Republican teabaggers

Did anyone catch any Republican teabaggers out and about today?

I spotted a few teabaggers around Lafayette Park… and I must say, they were the biggest bunch of losers I have seen in some time…

thats odd, i heard the number of losers in DC has dropped dramatically since November of 2006.

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4330108

The Fark thread has some absolutely hilarious pictures; I can't believe how ignorant some people can be. The best part is, I guarantee most of the people protesting tax hikes today do not and will not ever make enough to ever be effected.

It seems like people picked today to protest against basically every liberal ideology, every picture seems to be protesting something different.

It's hard to talk when you're teabagging…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Ed5iLu4M

Is it safe for work? :)

Shemp wrote:
It's hard to talk when you're teabagging…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I64Ed5iLu4M

Hello wrote:
Is it safe for work? :)

Sure.  It's CNN.

what makes you think they are all republicans?  if anything, the vast majority of these events are self-organized and run by people who are probably far more moderate than the typical "republican", especially on social issues.  they are rightfully upset by the passage of the "stimulus" bill, the budget that contained over 7,000 earmarks, the administration's proposed budget that makes bush's spending look like a miser, increases our deficit to levels unseen before, and other policies of congress and the administration that will increase wasteful government spending and place an increasingly larger burden upon taxpayers over the next 10 years.  i mean, let's not forget, around 50% of the people in this country already end up with zero tax liability- and instead, get a subsidy from the government, which is paid for by the rest of us.  in other words, the issue isn't about current taxes, it's about prolifigate and unsustainable government spending that can only result in deficits that will be shouldered by future earnings in the way of higher taxes and less growth.

this isn't good news for either party……obviously for democrats since they are "more government? yes please" and for republicans because of the 6 of the last 8 years. . . .although i fully expect both parties, with the help of the MSM, to eventually stop covering them and addressing their issues, hoping that this will just go away.

I would assume that most of them are Republicans for several reasons (note: when I write Bush I mean Bush and the Republicans):
1. Bush created MASSIVE dept and no Teabaggers protested
2. Bush created a much bigger government (largely due to creating the Dept. of Homeland Security) and no protest
3. Bush created the Patriot Act which many argue restricted civil liberties and personal freedom and no protests
4. From all the videos I have seen, the vast majority of them voted for "Sarah" which would align them with Republicans

so I think it is very easy to confuse them with Republicans… and/or morons

It was a little odd that they chose 15 days after the majority of the participants (say, 95%) just got a tax break to have an anti-tax protest.

Venerable wrote:
what makes you think they are all republicans? 

well the democrats arent out there protesting. i believe thats what he meant. (and you know that!)

the democrats were all in line at the bank cashing their refund checks!

El wrote:
I would assume that most of them are Republicans for several reasons (note: when I write Bush I mean Bush and the Republicans):
1. Bush created MASSIVE dept and no Teabaggers protested
2. Bush created a much bigger government (largely due to creating the Dept. of Homeland Security) and no protest
3. Bush created the Patriot Act which many argue restricted civil liberties and personal freedom and no protests
4. From all the videos I have seen, the vast majority of them voted for "Sarah" which would align them with Republicans

so I think it is very easy to confuse them with Republicans… and/or morons

on 1, that's a dumb argument.  whatever bush did, obama is doubling.  if the left really cared about the debt, which they supposedly did under bush, being silent as obama doubles it is just as bad as the right remaining silent on bush.  not all republicans supported this massive government spending increases under bush- people like john mccain, jim demint, mark sanford and, especially, jeff flake all routinely took the administration to task for it's spending….and that's without mentioning what's left of the libertarian/republican alignment (which this administration is doing a great job of putting back together)….

3 is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. . .in any event, obama certainly doesn't appear to be distancing himself from the more distasteful aspects of it (state secrets, anyone).

on 4, i would not trust your sources. . .

as for 2. . .i would think that creating a deparment devoted to protecting its citizens would merit some size, especially since it consolidated several agencies from various parts of the government into one agency. 

finally, so what if people remained silent during the bush the younger years?  simply because they were silent during those years is no reason to ridicule them for finally making a stand against a massive increase in wasteful and unnecessary government spending, the likes of which this country has never seen, all to push through a package aimed at increasing the size and reach of the federal government. 

Venerable wrote:
the budget that contained over 7,000 earmarks

Only in Bush's first year did the Budget contain less that 7000 earmarks until 2007 when the new Congress reduced the amount.  Where was the outrage then?  Or last years Bush stimulus - the tea baggers were……?

# of earmarks by year….

1994-2000: approx 10,500 total.

2001: 6333
2002: 8341
2003: 9362
2004: 10,656
2005: 13,997
2006: 9,963
2007: 2658
2008: 11,043

I'll get to the rest later, but that was easy one.  I'll even break that down for total amount spent soon too, because I know you want to see it.

vansmack wrote:

Venerable wrote:
the budget that contained over 7,000 earmarks

Only in Bush's first year did the Budget contain less that 7000 earmarks until 2007 when the new Congress reduced the amount.  Where was the outrage then?  Or last years Bush stimulus - the tea baggers were……?

you know full well that there was opposition to the stimulus packages the past 2 years (if for nothing else because i kept complaining about the stimulus packages to you). . .simply because the MSM didn't cover them doesn't mean they weren't there.  and that doesn't include the bailout protests, which were far more widespread. 

as for the earmarks. . .hope and change, hope and change. . .

Venerable wrote:

El wrote:
I would assume that most of them are Republicans for several reasons (note: when I write Bush I mean Bush and the Republicans):
1. Bush created MASSIVE dept and no Teabaggers protested
2. Bush created a much bigger government (largely due to creating the Dept. of Homeland Security) and no protest
3. Bush created the Patriot Act which many argue restricted civil liberties and personal freedom and no protests
4. From all the videos I have seen, the vast majority of them voted for "Sarah" which would align them with Republicans

so I think it is very easy to confuse them with Republicans… and/or morons

on 1, that's a dumb argument.  whatever bush did, obama is doubling.  if the left really cared about the debt, which they supposedly did under bush, being silent as obama doubles it is just as bad as the right remaining silent on bush.  not all republicans supported this massive government spending increases under bush- people like john mccain, jim demint, mark sanford and, especially, jeff flake all routinely took the administration to task for it's spending….and that's without mentioning what's left of the libertarian/republican alignment (which this administration is doing a great job of putting back together)….

3 is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. . .in any event, obama certainly doesn't appear to be distancing himself from the more distasteful aspects of it (state secrets, anyone).

on 4, i would not trust your sources. . .

as for 2. . .i would think that creating a deparment devoted to protecting its citizens would merit some size, especially since it consolidated several agencies from various parts of the government into one agency. 

finally, so what if people remained silent during the bush the younger years?  simply because they were silent during those years is no reason to ridicule them for finally making a stand against a massive increase in wasteful and unnecessary government spending, the likes of which this country has never seen, all to push through a package aimed at increasing the size and reach of the federal government. 

do you really believe all this stuff you write?

As in, do I believe in FACTS… yeah, usually. (opps, I thought the last remark was about me…)

back wrote:

do you really believe all this stuff you write?

sometimes. . .i have a rather skewed view of this stuff. . .like, i believe in the 10th amendment, federalism and keeping the size of the federal government small…it's a hodgepodge of various libertarian/republican view points.

Venerable wrote:

back wrote:

do you really believe all this stuff you write?

sometimes. . .i have a rather skewed view of this stuff. . .like, i believe in the 10th amendment, federalism and keeping the size of the federal government small…it's a hodgepodge of various libertarian/republican view points.

  I am taking a US History class now (as I have some gen eds to take that i skipped in order to finish my degree) and we are leaning of the Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans. My teacher is a Nigerian fellow who seems to hate America and its founding fathers. but whatever.
 
  The 10th amendment is cool.  I honestly feel that Obama is trying to fix things the best way he knows how, for the goals of Libertarians and such seem nice, there seems to be a lot to fix before they would ever work. 

  I like when people say "let the economy fix itself".  obviously those people havent lost their job.  Either way, I spend much less time reading about politics than you and many others on here, so i try to stay out of the debate too much.  But I imagine if states were granted more power, we'd soon be yearning for the days the Fed was in control…

its a bit distasteful to invoke the american revolution over a 3% tax increase for 5% of the population. especially when thats what obama got elected on just 5 months ago

Venerable wrote:
as for the earmarks. . .hope and change, hope and change. . .

In 3 months, you wanted him to eliminate all earmarks?  I'll take a 15% reduction and work towards next year.

After all, a Republican President and a Republican Congress did nothing but increase them over 6 years despite promising to eliminate them.  I didn't hear you (or the Teabaggers) up in arms then…"Reformer with Results?"

The Boston Tea Party was to protest taxation without representation WHICH is kinda opposite from what we have going on now. The vast majority of Americans are getting lower taxes (I believe 95%) and the rest are still getting a lower tax rate than when Reagan was in office. If these people were out protesting because DC does not have full representation and pays federal taxes that would be one thing… but they are not.