April 15th - Tea Party Day?

[Tekneek]

I have to ask... Were women present at the Boston Tea Party? And, is it very likely they would've huddled under umbrellas if it were raining? Those are 2 things I noticed in the limited footage I saw yesterday, while listening to commentators talking about how it was just like 1773.

Fox News has been going nuts about the "tea parties" for weeks, and now are going nuts about how "the media" (presumably not them) doesn't "understand" what they were all about.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by path12

hxxp://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/04/15/teabagging-michelle-malkin/

Wow.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Free speech is free speech and if the Fox Talking Heads (O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity) and their surrogates (Coulter, Malkin, etc...) want to make themselves foolish by hysterically claiming we're now living under a tyrannical government (a tyrannical government that nonetheless is a weakling on the world stage), then please, by all means, let them continue.

My post, honestly, was mostly about mocking them.

I hate Fox News, but I laugh at how they are painted in this thread. As the other networks are "angels". They all suck. They aren't even "news" networks anymore.

All the networks are horrible for promoting an agenda or people. If you lean to the left, you won't like Fox. If you tend to lean to the right, you won't like MSNBC/CNN. Both have talking heads that are morons (to be honest, I think they are all).

I will say that these protestors needed to stick to one issue instead of brining the stone-aged conservative religious stuff out.

[sterlingice]

I don't think there is any way you can do more than a surface deep comparison of the three networks and come up with the same brush strokes. It is intellectually dishonest at best and more likely deliberately misleading. They all have their failings but they are different failings. So, get your insults straight.

Speaking of intellectually lazy, not everything is binary in politics despite what we've really tried to paint the last decade. I don't just mean that some people think one side is better while others think the other is better and that everything the other side does is wrong. I mean in the sense that just because something has some similar circumstances doesn't mean the action/event/idea as a whole can have the same criticisms leveled on it.

This goes back to the charge earlier in the thread of the war protests and how these are "just like" these protests. Huh? You want to compare them to the protests after Gore lost the election in 2000- that's probably a bit more accurate. A losing side who had kindof lost their way just protesting that their guy lost. How are war protests anything like this except that they have the word "protest" in it?

This is the same for the news networks argument that I made above. Just because all networks have their failings doesn't mean they have the same failings. Just because Democrat and Republican senators have problems doesn't mean they are the same problems. Identify the problems and attack the problems. If there are similarities to be had, go after those. One could say something like "well, the GOP-led Congress ran up big deficits, too" when comparing the current and former Congress. But this binary line of reasoning is the equivalent of "the GOP-led Congress ran up big deficits so gays in the military, here we come" or "the last time our deficits were heading this direction, the Patriot Act was passed so get ready for Patriot Act III!" They're complete non-sequitors.

Leveling the criticism: "Bush crushed rights and civil liberties with the Patriot Act and torture so he's a fascist" and then hearing "Obama is taxing us to pay for social services, so he's a... FASCIST" just is ignorant. You want to call him socialist- great. That's an accurate hyperbolic (if accurate and hyperbolic can be used together- but you know what I mean) statement. If you really want to go all out, call him a Communist. But where's the fascism? Hell, the best course of action for the economy would be nationalizing the banks and exerting huge government control over them but he's been extremely reticent to do that- hardly sounds like the actions of a fascist. Throwing bad money at free market companies rather than tanking them? Again, sounds a lot like socialism not fascism.

So quit being so damn intellectually lazy and participating in this third grader "I know you are but what am I" ignorance fest. Get your criticisms straight, if you're going to insult someone. Because at this point, these things just sound like they're coming from Pee Wee Herman.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I hate Fox News, but I laugh at how they are painted in this thread. As the other networks are "angels". They all suck. They aren't even "news" networks anymore.

No one's saying the other networks are "angels".

FNC has been pretty overt in their support of the whole Tea Party thing, so they're getting the brunt of the mockery here.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

No one's saying the other networks are "angels".

FNC has been pretty overt in their support of the whole Tea Party thing, so they're getting the brunt of the mockery here.

Are they are getting mocked for suport of higher taxes, or the fact that they take a position?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Are they are getting mocked for suport of higher taxes, or the fact that they take a position?

In this false choice, it could be... ... ... wait for it... ... ... ... ... NEITHER!

It could be something to the effect of pretending it's a grass roots effort when it's very much being organized from the top down.

Or that they had Fox News personalities actively participating.

Or that because of this vested interest, they gave it disproportional coverage to the relevancy of the event. I mean, geez- it looked like they had more reporters "out in the field" than they did for Super Tuesday.

But, if you want me to choose one of yours which is, again, a false choice as this isn't an either/or- it could be any number of things- but should they really be taking a position on a news story? That shouldn't be done either.

SI

[path12]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In this false choice, it could be... ... ... wait for it... ... ... ... ... NEITHER!

It could be something to the effect of pretending it's a grass roots effort when it's very much being organized from the top down.

Or that they had Fox News personalities actively participating.

Or that because of this vested interest, they gave it disproportional coverage to the relevancy of the event. I mean, geez- it looked like they had more reporters "out in the field" than they did for Super Tuesday.

But, if you want me to choose one of yours which is, again, a false choice as this isn't an either/or- it could be any number of things- but should they really be taking a position on a news story? That shouldn't be done either.

SI

You've made very good points in your past couple posts. Not that it will make any difference. But I appreciated them.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Are they are getting mocked for suport of higher taxes, or the fact that they take a position?

As SI notes, they're getting mocked for very obviously astroturfing.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As SI notes, they're getting mocked for very obviously astroturfing.

I love how there's a battle going back and forth over the past few days on wiki over trying to add the Tea Party to that page.

SI

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As SI notes, they're getting mocked for very obviously astroturfing.

CNN is just as bad as Fox News was (Susan Roesgen certainly made a name for herself). MSNBC is kind of a joke as well. Let's be honest, all networks suck and tend to promote a view. They are no longer journalists, but talking heads who try to be journalists. Even CNBC drives me nuts.

[Tekneek]

Bloomberg does a pretty good job. CNBC is a joke.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

CNN is just as bad as Fox News was (Susan Roesgen certainly made a name for herself). MSNBC is kind of a joke as well. Let's be honest, all networks suck and tend to promote a view. They are no longer journalists, but talking heads who try to be journalists. Even CNBC drives me nuts.

I still think Fox News is the worst of them all. They really make no effort to balanced. I personally wouldn't mind it at all, but I think the "fair and balanced" shit they spout is a slap in the face to everyone. Just be like right or left radio stations and say what you are. Call yourself Conservative News or GOP News.

MSNBC is more or less becoming that way for the left but doesn't go as overboard. CNN on the other hand just plays the populist message and desparately tries to find their niche.

I actually think Fox does the best job when it comes to breaking news on non-political issues. They are usually quick on the scene and get more inside access than anyone else. Their reporting on Katrina was real good up until the Bush administration needed them to go into face-saving mode.

I also dislike CNBC. They don't slant in any direction (although most of the personalities lean to the right), but their personalities simply overshadow the reporting and news. It turns in to shouting fests about nonsense no one can predict. Bloomberg is by far the best and just sticks to the news.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Throwing bad money at free market companies rather than tanking them? Again, sounds a lot like socialism not fascism.

How in the world does that sound more like socialism than fascism?!

A business-government partnership, as has somewhat been created by TARP, and the government running of some banks is far more like theoretical fascism (which very much was for a corporatist state) than theoretical socialism.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I still think Fox News is the worst of them all. They really make no effort to balanced. I personally wouldn't mind it at all, but I think the "fair and balanced" shit they spout is a slap in the face to everyone. Just be like right or left radio stations and say what you are. Call yourself Conservative News or GOP News.

MSNBC is more or less becoming that way for the left but doesn't go as overboard. CNN on the other hand just plays the populist message and desparately tries to find their niche.

I actually think Fox does the best job when it comes to breaking news on non-political issues. They are usually quick on the scene and get more inside access than anyone else. Their reporting on Katrina was real good up until the Bush administration needed them to go into face-saving mode.

I also dislike CNBC. They don't slant in any direction (although most of the personalities lean to the right), but their personalities simply overshadow the reporting and news. It turns in to shouting fests about nonsense no one can predict. Bloomberg is by far the best and just sticks to the news.

MSNBC does has it talking heads (Keith and Chris) that can compete with the worst of Fox News. I will give Fox News the nod on one part, they seem to have the hottest reporters.

As for CNBC, how is Bloomberg's TV channel?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How in the world does that sound more like socialism than fascism?!

A business-government partnership, as has somewhat been created by TARP, and the government running of some banks is far more like theoretical fascism (which very much was for a corporatist state) than theoretical socialism.

Is it really either though? Do people really believe it is Obama's goal to take over every company in this country? Or is he just entering into partnerships with insolvent banks/companies to try and avoid what would be an economic apocalypse? What a lot of these protesters don't understand is that without these bailouts to AIG and Citi, our economy would have completely collapsed.

My issue is with how easily these words get thrown around. All it takes is wanting to add a health care program and you're now Joseph Stalin.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

MSNBC does has it talking heads (Keith and Chris) that can compete with the worst of Fox News. I will give Fox News the nod on one part, they seem to have the hottest reporters.

As for CNBC, how is Bloomberg's TV channel?

No doubt, although I do have a thing for Contessa Brewer. I'm also a little fond of the CNBC ladies like Erin Burnett and Becky Quick. Plus that chick that looks like a pornstar on Headline News. CNN is the one place that is really not even trying when it comes to news hotties.

Bloomberg's TV is straight reporting and news. CNBC focuses more on entertainment and opinion. I guess it depends what you're looking for, but I've grown tired of the screaming talking heads over the years and prefer Bloomberg now.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Is it really either though? Do people really believe it is Obama's goal to take over every company in this country? Or is he just entering into partnerships with insolvent banks/companies to try and avoid what would be an economic apocalypse? What a lot of these protesters don't understand is that without these bailouts to AIG and Citi, our economy would have completely collapsed.

My issue is with how easily these words get thrown around. All it takes is wanting to add a health care program and you're now Joseph Stalin.

Some, and that would include a number of the tea party folks (as well as plenty of my communist friends) would think that both parties have been getting into bed with big corporations more and more. And of course, it can be said that it starts with just partnerships because of economic necessity (I think many people forget that fascism was very hostile to free market capitalism).

And to those on the farther ends of the spectrum, I can easily see the position of the two major parties these days being closer to fascism than free market capitalism.

Though the other point was that this hardly resembles socialism. In fact many socialists and communists are pissed off that Obama is basically giving money away to big business for barely anything (they already hated Bush for his crony capitalism).

[path12]

Personally, I think socialism (particularly the democratic sort of Scandinavia) is a far better alternative than corporatism (which seems more the direction we are heading if not already there).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

CNN is just as bad as Fox News was (Susan Roesgen certainly made a name for herself). MSNBC is kind of a joke as well. Let's be honest, all networks suck and tend to promote a view. They are no longer journalists, but talking heads who try to be journalists. Even CNBC drives me nuts.

Again, see post 104- just throwing your hands up in the air in exasperation and then saying they all suck is a great way to be intellectually dishonest, either lying to yourself or everyone else.

There are degrees of suck- Millwood and Wang both lost yesterday, but they don't both suck equally and should be held proportionally to task. Millwood pitched well and lost to a better pitching performance. Wang got blown out of the building. Fox is the latter- they don't even try to moderate their bias.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by path12

Personally, I think socialism (particularly the democratic sort of Scandinavia) is a far better alternative than corporatism (which seems more the direction we are heading if not already there).

+1

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Some, and that would include a number of the tea party folks (as well as plenty of my communist friends) would think that both parties have been getting into bed with big corporations more and more. And of course, it can be said that it starts with just partnerships because of economic necessity (I think many people forget that fascism was very hostile to free market capitalism).

And to those on the farther ends of the spectrum, I can easily see the position of the two major parties these days being closer to fascism than free market capitalism.

Though the other point was that this hardly resembles socialism. In fact many socialists and communists are pissed off that Obama is basically giving money away to big business for barely anything (they already hated Bush for his crony capitalism).

In all honesty: you have a lot of communist friends? I didn't think anyone really self-described themselves that way and it seems rare to see that. I have a couple of friends who are pretty far left socialist (in the European sense) but I don't think they would even describe themselves as communist. Tho, to be fair, we've never seen true communism in place anywhere- the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc were all just dictatorships pretending to be communist, but we're getting far afield.

I agree with most else of what you've said in this and other posts. But I have a major objection to the claim that we are heading more towards fascism: I think a key part of fascism is control of government over industry. We have the exact opposite where industry controls goverment, for the most part. It leads to a different type of dystopia- one that is neither fascist or socialist.

I also think there was a substantial shift between the past administration and this one in that the previous one had more control over industry, primarily using fear, something this administration has been reluctant to do. And that's not to say the previous one wasn't influenced greatly by many industrial figures.

SI

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Some, and that would include a number of the tea party folks (as well as plenty of my communist friends) would think that both parties have been getting into bed with big corporations more and more. And of course, it can be said that it starts with just partnerships because of economic necessity (I think many people forget that fascism was very hostile to free market capitalism).

And to those on the farther ends of the spectrum, I can easily see the position of the two major parties these days being closer to fascism than free market capitalism.

Though the other point was that this hardly resembles socialism. In fact many socialists and communists are pissed off that Obama is basically giving money away to big business for barely anything (they already hated Bush for his crony capitalism).

I think people are too quick to stick by one ideological stance and paint everything the same way. Things just aren't black and white in the real world and our politicians shouldn't treat it that way. Each political/economic system has its strengths and flaws. It is up to our politicians to do what they feel is best for the people and for the citizens to support what is best for it too.

The bailouts are an issue where people have gotten too ideological. I hate the bailouts as much as anyone. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we got put in this position. But I also realize that the bailouts saved us from an economic apocalypse. That if we abided by the wishes of those at the tea party, we'd see every major financial instituation in this country go out of business. We'd be sent back a century and it would take a generation to recover.

So if shifting a little more toward corpartism temporarily is the best solution for the country, why does it matter? Shouldn't the goal ultimately be what's in the best interest of the country? After the mess is cleaned up, the goal should be shifting back toward a capitalistic system that has much stronger regulations to avoid this happening again. Ideologies are nice on paper, but they don't work in the real world.

People shouldn't be mad about the bailouts, they should be mad at why they were necessary. They should be mad at the politicians who have been asleep at the wheel for many years. They should be mad at the people who ran these companies and defrauded millions. Those are the enemies, not people who are currently trying to fix the mess.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

People shouldn't be mad about the bailouts, they should be mad at why they were necessary. They should be mad at the politicians who have been asleep at the wheel for many years. They should be mad at the people who ran these companies and defrauded millions. Those are the enemies, not people who are currently trying to fix the mess.

Hell, asleep at the wheel? How about the ones who actively have worked to undo regulation for the past two decades? That's not passively asleep at the wheel, that's driving the school bus to hell.

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

In all honesty: you have a lot of communist friends? I didn't think anyone really self-described themselves that way and it seems rare to see that. I have a couple of friends who are pretty far left socialist (in the European sense) but I don't think they would even describe themselves as communist. Tho, to be fair, we've never seen true communism in place anywhere- the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc were all just dictatorships pretending to be communist, but we're getting far afield.

Yep. I have a friend who ran for Congress under the Socialist Party of the America, down in Fort Lauderdale. He considers himself a full fledged Communist, but definitely not a Cuba/China, etc Commie. His wife is too. True, I met him online (on another forum), but I have met him IRL as well.

Oh, and European countries aren't socialist either. They are more into the welfare state, sure. But they believe in capitalism unpinning their economies.

I agree with most else of what you've said in this and other posts. But I have a major objection to the claim that we are heading more towards fascism: I think a key part of fascism is control of government over industry. We have the exact opposite where industry controls goverment, for the most part. It leads to a different type of dystopia- one that is neither fascist or socialist.

Well, I think it'd be referred to as "proto-Fascism". And corporatism isn't necessarily all that cut and dried. Industry having power over government means that in times of populist anger (like real, hanging people from lamposts populist anger), industry turns to a strong corporatist leader who would let them keep their money (which happened in Italy, Spain, and, of course, German).

Now I'm not saying we are GOING to be Fascist (I don't even think we are sliding into it, not even on a sliding level). I'm just saying that if you are going to allow people to make a political hyperbole, we are closer to heading towards Fascism than Socialism.

I also think there was a substantial shift between the past administration and this one in that the previous one had more control over industry, primarily using fear, something this administration has been reluctant to do. And that's not to say the previous one wasn't influenced greatly by many industrial figures.

Both parties are pretty intermarried to business. They may be more closely intermarried to different businesses, but the general point remains the same.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

After the mess is cleaned up, the goal should be shifting back toward a capitalistic system that has much stronger regulations to avoid this happening again.

THAT, though is the fear and the problem. Rarely do things shift back, unless there is some sort of huge change (like the stagflation of the late 70s... remember before Reagan [and the problems under Carter], the Rockefeller/Nixon branch of the Republican Party was dominant, and Goldwater was just someone who failed horridly. Remember Nixon created the EPA and was pushing for universal health care... in the 1970s).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Hell, asleep at the wheel? How about the ones who actively have worked to undo regulation for the past two decades? That's not passively asleep at the wheel, that's driving the school bus to hell.

SI

That leads to the question. Which regulations have been "undone" that caused this. Because it sure as Hell wasn't Glass-Stegall (undoing that may have actually helped prevent the recession of 2001 and the current one from becoming more severe).

Rainmaker is correct. It's asleep at the wheel. After all, Western European countries, who we apparently look at for regulation strength, didn't have the proper checks on their businesses either (and they didn't need a Gramm-Leach-Bailey, because they already allowed what the bill did in the US).

[sterlingice]

ISiddiqui, I'm enjoying the conversation- I don't often say that about the political ones on the board

Anyways, how did the part of Gramm-Leach-Bliley that ended Glass-Steagall help the economy (i.e. prevent 2001 recession and cushioning this one)? I guess one could argue that those large banks had something to cushion their fall (i.e. their lending banking business) when the investment side fell apart. But I'm not sure if that's what you were getting at.

That said, I would argue the creation of "too big to fail" megabanks is a much worse development for the economy than anything that could have happened if we taken the other road in 1999. I think these risks wouldn't have been taken in so heavily by major players.

(Then again, I'm an advocate for the government nationalizing the lot of them, breaking them up, and then putting them back out onto the market- which definitely has its own substantial problems)

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Gramm-Leach-Bailey helped the economy by allowing investments banks to buy failing deposit banks. Prior to GLB, those banks would have ended up failing as no one could buy them. Washington Mutual would have folded (or had to bailed out big time) instead of JP Morgan being able to buy them up, as one example (Merrill Lynch and BOA is another).

Without GLB, the TARP would have probably been twice the amount it was simply because you couldn't have had all those banks fail.

[Tekneek]

Isn't it Gramm-Leach-Bliley?

[ISiddiqui]

Probably... I was trying to go off the top of my head.

[sterlingice]

Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Glass-Steagall if we want to be really correct

SI

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Tonight is the big "National Tea Party Convention" in Nashville.

Tickets cost several hundred each. Sarah Palin is the big "guest" speaker, supposedly pocketing $100,000 for her part.

I just spoke with someone I know who is there & asked him what teas are being served. Strangely enough, he said he has not seen anybody drinking tea.

[RainMaker]

Tancredo spoke last night. Just needed a pointy white hood and everything would have been perfect.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Tancredo spoke last night. Just needed a pointy white hood and everything would have been perfect.

Tancredo's a member of the KKK?

[lungs]

Glad they brought up the birth certificate again.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Tonight is the big "National Tea Party Convention" in Nashville.

Tickets cost several hundred each. Sarah Palin is the big "guest" speaker, supposedly pocketing $100,000 for her part.

I just spoke with someone I know who is there & asked him what teas are being served. Strangely enough, he said he has not seen anybody drinking tea.

Has he seen anyone with a nutsack on his face?

[sterlingice]

Let me guess: CNN and MSNBC mention a couple of minutes of it while Fox is giving it wall-to-wall coverage

SI

[JPhillips]

Did they change things and allow other broadcaster media besides Fox? I know initially they were very stingy with media credentials and only gave them out to "friendly" media, but reports have around 100 media members at her speech.

[JPhillips]

Palin can't remember "energy, tax, lift America's spirit".

[Dutch]

She's not using a teleprompter?

[Flasch186]

That cant be true! That's gotta be photoshopped

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

That cant be true! That's gotta be photoshopped

Nope. Watch the video of the Q/A and she clearly checks her hand while answering a question about her priorities.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

She's not using a teleprompter?

See House GOP Retreat, Obama discussion with.

[Dutch]

Stefan Sirucek: EXCLUSIVE (Update): Palin's Tea Party Crib Notes

Here's the article from the Huffington Post that details the scandal in full.

[lungs]

Palin identifies with the common person by using her hand to write notes instead of an elitist liberal like Obama that uses these fancy machines to script every single word that comes out of his mouth.

[Flasch186]

{shaking head}

If she is ever our president I truly do fear for us and not in a "OMG hes a socialist" kind of way, or a "he's a maverick and we wont know what he'll do" kind of way, but in a "our president wont be as smart as most country's leaders might be" kind of way.

[Dutch]

I don't mind Sarah Palin, but I don't support her Presidential efforts or the Tea Party thing (don't know much about it honestly). But I can't help but sympathize with her as the left-wing media mob attacks her relentlessly.

[Flasch186]

right, she didnt invite any judgment at all from scribbling crib notes on her hand while giving a key note speech and getting paid $100k. Totally unwarranted.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't mind Sarah Palin, but I don't support her Presidential efforts or the Tea Party thing (don't know much about it honestly). But I can't help but sympathize with her as the left-wing media mob attacks her relentlessly.

When she used the teleprompter line she kinda brought it on herself.

edit: On the Tea Partiers, right now they have the freedom to be all things to all people. If they ever start a real political [party and have to stake out clear positions on issues they'll be in trouble. There are a lot of people angry with the government, but once you start spelling out a platform I think most people will stick with the GOP or the Democrats.

Of course I'm still not convinced that at an organizing level the "movement" isn't about supporting the right kind of GOP candidates anyway.