|
I had been warned that the Tea Baggers were thugs organized by the extreme right wing of the Republican Party to kidnap and derail the debate about healthcare reform. What I have witnessed first hand is much worse. They are a mob that feeds off itself using lies and half-truths to instill fear in people. I have watched them scream insults at citizens of goodwill looking for open debate and intimidate or provoke physical violence from opposition members. You can see for yourself from this video of Congresswoman Niki Tsongas that the Tea Bag mob is trying to hijack the healthcare reform debate, refusing to allow anyone who does not agree with them to speak and reducing town hall meetings to chaos. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is not the first time the United States of America has faced the likes of the Tea Bag mob. At the Massachusetts convention to ratify the Constitution in 1788, a similar group called the Anti-Federalists wanted to prevent the ratification of the United State Constitution. When debate started, the Anti-Federalists had the votes to defeat the Constitution but as debate continued and the facts became clear, members began to support the Constitution. On January 24, 1788 Mr. Nason of Maine, an Anti-Federalist and implacable enemy of the Constitution, introduced a motion that might “hurry the matter” by taking a vote. Samuel Adams — the original troublemaker, founding member of the Sons of Liberty and hero of the revolution — demanded the debate continue. Adams, an Anti-Federalist himself, was determined to hear every argument for and against the Constitution before voting. He would not allow fellow Anti-Federalists to disrupt or cut short the debate on what he believed to be the most important issue of his time. When the debate ended Samuel Adams cast his vote with Governor John Hancock and the majority of the delegates to ratify the Constitution on the condition that a Bill of Rights be added.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There was nothing simple about this new constitution that so boldly attempted to outline a completely new system of government promising all citizens the ability to govern themselves. Anti-federalists made outrageous claims about the Constitution: it was too French; it represented the return of the English crown; it would destroy the colonial economy; it was too complicated; no one had even read it; and last, why did we need it because what we already have works just fine. The Anti-Federalists were financed by commercial interests that opposed regulation and had greatly profited under the old system at the expense of the average citizen. The Anti-Federalists dominated the headlines of the day with false accusations about what happened at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and built on the fears of colonial instability. If it were not for Samuel Adams demanding that every person be heard and every argument listened to, the phrase “We The People” would not exist, along with the Bill of Rights and United States of America.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is no longer about healthcare reform. It is about the responsibility of citizenship in the United States of America. Are you going to allow the Tea Bag mob to hijack this debate and deny you your rights? Citizens of goodwill are trying to fix a major problem not by replacing it with a French, English or Canadian system of healthcare, as the Tea Baggers claim. But by creating a unique American system. In Washington, just like in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, they have laid the framework for an American system unlike anything that has come before. Now is your time to stand for debate and STOP THE TEA BAG MOB. There is nothing easy about this. It is boring and tedious but if the guy on the bottle of beer can do it, so can you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The picture of Portsmouth NH on the flip
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sign from Portsmouth.
Discuss
74 Comments . Comments are closed.I'd like to front-page this, but...
the way you've got the post formatted, it will kill the margins. Can you reformat the photos so that they fit the screen?
Changed it
Thanks for a great post - love the historical compoenent
We will leave on a family visit to Michigan 9/26 and are not back until 9/2 - but you are surely making the case that anyone who cares about democracy [even aside from health care] should be showing up for these meetings. Given my serious history as a public speaker, I might also make some difference - you never know. So I will also see what is going on in this regard in my home state [which has more than its own share of troubles right now, to be sure. Michigan makes Massachusetts look like an oasis of prosperity, unfortunately for Michigan].
Somewhat related
A reality show I can identify with Channel 39 on Comcast "The Colony" A diverse group of people battles against a post-Apocalypse world for survival.
I dunno, I actually kind of like that second sign.
I think "States Succeed Now!" would be a good idea. More success for everyone!
Reminds me of this, ahem, Patriot
and this inspired satire
I found your analysis overwrought
Sure, a couple of bizarre signs. But some not so bizarre. And believe me, we could post up 10x what you have here if asked to display photos of an anti-war or SEIU rally.
Why heck, didn't I see posters of Che Guevara in some Obama volunteer campaign offices, in Houston, IIRC? Is that bizarre? Yep.
But what's your point? Looks like the public option is dead. To me, assuming it is dead, that means the protesters, and Sarah Palin (Sarah Palin!), have won this round. (We'll see if the public option makes a comeback, or if the co-op proposal is simply Public Option Lite.)
I think there is real national opposition, if you believe the polls, to the health "reform" proposal that's come out of the House, even with the public option and "death panel" removed.
If the town hall meetings were a heated, even over the top, well, that's one from the Alinsky play book that's worked for the conservative team.
Really?
Anti-war rallies had lots of posters claiming Bush was lying about his identity? People hung around outside Bush events carrying guns, and signs threatening his life?
The polls?
You keep referring to "the polls" without actually citing any polls.
Which polls do you reference?
Polls
here
Thank you for the effort
but bostonshepherd writes of polls showing opposition to the health bill that came out of the House. Given the amount of noise in this debate and given that Obama has not put forth any specific bills, I don't consider the pollster aggregate of Obama's job approval w.r.t. health care a relevant poll to bostonshepherd's claim.
Exactly
The relevant question needs to be "Do you support a public option?" not "Do you approve of Obama's handling of the health care issue?" I would answer yes to the first, but frankly, I'm not sure about the second as I definitely think he could be handling it better.
Ok guys
Here, and here are polls showing around 2-1 against the House plan.
There's nothing specific that addresses the public option alone. Sorry. But that's not important. On the other hand, I would conclude these results are WORSE for "reform" altogether than you think.
Why is that? Because, according to CNN, 8 in 10 people are happy with their health care, and 75% are happy with their own insurance.
Unless you ram "reform" through without debate, I have a hard time thinking a vast majority of likely voters are going to stand for having plans with which they are satisfied taken away from them. Indeed, folks are PO'd because Obama tried to sneak this stinker of a bill through before anyone really knew what was in those 1,100 pages.
Now it's coming out, and folks are VERY ANGRY. Especially when politicians haven't even read it (so long Arlen Specter.)
Stomv is correct ... in reality there's no Obama plan though that's not what the public thinks. It's "his" now.
Multiple problems
First poll link you provide asks about single payer - not valid for this discussion as it has, much to the chagrin of many of us, taken off the table. Second poll refers to a plan proposed by Obama and Congress, which let's face it, most Americans wouldn't know the exact legislation if it hit them in the face. How many times do we have to say IF YOU ARE SATISFIED WITH YOUR PLAN IT WON'T BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU! I'm glad people are happy with their healthcare as they should have no problem with this, unless of course they oppose helping people. This legislation isn't for them; it's for those either dissatisfied or without and 20-25% is a pretty significant chunk. Also these polls ask "Do you believe...?" What's the point of that? Just because the public believes it doesn't make it so, though it may be helpful in determining a need to more effectively communicate. It is now your turn to get from me the question I have asked others. What do you propose to do about the millions uninsured and address the obstacles even those WITH insurance sometimes face?
Also
Polls out today (NBC) show a pretty closely split decision - 47% opposed, 43% in favor, 3.5% margin. I would still point out two things. Very often the honest answer to polls, especially of the "Do you believe...?" variety is "I need more info. before I can comment intelligently", and at the end of the day I really don't care what the polls say anyway.
It goes like this
Polling shows that people oppose the health "reform" proposal that's come out of the House.
Christopher: So, where are the polls.
Here's one that shows prolonged and persistant disapproval for Obama's performance with regards to healthcare.
Christopher: So, the relevant question needs to be "Do you support a public option?"
Here's the polled answer to that precise question.
Christopher: So, at the end of the day I really don't care what the polls say anyway.
And, there you go. You just lost any credibility to ever cite a poll as justification for anything.
Answers
First poll: Again that's a handling question, one that even I might be inclined to answer in the negative, plus most of them are at pretty close margin
Second poll: The article cites exactly the same poll I did above. Thank you, Your Honor, I rest my case.
Finally, I don't think you'll ever see me cite a poll as justification for or against anything so I'm not looking for that kind of credibility. I have not and will not say, "We should (or shouldn't) do X because the polls say Y." What I will do is throw polls back in somebody's face when I have reason to believe the interpretation is inaccurate or I've seen polls that would appear to contradict what someone else is claiming about polls. All told, I think there is way too much polling going on and they don't do much to contribute to the debate on the merits.
The only occasion where they might be helpful is to see who is winning the message war and getting the losing side to rethink their communication strategy. If a poll said a majority thinks the plan includes "death panels" that doesn't make it true; it just means that Sarah Palin has gotten her message out better than Obama has. If the President sees those numbers it should lead him to redouble his efforts to counter Palin, NOT drop the provision that Palin is using to justify her claims.
Well, we're making progress
The first poll is indeed irrelevant. The second poll, however, is instructive. 53-42 is nowhere near 2-1 however, and while it's not within the margin of error, it's one poll... certainly not enough to back your claims that the public is remarkably one-sided on the issue.
Looking at the CNN poll (which reports that "Obama's plan" is favored 50-45) there is a major generational gap. Folks on Medicare are against the Obama plan. I speculate that a big chunk of that is because they are worried they'll lose coverage (death panels, whatever). If I were interested in making a decision that represented the will of a well informed public, I'd reduce some of that 45 because some of those seniors are against a plan that's been conjured by talking heads on the right (including outright liars like Baby Downs' Mama), not the actual plan under consideration.
The "eight in ten" and 75% numbers don't break down those with public insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, BIA, etc) and those with private insurance, so it's impossible to know what that number really implies. After all, if gov't run health plans had very high approval rates and high enrollment rates, private insurance could have low approval but the aggregate still come out pretty strong.
I do find it strange that you claim that "Obama tried to sneak this stinker of a bill through..." and then tow sentences later observe that "in reality there's no Obama plan". Surely, you know enough civics to know that (a) Obama didn't write the bill, and more importantly, (b) can do nothing to "sneak" the bill through the House nor the Senate. Gee, you don' think that playing fast and loose with the facts (like you did with Obama's "sneak"ing) has anything to do with the polling, do you? Nah, of course not. There's been a remarkable vacuum of honest public debate coming from leaders on the right side of the aisle, why should we expect anything from the rank and file?
Polls
From a big picture approach, a favorable/unfavorable rating of Obama on healthcare seem particularly informative. It is interesting to note that Massachusetts doesn't think so highly of its reformed Healthcare. The public option while popular in June, probably because of its vagueness appears now, with more publicity and specificity to be seriously waning.
Meanwhile, as Obama rushes to abandon the public option, pols turn attention to the Health coops in an attempt to form a new blue cross/blue shield.
This fact is surprising...
Those are likely 60,000 registered voters too so Congressmen will be watching that group of people very carefully. I would caution those Congressmen who are declaring they will NOT vote for reform without a public option since that "signed" pledge will be shown by their opponent on election day.
I wish it were more
60,000 on a 40 million person membership is meaningless.
This is a non issue...
... the AARP thing is related to this:
Furthermore:
And not to keep harping, but...
"one from the Alinsky play book"? Can you back that up, at all? Where in, say, Rules for Radicals does it say that at public fora with Congresspeople the goal of the activist should be to shout them down and prevent any actual debate or discussion? Because that is explicitly what these "protests" are about. Not raising questions; not expressing dissent; shutting down discussion and intimidating the representatives. (digby had more on this.)
And while we're at it, I'd love to know what evidence you can present that what Alinksy wrote has anything to do with anything right now, but I realize that might be asking too much.
Just what I read today
I see this:
"Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)"
If that isn't exactly what each Dem Senator and Congressman is going through, I don't know what is. And to some extent, Obama is a recipient of this scorn too, even though it's not "his" bill. It's been hung around his neck.
On the other hand, it's impossible to individualize the "mob" and the "Teabaggers."
Furthermore, this from the Financial Times on the Sunday:
"Mr Alinsky believed that packing public meetings with highly vocal activists would sway their outcomes and give people a taste of the power they could exercise when they showed up in numbers."
OK
I see how someone* might think that actively preventing discussion, spreading vicious lies about political opponents, and issuing death threats both veiled and explicit, were a reasonable interpretation of what Alinsky recommended.
So now we come to my other question: what's Alinksy recommending potentially disruptive tactics in "rule 12" got to do with anything? When did anyone working on behalf of President Obama's agenda employ those tactics, or when did Mr. Obama employ or promote those tactics while campaigning for, or serving in, his Illinois or US Senate seats? Or is "Alinksy" just - like "Che Guevara," "Jeremiah Wright," "Bill Ayers," "Nancy Pelosi," etc. - a synonym for "Goldstein" as far as you're concerned?
*who wasn't very smart
My point is that the Republican Party does not have the courage of Sam Adams!
I do not think Tea Baggers represent the Republican Party.
The propaganda, signs, photos and protests are foolish. The guns, violence, death threats, preventing people from speaking and turning town hall meetings into chaos are dangers to the foundation of democracy. But you do not denounce it?
Show me one video, picture or third party report that shows anyone on the left doing anything like what this video shows. I will denounce it!
So...
The year is 1788. The issue is ratifying the Constitution. Are you going to stand up to the Anti-Federalists?
Prove Me Wrong!
Go to a town meeting and stand up to the Tea Baggers! Demand that every person and argument be heard! Be the man on the beer bottle!
Two wrongs make a right.
The first refuse refuge of a conservative.
My own family are sucked in by the lies!
I wrote an article in response to an email I received more than once from my family asking why I still supported Obama in his healthcare plan. The email went on to make what seems like an awful lot of painstakingly quoted points, yet when they are compared with the bill itself the bald faced lies become evident:
http://livelovelearn247.blogsp...
Angry Teabaggers shout and shake paper in the air
Looks pretty serious, but have any of them read the Bill or just the preposterous assertions?
http://www.worcesterteaparty.c...
Their page provides a link to the actual Bill: http://edlabor.house.gov/docum...
Please go there and compare their assertions with the actual Bill itself. I went to the page, section, searched the entire document by key words. It either does not contain what the teabaggers purport or says the complete opposite.
I still can't figure out...
...what this is supposed to accomplish. Say things get so out of hand that the member of Congress just walks out - then what? Lost opportunity to interact with voters and the member of Congress just votes anyway.
Charlie Baker's base
The teabaggers are going to have a similar impact on Baker's chances in Massachusetts in 2010 as Sarah Palin had on John McCain in 2008. Lots of media attention for the Republicans but, in the end, alienation of a large majority of voters.
The decline of the G.O.P. as a party with broad national appeal continues.
Do you seriously think the Republicans will not take back some seats in 2010?
Republicans have always been the minority party in recent history. The swing is always the feelings of the independents and if it wasn't for the Iraq War and the Economic collapse being blamed on Republicans... McCain would have won.
Take the current (and future) National Debt, the continued unemployment, the upcoming economic re-collapse (including Wall St), Obama's bloody nose over Healthcare, weakening support from the far-left and a renewed energy from the middle of America leaning right and I smell comeback.
I will remove MA from this prediction since we have way too many zealots and socialists for even a moderate to appease. But Charlie Baker could make some hay with Patrick's piss poor performance and poll numbers.
We'll see.
Will they gain seats?
Probably - the pattern of the opposition to the White House gaining midterm favors them, but the key is national appeal, which they are definitely struggling with. Their appeal is decidedly regional at this point.
As for your opening line about Republicans always being in the minority, where were you 2002-2006?
I was referring to the voters and not the elected officials.
Independents (like me) made the difference for Republicans during 2002-206.
2010
Everything I'm seeing suggests that yes, the Republicans will take back seats in 2010 - but 1) that they won't take enough to gain control of either chamber and 2) that the most vulnerable seats are the Blue Dogs who are voting against their party anyway. They can have 'em!
Seats in the House don't mean much
if the Dems fall from 60% of House seats to 57%, how much does it matter in the immediate sense?
I'd gladly trade 4% of the House for another 2% of the Senate if those extra 2 Dems are willing to vote with leadership on (some of) health care and climate change and filibuster nothing. Of course, there can be no such actual exchange, but the point remains -- it's the 50th percentile in the House that matters, and (to varying extents) the 50th and 60th percentile which matter in the Senate. Moving legislators who are already left of the median leftward doesn't help much, and losing legislators who are already right of the median doesn't hurt much.
$quot;vote with leadership$quot;?
That assumes of course, that there is true Democratic leadership in the Senate. I have to wonder about Harry Reid sometimes.
Umm, excuse me
Doesn't Mr Butcher need to win a convention over first? And then Mr. Candlestickmaker will have to run and then win a primary? We in the MAGOP aren't listening to your preferences anymore. and since the national GOP doesn't know their asses from their eyeteeth, most of us don't pay attention.
Bob's analysis defies the depth and breadth of the voter outrage
Otherwise, the polls would show support for the House bill when in fact it shows 2-1 against.
It get worse! Gallup now claims more people self-identify as conservatives than liberals. Even Massachusetts is split 30% - 30% conservative/liberal with 40% independent. Unbelievable.
Think this isn't a result of health "reform" outrage?
Bob, are the polls off? Or are you cocooning?
Polls are always $quot;wrong$quot; or $quot;asked the wrong question$quot; when they don't like the results.
2010 will be a big year for Republicans.
I always thought the guy on the bottle
was John Hancock.
Paul Revere
The Sam Adams bottle features a modified version of John Singleton Copley's portrait of Paul Revere that is housed at the MFA.
That's right!
Thank you. I was being driven somewhat insane trying to figure out who it was, because I KNEW it wasn't Sam Adams.
Niki
I outlined this in the discussion about our failed town halls. But I refine it here. When the organizer of the discussion enters with her mind made up, and thinks the limit of her duty is to show up and say her piece as the last word, then her respondents will automatically turn the volume up to 11.
[As an aside you will see the same behavior in comments on newspaper web sites. It's the same because newspapers have the same arrogant "last word" attitude as congressmen.]
Niki and any of these congressmen could have defused the situation if she had an ability with crowds, or some semblance of an interest in what they had to say. Imagine if she was Bill Clinton or even Hillary. Instead she faces them as the enemy.
How can you say newspapers have a $quot;last word$quot; attitude
when they specifically set up reader comment sections such that readers have (literally and figuratively) the last word?
Not even
The reporter never comes back and discusses the story with the commenters. That leads to ranting.
If you go to a "town hall" it's basically the last place for you to let them know how you feel about the issue. The politicians besides being basically disconnected are going to vote for the bill unless you scream and yell. If you give them an inch, a nice word, they will turn it into support for what they wanted to do in the first place.
She should have had town halls a long time ago to find out what people want. This is a fake town hall where she shows up and tells them what she's going to do.
Tea Baggers and A New Con Con
I have been googling some stuff about the connections between the tea baggers and the New Constitutional Convention crowd (Randy Barnett , Pete Fleckenstein , Tony Perkins etc.). A lot of Libertarians and other assorted wackos,if their ultimate goal is a new con con , they will fail because of opposition from left and right,including John Birchers and people who live in the real world...
Did anyone catch the Rachel Maddow show last night...
While I detest watching that moron, I had to hear what she had to say about the public option being dropped and it was priceless. She was angry, sad, confused, belittling and silly all at once. She was bitching at the Dems for being cowards and was in utter disbelief that the "majority" elected House and Senate were not ramming this down the throats of Republicans! She seemed to missing the point that a whole bunch of Americans (yes, the majority according to recent polls - thanks Gary) show we don't like the current bill. She seems to think (like others here at BMG) that because Obama was elected and many Dems in Congress and the Senate, that ANYTHING they come up with has the implicit OKAY of the American people. Well, she is wrong. Americans want what they want and NOT what the House and Senate conjure up. The recent attempt by Nancy Pelosi to purchase a bunch of private jets for Congress' use showed how not everything she (and Obama) want is also wanted by the majority of Americans.
Maddow's liberal bias is coming through clearly and so is MSNBC's and NBC's obvious bias. I hope Americans respond by lowering the network and the Cable station's ratings below their miserable levels of today.
Your obsession with Rachel Maddow is
becoming rather creepy. Beginning to look like something clinical is happening here.
And I love that...
...he couldn't resist going completely off topic and trying to tie-in Nancy Pelosi and congrssional jets.
(In thick Orly Taitz accent)
I think, too, Dr. tblade, that the patient exhibits some anxiety around strong women. Perhaps some underlying inadequacy projected upon Ms. Maddow and Ms. Pelosi fueled by a fixation on aeronautical prepulsion....
No...
I was simply trying to show how the people of this country still have a direct say in matters (like the "Congressional jets") while Maddow was implying that the elected officials should simply do what they want and ignore the plurality of what Americans now want. GET IT?????
$quot;GET IT?????$quot;
Nope.
You often do a poor job expressing your thoughts.
True. But I would hope for some compassion from a good liberal for my shortcomings.
Isn't that what you guys are all about? Helping the less fortunate... I try to speak slowly and use simple words. I try to use analogies and pictures. It's tough to talk about things like working hard and advancing in life to people who are slackers or have been given everything in their life. So cut me some slack for crying out loud.
Are you asking for my help?
I used to be a writing tutor.
If you promise to work hard, one day you too will be able to write better and more clearly elucidate your thoughts and ideas!
tblade, thanks for the help.
Last week someone said I should try to make my comments more relevant but I thought she should have said I should make my comments more relative... which is it?
Why not start a business on this? You could get rich and become a Republican.
People who give writing instruction for a living...
...are called teachers. For some reason I doubt that would make me rich.
Maybe I secretly want her. I especially love the shot of with her ...
Yikes...
People are against the bill for different reasons
Right wingers are against they want status quo health care and people like me are against the bill because I feel like it's too weak and watered down. If asked if I approved of the bill, I'd say no - with the caveat that I'd rather have the current bill rammed down the Republican's throat, as you put it, then nothing.
All I'm saying is don't take polling saying that people, let alone +50% of Americans, are against this bill as evidence that +50 percent of AMericans agree with you in wanting to sabotage the current Health Care reform initiative.
And Maddow is a very openly liberal just like BMG is openly liberal. She's supposed to have a liberal bias - that's the whole appeal of her show. It's like complaining that Sean Cardinal O'Malley has a Catholic bias. Strange.
Nonsensical
If politicians see 2-1 against a bill, there's a good chance that bill will not pass, no matter how much arm twisting Pelosi and Reid do. And no matter how upset you or Rachel Maddow are.
A 50/50 split is one thing, but we're talking a small minority of likely voters who want "reform" in its current configuration.
I sense this majority outrage has some legs to it; it's no longer "right-wingers". This includes the deficit spending crisis with the cherry on top ... 5 Gulfstream-Vs insisted upon by Madame Speaker (canceled by cooler heads.)
It just keeps getting better.
Is it snowing in Hell?
When has Harry Reid ever even so much as nudged an arm, let alone twisted? I mean, come on. You really ought to try to find a more plausible focus for your paranoid fantasies.
So there's only two possible positions on health care reform?
Baloney.
Make of this poll what you will.
I'm taking all healthcare polls with a grain of salt nowadays, but here's a different point of view:
Majority back Obama on health care reform: poll August 4, 2009 AFP:
People are against the bill, yet people want the government to step in and help make health care more affordable and easily accessible, possibly through a so-called "public option". Hmmmmm....
Today's NBC poll
47% opposed 43% favor 3.5% margin
2-1? I believe we call that "fuzzy math"!
Wait a minute...
My point was exhibited by your comment exactly...
Many right wingers are opposed to this bill because they don't like many of the provisions of THIS BILL! You are making a giant leap to say right wingers including myself want the status quo. I was trying make that point by saying left wingers are against the bill because it is watered down not because THEY WANT THE STATUS QUO. It works both ways, we can both be against the bill for varying reasons and not simply because we want the status quo.
I don't know what's more pathetic
the realization that most of MSNBC (not Morning Joe) has a liberal bias or that our alleged independent has the hots for Rachel Maddow, whose Alan Colmes incidentally is the morally bankrupt Pat Buchanan.
What's the next newsflash? Obama is bi-racial?
And if finding Rachel (who used to live in Northampton, MA) appealing bothers you, there's always news bimbo Mika Brzezinksi who offered to dance on a stripper's pole--it wasn't clear if she'd strip--for charity. Starting price $100,000.
Ignoring the reality of voter sentiment
After reading some 40 posts on this thread, I note that progressives consistently believe the town hall ruckus is artificial, or simply represents a tiny number of vocal far-right extremists.
Unless the polls are way, way off, many more voters don't want the current bill to pass than do.
Is this not clear? How come I see no empirical evidence from liberals that I'm misstating the polls I keep seeing?
See above
Plus some of us don't believe in governing by polls.
Because we don't live in reality,
so why don't you go back to RMG and preach to the converted?
If I thought this was all a joke,
my favorite would be this, from the promotion comment from Charley:
Ever the adult, Charley opines thus whilst promoting a post whose very title calls fellow Americans exercising their democratic rights and some might say responsibilities "tea baggers", a slander repeated endlessly in the post and even by fellow editor Bob (to me always the most mature of the three! ) in the comments.
In the unlikely event that anyone reading this enlightened blog does not get the reference, here it is:
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Well done, folks.
Most of us don't have a dirty mind I guess
I had heard there was a sexual connotation to this term, but this is actually the first time I've seen it defined. Since apparently YOU don't get the real reference, back on April 15, people of this ilk held "teabag" rallies protesting taxation (ostensibly) with (in my opinion lame) references to the Boston Tea Party. Part of the activity was to bring actual teabags to these rallies and in some cases mail such to their members of Congress.
hard to believe
that very many of you are unaware of the meaning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/j...
and for good measure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
then again, maybe you just sop up the language of your leadership without thinking
You're a little late to the vocabulary party, aren't you?
Geez, where've you been, under a rock? Of course the play-on-words is intentional--only you conservative types were a little slow on the uptake when the moniker naturally surfaced last spring. Someone should have seen this coming, actually, when the Einsteins among you decided it would be a good idea to make the tea bag your symbol. Now your tea bag is a metaphor for something even larger than its original point: ignorance. And you're stuck with it. From where I'm sitting, that's win/win.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Wed 23 May 5:27 AM