In addition to the ad being straight up bullshit, it also ironic. The irony also applies to how a majority of conservatives have reacted to the OWS protesters. For the last couple of years, they've complained about the Tea Party movement being unfairly portrayed as racist. I agree with the TP'ers to a point on the racism accusation. However, I also heard many conservatives misinterpret valid criticism of the Tea Party. When it was accurately pointed out that there is an element of racism within the Tea Party, conservatives distorted that criticism by accusing these same critics of painting the entire movement as racist.
Many conservatives have a short memory because now they are guilty of the same thing they accused the left of doing. We've heard the detractors label all the protesters as lazy, filthy, confused, etc. and now we have this anti-Semitic smear. Here's my message to the Tea Party and its supporters. Feel free to disagree with the OWS protesters. However, when you smear the entire movement, you've simply become what you detest.
32 comments:
Good job, you win the award as the best spin-master if 2011.
The mindless OWS zombies have found comrades-in-arms in the left-wingers .
Not at all a spin-master... it's all the truth! All Americans should be protesting, NOT just the Left. So for JA to call the protesters zombies is just Right-wing stupidity, and of course he gets his talking points from Fox. The world is protesting corporate greed and corruption, didn't the tea party do that in the very beginning?? They got side tracked by the Kochsuckers. They should come back join in with the Sane Americans in protest!
Ok, fine, just how much of my money shall I give them. 50 percent, would that make them happy? Or perhaps the socialist want more that that?
So just how much of my hard worked for money do you want?
What would make them and you happy? Maybe I should contribute my entire pay check and you just give me as much as you think I need.
ImJohnnyAngel111 doesn't want to make an rational argument, so he/she makes a silly one.
If we go back to the tax rates that were in effect during Ronald Reagan's presidency [as Michele Bachmann suggested] that would be a tax increase.
50% tax rate is what conservatives and other Americans paid under Reagan's Administration.
The conservatives adore him, so why not pay tribute to Reagan by returning to the tax rates we had during his administration?
Plus he raised taxes 11 times in his 8 years.
I wish someone would explain the love affair with Mr. Reagan who raised taxes on conservatives and other Americans 11 times and who taxed conservatives and other Americans at a higher rate than President Obama.
Tax rates under Obama vs. Reagan, according to IJA111, would characterize Reagan as a socialist! Mr. Obama should be Johnny's Angel. LOL!
And yes, this anti-semitic stuff is nonsense.
The American people support OWS 2 to 1 over the Tea Party. That means more than left leaning people as well as a lot of Jewish folks.
I think a big problem a lot of tea party supporters have with the accusations against their movement is that they don't come from only left wing blogs or liberal groups that nobody has ever heard of.
The TPers are drug--the ones whom are drug--through the mud behind the mainstream's bus.
That probably stings a little more.
With this, which I think is equal BS, it's only some niche group beholden to Israel whose position on everything most likely revolves around antisemitism, in the same way a group like CAIR is quick to paint a whole heap of stuff as anti-Islamic.
I think it's what they do. No?
As to the Wall Street folks: It's amazing how so many people notice the same problems, yet ideas for solutions differ so greatly.
Every time someone comes forth wanting to play a spokesperson for this movement, their "answer" to the problem always seems to be...
Wait for it...
More government!
Government to shut it down. Government to equal it all out. Government to regulate more.
Government to spread the money.
Government to find the jobs.
It's funny. Almost everyone I've ever heard speak some version of "power to the people" is a liar. Not on purpose. But it's that they're not really trying to empower people. They want to empower government to grow larger and then help people.
A little off topic, but that's my two cents about the Occupiers - I wish they actually wanted the "people" to change things instead of government.
Other than that, I'm with them in spirit on some of their demands.
Josh, you're fogetting that the only way for us to change things is through the government.
We have our votes. How else do you propose we change anything? We can't do anything individually, but we can collectively through voting and petitioning the government to change.
But then we have to go through the process: change a law or impose new ones to stop the abuses by the government.
We are a nation of laws, not men.
I'm Johnny Angel: After Cenk Uygur did such an excellent job of debunking it, are you still saying the ad has merit? If so, I want you to explain how the OWS movement is anti-Semitic.
By the way, your comments in which you accuse the OWS protesters of basically wanting something for nothing make no sense. If you took a break from Fox "News", right-wing talk radio or wherever it is you get your misinformation from, you might realize that the OWS movement is legit.
Sue: The conservative base has allowed themselves to be manipulated (once again) by the right-wing noise machine. Although I don't bother commenting anymore, I still read conservative blogs on occasion. Every one of them who blogged about the OWS protesters did so in a negative fashion. It’s sad that so many of them have made the OWS movement a left/right issue.
Shaw: The right-wing’s fascination is just an example of them rewriting history to fit their narrative. Their fascination with Reagan can’t be explained because it makes no sense. In case you need a laugh, here is a clip of Rush getting embarrassed by a liberal caller over the right’s deification of Reagan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGhR2VnVma0
I’ve looked into some of the polls and although the results differed, in each one it showed the American people more in favor of OWS than the Tea Party. I wonder if the negative feelings by the right towards the OWS protesters has a little to do with envy.
By the way, good points about how we can affect change through government.
Josh: Until TYT did the story on the ad, I had never heard of The Emergency Committee for Israel. When I did some research yesterday, I found that William Kristol is a board member (more on that later).
The anti-Semitic smear against the OWS movement isn’t confined to the ad by The Emergency Committee for Israel. Conservative media outlets such as Fox Business Channel and TheBlaze.com have also run with the “OWS is anti-Semitic” angle. Since William Kristol is on the Fox payroll, I think it’s only a matter of time before we see this smear spill over to that channel. Also, Rush Limbaugh (as only he can) has also painted the movement as anti-Semitic:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/rush-limbaugh-anti-semitism
Although she didn’t take the anti-Semitic angle, Erin Burnett did a particularly smug segment on her new CNN show in which she disparaged the OWS protesters.
Yes there is no doubt that there is some spin here, just as there was spin to paint the Tea Party as racist.
I am curious what everyone thinks of the endorsement the Occupy Movement has received from the American Nazis Party? I brought up the question in a Facebook thread on an Occupy group and they all seemed okay with Neo-Nazis joining them:
http://www.facebook.com/occupywichita/posts/264120323625732?notif_t=feed_comment
We are a nation of laws. I agree.
What we are not is a nation where large federal government restricts freedom for what some people may consider to be the "common" good.
That is what has always made America different. Our government is (supposed to be) prohibited from growing that large and that controlling.
Every government-controlled, economically-stifled, freedom-restricted (non-theocratic) nation in the history of the planet started the exact same way: People okaying government to do what they as citizens couldn't/wouldn't.
When people want government to do something in this context, they're not pleading for local government to assist in local matters. They're not asking for streamlined approaches to just certain problems.
People want sweeping rules and regulations coming from the federal government, which means government must grow and must control.
For every problem Wall Street has assisted in causing our nation, they have been enabled by government to do so. From a government-backed push to turn Americans into homeowners, to government playing the mob and handing over money with an iron fist that causes too much anxiety to put back in circulation, government has been the actual problem.
It's not like government is made up of average American people. They went to school and have trained to become politicians. They enter politics as a career. They want us to ask for their help. Our dissatisfaction is their job security.
The people have more power than they realize as consumers in this nation, and far more power than what we grant government.
We're our own personal Jesus'. We don't need to elect anymore saviors.
(This, of course, is from my belief that government is America's biggest business and "Wall Street" is the actual puppet.)
Trestin: I don't think I have to explain how I feel about the American Nazi party. However, if they want to endorse the OWS movement, I don't have a problem with it. Although it's their right to join in the actual protests if they choose to, it would be wise for the other protesters to keep their distance.
Now it's my turn. Trestin, how do you feel about William Johnson (the Chairman of the white nationalist organization The American Third Position) speaking at a Tea Party rally?
Good question! I don't like it one bit, in fact I'm done with the Tea Party. They lost their way a while ago on more than one issue. It was supposed to be a coalition of Conservatives, Libertarians, and Independents; not an extension of the GOP.
EXACTLY Trestin! Pass it on!
In fact if you don't mind I will post your comment on my FB for the teabaggers in my "friends" list! One especially, he loves Cain and is voting for him...I guess he EXPECTS he'll win the nomination! LOLOL!
Reading comments about the OWS movement and listening to the crazy extents the rich politicians and richer punditocracy will go to, to turn middle class America once again against middle class America is sad.
People making $50,000 or less a year want these hippy thugs to leave the rich man alone! Why? I guess I am just slow, but why do these people who can work their entire life and never make what some of these Hedge Fund Operators make in a year, why do fight for them? Do they really think that 3% of a Millionaires income is more important than a man working 2 jobs just to feed his family?
This isn't about wanting to reach into anyone's pocket and pull out all their money. Seriously, if you make $50,000 a year, you won't have to pay the "Millionaire's tax", I promise! It is about fairness. "I have more so let me help you out."
You can deny all you want to, but the prove is right there, the ows are antisemitic.
I guess this statement was Pro Jewish? It looks like it's straight out of Nazi Germany to me.
“I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve, which is not run by the federal government, they need to be run out of this country.” – Patricia McAllister..
How come comrade Obams never denounces these remakes? Or is he too big for that?
Or to busy on his job bill charade. The campaign bus tour to promote obama's reelection
Isn't it funny when it's a Democrat in the White House, the lefties cry that the Congress has the president's hands tied but when Bush was president, he was the responsible one.
Obama is only worried about trying to keep his own job.
In his racist eyes only blacks are cool.
Trestin: Thanks for your honesty.
Sue: You're funny!
Mary: It is sad. The right-wing noise machine is in full smear mode and their sheeple are buying it without question. I can understand why the top 1% would speak out against the OWS movement, but it's crazy for right-wingers (some of whom are struggling financially) to continue protecting the rich.
California Girl: I Googled Patricia McAllister and found the clip of her making the statement you included in your comments. What she said is indefensible. However, I suspect the interviewer spoke with her for more than the 18 seconds that's included in the clip. If that's true, I want to hear everything she said.
Ms. McAllister's comments don't mean the OWS movement as a whole is anti-Semitic. That's just silly. I guess this means you think the Tea Party is racist just because some of its members have racist views.
As for President Obama not denouncing these "remakes" (I'm assuming you meant "remarks"), let someone ask him directly and I'm sure he will.
In regards to the ad by The Emergency Committee for Israel that I posted here, are you trying to tell me that they didn't lie in their attempt to paint the OWS movement as anti-Semitic? If so, I want to know why you don't think they lied.
Try this site, it may open your eyes to whats going on down there at "Occupy Wall Street"
And take a peek at the video there.
If that don't convince you than I'm sorry to say there's no hope for a person who wishes to be blind.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/occupy-wall-street-does-anyone-care-about-the-anti-semitism/2011/03/29/gIQA43p8rL_blog.html
CG: Did you even watch the clip I posted here? I watched the video you linked to and it's the ad I included here! Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks illustrated the dishonesty of the ad when he pointed out that the two main guys featured have been in NYC for awhile. Cenk also included footage of Daniel "Lotion Man" Cline (the young man arguing with the older one) harassing the OWS protesters!
I'm not going to deny that there have been people at various OWS protests who have presented anti-Semitic views. However, this does not mean the OWS movement as a whole is anti-Semitic. Even Jennifer Rubin admitted this does not mean all or even most of the OWS protesters are anti-Semitic. Why is that so hard for you to admit/understand?
* At various Tea Party rallies, there were people with racist signs.
* William Johnson (the Chairman of the white nationalist organization The American Third Position) spoke at a Tea Party rally.
* There were Tea Party candidates who spouted racist views. For example, Al Reynolds and Grady Warren
Do these facts mean that you think the Tea Party is racist? If so, why not? You're willing to paint the OWS movement as anti-Semitic due to the actions of a few.
Yeah. The ad in question is BS. It's Michael Mooreish, and honest, fair-minded people should call BS when there's BS to call.
There has been some antisemitism at these rallies, but you have to look at the overall picture and who is likely to be drawn.
In an anti-administration rally, with Obama currently playing the head of the admin, people with racists beefs will blend in and put a stain on the overall message.
With this hodgepodge of ideals and moralistic dreaming with the OWS, it's attracting a lot of various bad elements. (Some might not be so "bad" depending on where you stand on the ideological spectrum.)
The mindless Jew-haters show up. The American-hating bozos show up. The we-want-communism-and-we-want-it-now folks show up.
I believe that as the movement sorts itself out and gets rid of the fringe interests, there will be a message more clearly defined. I doubt that message will be anti-semetic in nature.
It looks like it's leaning heavily toward anti-capitalist, but that may be the organizers playing too big a role. It's a mixed bag. And until we can see exactly what people really want, I think we should all view the positive and realize that idiots do not speak for an entire group.
It seems to me that there are a lot of people just wanting to be part of something at this juncture. I'll respect the overall message once it's defined, even if it is as I suspect a call for larger government. But we'd all do well not to paint it as anything quite yet.
It's sprouting up all over, but it's not that large and it's not in "a thousand countries," (LMAO) despite the favorable press it's receiving overall. It's still developing.
Josh: As you can probably guess, I thought the ad had an Andrew Breitbart feel to it.
I think the anti-capitalists make up a small part of the movement. From what I’ve seen, many of the protesters are angry at businesses with corrupt practices. This doesn’t mean they are against businesses in general. Just like I imagine the anti-government people only comprised a small part of the Tea Party. In case you haven’t read it, here is a link to the declaration drawn up by OWS:
http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/
As for whether or not the news coverage of the OWS protesters is overall favorable, that would depend on one’s definition of the term.
By the way, I wonder if you are being replaced as the resident rightie over here. We’ll see if Sun Cracked Soul returns or if California Girl ever gets around to answering my questions.
Sun Cracked Soul: A couple of weeks ago, http://occupywallst.org/ conducted an anonymous poll on its site to learn more about their visitors. One detail they learned was that 70.3% of respondents identified themselves as politically independent. So if you were saying the OWS movement is made up of a group of leftists, that doesn’t appear to be true.
To scale, I see far more contradictory elements of the Occupiers than I've ever seen of the TPers.
And I don't want to give the movement grief. I'm trying to be fair with them. As I said, we'd all do well to focus on the positives here.
But the biggest TP faux pas was when a lone guy supposedly spit on a Congressman and dropped the N bomb. And throw in a few bad signs.
Pissing in the streets, someone taking a dump on a cop car, hundreds of arrests, stolen property, reports of groping and sexual assault, costing cities millions in clean-up efforts and overtime - there's really no comparison with the bad elements in these protests.
They're different monsters.
It's hard for me to catch actual coverage of the movement on NBC, CNN, CBS and other channels. They mostly talk about the movement. And when they do show footage, it's usually stills of a peaceful section. At least what I find.
The other morning one of those channels had a guy out there in the street reporting on it, but they never panned around with the camera to show the folks. You only heard them.
Of course, one could say that other networks are only showing shots of unruly sections, but there are quite a few unruly sections.
Maybe the folks marching under the socialist contingent banner, and those 30-some percent polled who said they'd use violence to achieve their goals, and everyone stepping out front to say they want revolution and to collapse the system - maybe they're a "fringe."
But maybe not. It's too early to call it either way, and posting a few things on a website doesn't mean life will imitate art.
I can call myself peaceful and state that I only want more responsibility from Wall Street, but if 1/3 of people around me say they're willing to use violence, and if every other person in the crowd had a sign that contradicted my mission statement, one might wonder if what I said was actually accurate or just an attempt to put a nicer face on an ugly beast.
It's great if it's supposed to be about something calm, rational and legitimate. But if those showing up aren't embracing that, they're just not.
The people define the movement, not a webpage.
So time will tell how it goes. Right now, I'm only thankful they haven't gotten to the level of Greek or Canadian or British protesters.
You can spin the facts anyway you want to, as you seem to do in all of yours post subjects. the facts are that the occupiers are leftist troublemakers. And the criminal acts that they have been performing seem to just get swept under the rug. Posting the false facts is very easy to do when you are a lefty.
One of the most conspicuous examples of overt anti-Semitism is a rant several days ago by a man in a filthy T-shirt holding a curious sign reading “Hitler’s Bankers"
Why aren’t the perpetrators being arrested for disrupting businesses, creating a mess, no sanitation, no permits and disrupting people's lives , where is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder? And how about the cost to taxpayers being over 3 million of dollars for the police’s over time, how long can New York City afford that??
Josh: Regarding the transgressions you listed (public urination, theft, etc.), they are indefensible. As for the arrests, if each one was due to protesters actually breaking the law, I have no problem with the police doing their duty. However, the reports that Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Barclays made large donations (dating back to 2009) to the N.Y.P.D. make me wonder. Although the firms had no way of knowing there would be protests, it’s possible the police are being overzealous in some cases as a “thank you” to their benefactors. Also, here is a link to the story where author Naomi Wolf talks about her arrest at OWS:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/19/naomi-wolf-arrest-occupy-wall-street_n_1020986.html?ref=mostpopular
Also, I’m not sure if you are aware, but there were arrests at Tea Party rallies. The arrests may not have been in the hundreds, but they happened just the same. Along with the racist/offensive signs at Tea Party rallies, there were also the ones which hinted at potential violence. You probably saw the ones which stated, “We came unarmed (this time)”. Also, although they didn’t happen at actual protests, let’s not forget the vandalism and death threats committed by those sympathetic to the Tea Party/opposed to President Obama’s health care reform bill.
The focus by many on the lack of diversity of the Tea Party and its racist elements obscured what I felt was perhaps the movement’s biggest problem: the fact that many of the protesters were ill-informed and/or hypocritical. They protested tax increases, yet the 2009 Stimulus Bill reduced federal income taxes for 98% of Americans. I have a feeling that most of the protesters are part of that 98%. They also claimed to be protesting government spending and the loss of their freedoms. If these were true concerns, why weren’t they out marching during the Bush administration when he racked up debt, signed the Patriot Act and performed warrantless wiretaps? Let’s call it like it is: many of the protesters were pissed about a Democrat occupying the White House.
From what I’ve seen on the news outlets, most of the coverage of the OWS protests has been either neutral or favorable. The exceptions being Larry Kudlow on CNBC and Erin Burnett and Dana Loesch on CNN. Then there is Fox “News”. At this point, the brazen hypocrisy many of them have shown over their coverage of the OWS protests vs. the Tea Party is just comical.
Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone made an excellent point on “The Dylan Rattigan Show” this afternoon. He said that the OWS protesters and the Tea Party are natural allies in ways they may not even understand. He added that if the two groups ever join forces, Washington is going to have a lot of trouble on its hands.
Sun Cracked Soul: You’re so biased you can’t see straight. Because of the actions of a small portion of OWS protesters, you’re smearing the entire movement. I’m going to ask you similar questions to the ones I asked “California Girl”. Does the fact that some of the Tea Party protesters demonstrated bad behavior mean the entire movement consisted of troublemakers? If your answer is “no“, why?
As for me spinning the facts in all the posts I write, can you show me examples. If you can’t, you’re just another right-wing blowhard with no interest in the facts or logic.
TPers and OWS folks are "natural allies" in the same sense that some on the left and right are "allies" on any issue.
For example: No rational, sane person agrees with terrorism, whether they're on the right or left.
So anti-terror - there's a stance two sides can agree on.
The difference comes with how to fight it. Harsh interrogations vs. plea bargains and timeouts; negotiations vs. actual action; calling it what it is vs. "man-made disaster"; etc.
It's the same here. The TP and OWS folks identify some of the same problems, but they couldn't be farther apart on how to handle these problems.
One side wants exceedingly less government involvement from the federal level, giving more power to localities, while the other side wants exponentially more involvement at the federal level, implementing social/economic justice through legislation.
Picking over whether or not a few extra dollars on a paycheck constitutes cutting taxes and thus makes one hypocritical for fearing higher taxes is one of those strange arguments, like saying the President's would-be agreement to not grow the budget by as many trillions more as he hoped to constitutes a "cut" in spending.
I submit that the two movements are different as to what they see is wrong with America. One fears more of what's possibly to come, with a larger, more controlling, more heavily spending government, while the other fears what they believe is already here, in a country controlled by big business.
In short, OWS's final solution is much of what the TPers fear more than anything.
I don't know. I just can't see where they're similar at all, other than both being against spending tax dollars to bail out businesses. Maybe there are a few other odds and ends.
This movement here would probably love to spend more money - just not bailing businesses out. But if they could ever get a consensus on what they believe "justice" to be, I'm sure they'd agree 90+% to dole out the money. TPers would probably be less than 5% to do the same.
Just a guess though.
But I agree wholeheartedly that they'd be a powerful force should they ever join.
However, you'd need to find common ground on solutions. Anyone can gripe and moan, but what you plan to do about it is what separates where you stand as a person in general.
Josh: One of the myths conservatives believe about liberals in general is that we want big government. I can't speak for all liberals, but I know most of us want smarter government (which is different than it being necessarily bigger). One thing I don't understand about many conservatives is how they proclaim to want smaller government, yet they also want laws preventing gay marriage and abortion. The last sentence isn't an invite for you or any other conservative to explain that paradox here, I just wanted to point out the contradiction.
As for the tax issue, the amount of the tax cut is irrelevant. Also, I never said a concern over higher taxes makes Tea Party people hypocritical. Just so it's clear, if a member of the Tea Party was protesting that their taxes went up when in fact they didn't, they are ill-informed.
You say you don't see how OWS and the Tea Party were similar, yet you pointed out one in the same sentence. I imagine that if the Tea Party took the time to read the OWS declaration, they'd find even more common ground.
From reading conservative blogs, I've noticed they are too blind to see even the one similarity between OWS and the TP you mentioned. Instead they are concentrating on the differences; while also slamming the OWS protesters at every turn. It's another example of the effectiveness of the right-wing media's propaganda tactics. Their relentless attacks on the OWS (regardless of how sleazy they may be) are understandable because I think they recognize that if OWS and the Tea Party joined forces, it would be trouble for the powers that be.
Back to the "declaration" again?
That's fine. And that's safe. Nobody can argue against what people "say" the movement is.
What it has become is another story entirely.
Over 100 more arrests just last night.
Yes. There are some similarities. I pointed that out. But if anyone looks at the two movements as a whole and calls them similar, I'd say they're not really looking at the movements side by side at all.
They're absolutely nothing alike, other than being against things like bailouts and the FED.
But you know, the more I think about it, they might actually be protesting because Obama is black.
Why weren't they out there under Bush with TARP? Why now? Why wait this long when it was happening with the last administration? Is it because we have a black President?
I think I'm getting warm as to this movement's real intent here! :D
Stick with me. We'll crack this sucker wide open.
Josh: Your scoffing about the declaration is expected. Don't let go of that "resident rightie" tag just yet.
In one sentence you say there are similarities between the groups, then you turn around and state they are absolutely nothing alike. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I think we're done here.
I don't understand what you don't understand.
They're similar in the way all opposing ideologies are similar.
Yes, you will find a few points of agreement, but once you get through that, you find that they're nothing alike.
You and I are similar in ideology in the sense that we're both bold and unafraid about stating where we stand. That's a similarity. But as is proved consistently, we're really nothing alike.
I don't contradict myself. You're just clinging too tightly to a point of contention. Maybe it's on principle. I can't call it.
I just know that the TPers and OWS folks are not the same. And I frankly get a good laugh out of individuals who wouldn't be caught dead comparing their beliefs to tea party beliefs just a few months ago now going out of their way to attempt to draw comparisons to get some moral support.
I'm not sure how pointing out that they're not the same makes me right wing. But I do understand the standard.
Malcolm giveth, he taketh away, and giveth again, and maybe taketh away some more.
Josh: You just don't know when to quit. We both stated our cases about OWS and the TP, but still disagree with each other. Neither one of us is going to change our position. No biggie to me, but you can't let it go.
To continue going back and forth is pointless and silly. It's degenerated into a twisted, modern version of "Who's on First?" Which one of us is Abbott or Costello is anyone's guess.
If you want to go on debating about how OWS and the TP are similar (but at the same time, aren't alike), you'll have to do it somewhere else.
I have yet to hear of orgies of violence perpetrated by the TP. There's a lot from OWS, and it has included large numbers of assaults.
"Josh: One of the myths conservatives believe about liberals in general is that we want big government."
This is true, as evidenced by the fact that liberals want government expanded at a greater rate than conservatives.
One specific example of this is "single payer" healthcare, popular along liberals, which would greatly expand healthcare by taking it away from popular control and making it a new monolithic government ministry.
The success of left wing administrations (Obama, etc) is measured by their success in getting brand new government programs added.
Dmarks: In case you missed some of my comments earlier in this thread, let me reiterate:
In case you aren't aware, there were arrests at Tea Party rallies. The arrests may not have been in the hundreds, but they happened just the same. There were also signs which hinted at potential violence. You probably saw the ones which stated, “We came unarmed (this time)”. Also, although they didn’t happen at actual protests, let’s not forget the vandalism and death threats committed by those sympathetic to the Tea Party/opposed to President Obama’s health care reform bill.
If you want to place a halo over the collective heads of the Tea Party, you don't have a leg on which to stand.
As for your big govt. comments, conservatives love to claim they are against it. However, it comes off as hypocritical since many of these same conservatives want laws banning abortion and gay marriage. If wanting to ban abortion and gay marriage aren't a cry for big government, I don't know what is.
Post a Comment