comparing one such protest to a centralized event?

Did you even bother to click on the link? it was pretty basic- two pictures of the same location, St. Louis. One had a huge crowd, the other had a very small crowd. Guess which one was for what event.

The neocons are going to protest the bailout of the auto industry next month, by holding a series of "lemon parties".

TommyymmoT: The neocons are going to protest the bailout of the auto industry next month, by holding a series of "lemon parties".

I'd pay good money to watch them Google that for pictures to use.

Elvis_Bogart: The folks who actually pay taxes were probably at work during the tea parties. College-age Obama supporters and gray-ponytailed Boomers have tons of free time.

Several of the tea parties were in the afternoon/evening. The NYC tea party had Newt Gingrich and was well-organized, and the crowds didn't break a thousand. Impressive on foot, but compared to other protests it wasn't a particularly good showing for one of the biggest cities in the country.

Nabb1: I love artificial sanctimony about other people's donations especially when it involves a couple of wealthy politicians who both donated more in one year than half the people arguing have made in a decade.

Dude, don't you know that if you help 500 people, it doesn't count for shiat if you would have been able to help 5000 people by giving up all your money?

Dear Teabaggers,

Being silent until January 20, 2009 earns you exactly 0.00 credibility points. Which is generous.

TommyymmoT: The neocons are going to protest the bailout of the auto industry next month, by holding a series of "lemon parties".

...you are a magnificent genius.

Bloody William: Elvis_Bogart: The folks who actually pay taxes were probably at work during the tea parties. College-age Obama supporters and gray-ponytailed Boomers have tons of free time.

Several of the tea parties were in the afternoon/evening. The NYC tea party had Newt Gingrich and was well-organized, and the crowds didn't break a thousand. Impressive on foot, but compared to other protests it wasn't a particularly good showing for one of the biggest cities in the country.

And a name being floated as a GOP contender for the Presidential nomination in 2012, to boot.

Lionel Mandrake: Dear Teabaggers,

Being silent until January 20, 2009 earns you exactly 0.00 credibility points. Which is generous.

True. Their credibility score is on a par with all those people who shrieked that Bush was "mortgaging our children's future" until that same date, so I guess that makes it a push for a lot of folks. But, arguing about that is easier than arguing the merits of fiscal policy.

Nabb1: True. Their credibility score is on a par with all those people who shrieked that Bush was "mortgaging our children's future" until that same date

At least Obama's spending it domestically. I hope it works, though I have serious doubts. It's hardly comparable to sending thousands of young people to die in a totally unnecessay war. Bush mortgaged our future by taking thousands of fine young men and women out of it. Obama has done nothing nearly as bad.

Lionel Mandrake: Nabb1: True. Their credibility score is on a par with all those people who shrieked that Bush was "mortgaging our children's future" until that same date

At least Obama's spending it domestically. I hope it works, though I have serious doubts. It's hardly comparable to sending thousands of young people to die in a totally unnecessay war. Bush mortgaged our future by taking thousands of fine young men and women out of it. Obama has done nothing nearly as bad.

Oh, I see. Well, I was talking about fiscal policy, and I have to admit, Obama has impressed me by actually making Bush look restrained on spending. I didn't think anyone could pull that off.

Nabb1: Lionel Mandrake: Dear Teabaggers,

Being silent until January 20, 2009 earns you exactly 0.00 credibility points. Which is generous.

True. Their credibility score is on a par with all those people who shrieked that Bush was "mortgaging our children's future" until that same date, so I guess that makes it a push for a lot of folks. But, arguing about that is easier than arguing the merits of fiscal policy.

the point being, bush spent like a drunken sailor when it was completely unnecessary. obama is spending when it's necessary. a few minor things have happened between now and then - the near collapse of the world economy being one of them.

Lionel Mandrake: At least Obama's spending it domestically.

Can you name one domestic program that shrunk under Bush?

SurfaceTension: Con_Authority: The sad part is that the people protesting were likely ALL getting a break on their taxes, but are just too dumb to realize it.

I said in another thread that the Dems ought to say to these people, "we hear you and when this budget passes, almost all of you will get a tax cut." Spin it as if they're doing these protesters a favor, when the cut was going to happen anyway. Take the wind out of the Repubs' sails.

never happen. Fox News and the rest of the echo chamber would decry it as a transparent political ploy(which it would be) and an outright lie in regards to reducing taxes(which it isn't, at least for the people who making shiat-tons of money working the echo chamber, which is an odd little coincidence if you think about it. but i digress...), and since that's the only source of info these mouth-breathers trust the message will never get through. no matter what Obama and the Dems do from this point on, these ignorant farks are gonna be screaming bloody murder about it.

/and before you all start flaming me with bullshiat butt-hurt, anyone who holds a "teabaging party" while being against gay marriage is an ignorant mouth-breathing fark.

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: At least Obama's spending it domestically.

Can you name one domestic program that shrunk under Bush?

just a guess, but i'd imagine that environmental protection spending went down under bush.

Dancin_In_Anson: Lionel Mandrake: At least Obama's spending it domestically.

Can you name one domestic program that shrunk under Bush?

NASA, or anything to do with science for that matter.

which it isn't, at least for the people who aren't making shiat-tons of money working the echo chamber, which is an odd little coincidence if you think about it. but i digress...

FTFM

I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to MSM reports and Fark politics lately, but until yesterday afternoon, I thought these Tea Parties were a hippie thing, not a neocon thing. The crowds at the two local rallies seemed to be pretty well represented on both sides--people angry and Obama (R) and people disappointed with Obama (D).

FlashHarry: the point being, bush spent like a drunken sailor when it was completely unnecessary. obama is spending when it's necessary. a few minor things have happened between now and then - the near collapse of the world economy being one of them.

When the CBO warns that a cumulative deficit of $9.3 trillion projected over the next decade, I have to wonder. I agree that some deficit spending is necessary for the time being. I think Obama's spending is, well, overly ambitious, to be charitable. I don't believe it is "necessary" just because he and his party cronies who got a lot of things on a political wish list say so. I think Obama is using the economic crisis to do to us financially what Bush and Co. did to us with foreign policy after 9/11 - cram a long-standing political agenda down our throats.

I think you stupid libs are going to have a hard time finding any already underfunded domestic issues that were further cut by Bush. Stop being so partisan and only attack Obama, you partisan hacks.

APPROVES
http://tinyurl.com/c7zh9m (cut and paste, NSFW)

FlashHarry: just a guess, but i'd imagine that environmental protection spending went down under bush.

stickmangrit: NASA, or anything to do with science for that matter.

Got anything to back that up?