By now, I suspect you have all heard of these anti-tax protests staged around the country on April 15th. For the benefit of posterity, I will give a brief synopsis. With the passing of the recent stimulus package of about $800 billion, Republicans are furious. To air their grievances, they have turned to the street and organized a nation-wide protest to decry the massive increase in taxes brought on by the stimulus package. They have chosen to refer to themselves as a tea party, in order to hearken back to Boston Tea Party of the revolution.
For starters, I don't know who it was that came up with the name of tea parties for these recent anti-tax protests, but I want to thank whoever it was. You have given us liberals a gift. Mocking you has never been so easy. These teabagging jokes just write themselves. The last time you gave us such a comedic gift of this quality, a lawyer was pulling BBs out of his face.
I love that they try to connect themselves to the Boston Tea Party. Republicans are trying to connect the current state of the nation with the state of pre-revolution America. Any grade-schooler can tell you the battle cry of the original tea partiers, "No taxation without representation!" But does that refer to the current state of America? Are Republicans being taxed without representation? They would have you think they are, but the answer is obviously no. In fact there are two problems with that claim.
The first problem with the above statement is the claim that we are being taxed. That is the most bizarre element of this whole circus. Taxes have not gone up. In fact, I just got my pay check for the last half of March. Guess what. My taxes went down. The stimulus package contained about $300 billion in tax cuts. Those were put in to appease the Republicans, who still refused to vote for it as a complete block. So, I'm not sure whose taxes you are protesting, not mine apparently.
Last I checked, Republicans still have the right to vote. The fact that more Americans disagree with them today than agree with them does not change the fact that they still have representation. Over the last eight years I watched as the leader made decision after decision that made me sick to my stomach. Did Democrats lack representation? No. We simply lacked control. That is the situation you are currently in. You mucked up government so bad that people decided that they had had enough and voted you guys out of office. Apparently though, your idea of being represented is that my viewpoint (and the views of the majority of America) be relegated to the dustbin. Ahhh... sounds like the Bush years.
It's illuminating to consider how Republicans considered protesters just a few years back. When Republicans were in power, anyone who voiced any sort of dissent were considered anti-American. I can't count the number of times I was personally called anti-American because I had the audacity to voice my disagreement with the current administration. According to Republicans of the past eight years, the First Ammendment provides all Americans the right to freely speak in favor of the Executive branch.
Well, the tables have certainly changed, haven't they? Your man is no longer in power, and the value of dissent has completely changed in your eyes as a result. Whereas you once considered dissent to be anti-American, you now have pundits like O'Reilly and Hannity extolling the great patriotic fervor of those protesting. How is it that when you disagree with the government you are patriotic, but when I do the same thing I am anti-American?!
I would like to state categorically that I believe peaceful public dissent to be a wonderful thing. It is a hallmark of a free nation. Although I think that these tea parties are ridiculous, I wholeheartedly encourage Americans who feel disenfranchised by Obama's presidency to let their voice be heard. Please keep it up. Protesting is not anti-American. Quite the contrary, it's one of the most American activities that exists.
The funniest part of this whole anti-American rhetoric is how there have been a number of tea parties where secession was advocated. This was especially the case in Texas, where even the governor tipped his hat to the seditious talk. So, let me get this right. If I believe that we should stop sending our children to die in Iraq, I am anti-American. But, if you advocate seceding, you are a patriot. In the words of my brother, "The party of Lincoln certainly has come full circle, hasn't it?"
Tragedy and Kitsch
5 hours ago
8 comments:
Great article.
Well put.
good point
LOL, Republicans? You obviously have no clue how the tea parties started. They weren't started by the Republican party. They were started by a man on CNBC. By the way, read the Tenth Amendment. Secession is a very American idea, but a Republican decided to send guns down to the south when they decided to leave the union for economic purposes. The federal government violated the 10th Amendement in doing so. You obviously fail to see the long line of corruption since, including the 1913 Federal Reserve act which unconstitutionally took power away from Congress and eventually set up the income tax, which is collected by a rich and elite group of bankers and then lent out to the federal government at a cost. Do you have a clue how taxation works in this country? People have plenty of reasons to be pissed off about taxes in this country, and you can't really make the argument that we are represented. Politicians represent whichever lobbyist pay them the most. Representation? That's funny a funny argument. Not to mention the people in Washington DC don't agree with your argument either. You are clueless, and you have no beef in your arguments. You have resorted to name calling in your title, as I am sure you know full well what teabagging means in the urban dictionary, and you cry about moonbat? Your audience seems to only be able to put two words together for their comments, so maybe the are a little baffled about where you are getting your information.
For starters, at no point did I ever state that the tea-parties were started by the Republican party. I do refer to those who attend as Republicans, because all my friends who attended were Republicans. But you are right, there are plenty of Libertarians and so forth who also attended. That said, just as those on the left are generally referred to as Democrats, I don't think it's horrible inaccurate to refer to those on the right as Republicans.
I can honestly say that I have never heard someone say "secession is a very American idea." I suppose you are welcome to your opinion. I for one am not a huge fan of secession. Does this mean you believe that the South should have been allowed to secede? And, under what provisions does a state or county or city have the right to secede? How very interesting.
And then on to the Federal Reserve Act. Clearly, you and I have a very different opinion of how this country should function. You would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of economists who think that a central bank is a bad idea, or that we should be on the gold standard.
As for taxation without representation, you know full well that Washington DC is talking about something completely different from those who participated in the tea parties. DC has no senator nor representative. Therefore, they have no representation in Congress. I suspect that whichever state it is in which you live has a couple senators and at least one representative.
As for name-calling, I am making a joke on the tea-party name. I am not telling those who disagree with me that they are idiots. I am not dismissing you simply because you differ politically from myself. I objected to the term "moonbat" simply because you used it as a way to dismiss my comments.
"Republicans are furious. To air their grievances, they have turned to the street and organized a nation-wide protest to decry the massive increase in taxes brought on by the stimulus package. They have chosen to refer to themselves as a tea party." Hmm, this sounds contradictory to me...
By the way, you didn't get a tax cut. You got a cut in the witholding rate. The tax tables didn't change, and you might be in for a shock comes April.
Secession is very American, and you obviously don't understand the basis of which the Constitution was founded. The Bill of Rights was passed to ensure state's rights while limiting the power of the government. The states were supposed to run independently with the Federal Government supplying some very basic functions. Seccession guaranteed the Federal Government would stick to these limits, which you will discover if you were to get a truthful reading in American history.
The fact Lincoln conducted a civil war was against the powers of the federal government. This by no means says that slavery was correct. Lincoln was wrong. Since that point, the federal government has corrupted states with federal handouts which has basically been a Faustian deal--money in exchange of sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment gives the states the power I speak of, and when it is taken away the states have the right to reconsider the agreement to be part of the union. It's all designed to keep the limits of the Federal Government in check.
I didn't dismiss your comments. I addressed them.
By the way, this country should be run the way the Constitution says it should be run. The federal government needs to return the powers back to the states. The Congress needs to control the currency and get it out of the hands of a central bank. I could care less how you feel the country should be run. I care about the way the founding fathers said it should be run. Their wisdom far outweighs the wisdom of George W. Bush and Barack Obama--both tramplers of the Constitution.
then we tax negroes 3/5ths and native Americans not at all???
Who will pay for the roads you drive on?
etc etc etc t.. Like the bible we pick and choose the rules we follow to suit our ego and desires..
Post a Comment