Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

The Boston Independence Day Tea Party

By

Working with the Greater Boston Food Bank, organizers have set up an online Food Drive and will be collecting non-perishable items to support veterans in need and their families at the events.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • They DID elect someone who, despite what he says, is not pushing anything in their agenda.  You could say that they also lost the election with their failure to elect someone in office who is for X, Y, and Z gay issues.  Should they get over it?

      • … make assertions about the election:

        <

        p>”…can take to return the country to a nation that is governed once again, by We The People.”

        <

        p>He does, in fact, need to get over his perception that the outcome of the election was somehow not representative of ‘We The People’.

        • there was only one?  If the election was a fair way to express the will of We The People, why discuss election law changes such as not letting incumbents roll over their war chests?  

          <

          p>What about the frontpage?

          As a naturally created person, can Halliburton be drafted? Can Chrysler run for Governor of Michigan? Heck they don’t need to, they already have the best representation money can buy.

          <

          p>What is this guy complaining about?  Get over it!

          • … that he didn’t mention a specific election, but that doesn’t really matter.  Whatever election(s) he was talking about, he’s convinced it was (they were) not representative of “We the People” and I’d be willing to be he wanted a different outcome.

            <

            p>As such, ‘get over it’ still applies.

            <

            p>Your assertion that he’s discussing ‘election law changes’ isn’t apparent in the post anywhere.

            • is that we wouldn’t be changing them if the view of some people was that the elections didn’t correctly reflect the will of the people.  Do you think that just because someone was elected that means they aren’t the tools of a special interest?  

              <

              p>There are many cases where just because an election happens doesn’t mean that the will of the people happened.  In these cases, one should be encouraged to be active in the politics around them and change things, rather than be told to get over it.  

              • .. he might want to ‘get involved’ and ‘do something’, but that the election wasn’t the ‘will of the people’ was just an assumed fact.  He made no indication of why he thought so, so it’s difficult to decide that he’s some kind of ‘reformist’ other than just being someone who is mad at the election turning out differently than he wanted.

                • … there is a point.  The point you made was that you disputed the appropriateness of KBush’s statement.  It is certainly the case that there may be other points that the diarist didn’t express that could have mitigated the appropriateness of KBush’s statement.  However, the fact that these were left unsaid and that KBush can only be expected to react to what was said means that any dispute on the appropriateness of KBush’s statement can’t rely on what was ‘unsaid’.  Thus ‘the point’ is that KBush’s statement is fine based on what the diarist did say, and this is a reasonable standard.  Moreover, it seems unreasonable to ‘assume’ statements not said.

                • you’re making an assumption.  You say he is assuming facts by commenting that “the election” is somehow not the will of “we the people”.  

                • The tea party stuff seems to include opposition to things that happened during the Bush Administration like, you know, taxation and social welfare spending. Unless one is a doctrinaire libertarian, the “loss of individual liberty” is an entirely imaginary thing. What isn’t imaginary is having Obama as President. That’s what binds all these strands together.

                  <

                  p>What doesn’t bind them together, for example, is a coherent program — or even slogan — on how to address the recession. Most practical people working at auto companies would probably prefer to keep their jobs than to worry overly about an imagined loss of personal liberty due to U.S. government having a hand in management.

                  <

                  p>When they say “we’re losing our liberty” what they’re really saying is “Republicans aren’t in control anymore”.

                • I didn’t assume anything… I made reasonable inferences based on what he wrote.  He wrote ‘We the People”.  It can be inferred (not assumed) that he believes that the previous election (whatever election or elections he is talking about; beside the point for our purposes) does not construe the will of ‘We the People’.  This is an inference and not an assumption.  I further infer that he’s not happy about the outcome,… again this seems reasonable reading the post.  Note that all this can be inferred without even checking any of the links.  Checking the links further strengthens the legitimacy of the inferences.

              • These folks, to a person, have declared themselves more American and more Patriotic than everyone else, including you.  Read their bios.   Follow the links to Focus on the Family. Ask yourself where these folks were for the last 8 years of “unrestrained growth in the size and scope of government.”  

                <

                p>Or just ask yourself what makes Kamal Jain (formally an “expert in government transparency” now a “tax cut activist”) so much angrier about this administration than the last…

                • people who are getting involved in the political process who don’t get the outcome they hoped and worked for shouldn’t be told to “get over it”.  There are too many things we have to be grateful for that didn’t come the first or second times around, and we should be thankful that the people who were working to certain ends didn’t just “get over it” when they initially failed.  

                • Follow the link.  The event might as well be called “we hate Obama and he’s probably not even really President.”

                • Try to answer the following questions:

                  <

                  p>- how is government no longer by “We The People?”
                  – how is the Constitution being threatened?
                  – why did this organization and event spring up now, rather than a year ago?
                  – what are their proposed solutions?

                • They could be pushing for legislation to require polka-dots on the flag…If they get defeated I’m not going to insist that they just get over it if they feel like what they are fighting for is right.

                • .. ‘get over’ their issue.  They have to ‘get over’ the dispute of the legitimacy of the election, unless their issue is, in face, the legitimacy of the election.  Their diarist’s issues seem much more about the results and consequences of the election (again, whichever one(s) he’s talking about).  He complains about the legitimacy, but offers no information about his claim regarding the legitimacy,… he just states it’s illegitimacy as a given.  

                  <

                  p>If his issue was the legitimacy of the election, then (however misguided it might be) that’d be fine… he could state his case and we could talk about it.  That’s not what’s going on here, however.  If he’s not going to actually make a case for the election’s illegitimacy,… then I’ll have to take it as a given that his complaints on the matter are dismissible,… and that he should put up or get over it.

                • Mayhaps he be an organizer himself, investing time, energy, and mashed-up bits of his soul in this venture?  

                  <

                  p>No rational individual could look at this group or its activities–even those who are conservative by nature–and not see this thing for what it is.  Sorry.  This could be the baseline quiz in a course called Propaganda 101 and both Republicans and Democrats would pass with flying colors–unless they were too heavily invested.

                • … I can’t believe I have to restate this:

                  <

                  p>

                  His statements specifically…   (6.00 / 7)
                  … make assertions about the election:

                  “…can take to return the country to a nation that is governed once again, by We The People.”

                  He does, in fact, need to get over his perception that the outcome of the election was somehow not representative of ‘We The People’.

                  “It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare, it is because we do not dare that things are difficult.” – Seneca (5 BC – 65 AD)
                  by: Mr Lynne @ Sun Jun 28, 2009 at 20:07:22 PM EDT
                  [ Parent | Reply ]

                  <

                  p>I thought we’ve been over this before.  I guess I have to play 2nd grade teacher with you.

                • as a way of saying the Constitution.  Government by the Constitution.  Not a ridiculous assertion, given the fact he capitalized it.  

                • Let’s sit around and make up things they COULD be saying.

                  <

                  p>But, let’s say I accept your interpretation.  How are we not being Governed according to the Constitution?

                • … implying that he might be more likely be advocating for Constitutional reform and not making an assertion about the (an) election?  

                • Not asserting the election or Constitutional reform, but rather returning to a country that is governed by the Constitution in a stricter manner.  

                • …which, ironically, is focused on governing the country using the Bible:

                  <

                  p>

                  The Democrats and Republicans have squandered the Founders’ legacy of liberty and justice under the Constitution. Countless government officials in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government ignore their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

                  Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations

                  Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
                  1. Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;
                  2. Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;
                  3. Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;
                  4. Property: Each individual’s right to own and steward personal property without government burden;
                  5. Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;
                  6. States’ Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;
                  7. American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

                  <

                  p>However, since there are no links to said party on the event site,  and the tea party folks are pretty explicitly Republican, I think he may once again be standing up for the rights of the incoherent.

                  <

                  p>As a side note, why can’t any of these folks build a decent Web site?

                • Like…Carla Howell?  There is only a single direct reference to the Republican Party on  the whole site, which is rebuildtheparty.  There are far more references to the Libertarian sect, such as the ron paulianeusque “a revolution reborn”.  Furthermore, there’s this tidbit:

                  On Saturday, July 4th, citizens from around New England, concerned about the unrestrained growth in the size and scope of government will rally to promote individual liberty, free market ideals and Constitutional principles.

                   Emphasis not mine.  

                • Just like the over 30 links to sites saying Obama’s presidency is a violation of the Constitution.  

                • Their primary concern with the Constitution appears to be twisting it to justify their opposition to Obama.

                • To repeat myself

                  <

                  p>

                  forgot the link (6.00 / 2)
                  This diary is a straight lift from the the event page.

                  Note the front page link to Obama the Uconstitutional Office Holder.

                  Do the math…

                  This poll is kindof amusing:

                  McCain-Palin; what makes it a solid choice?
                  All of the below
                  – She is a Pro Drilling, Pro NRA, Pro Life, Tax cutting conservative
                  – The Dems will have trouble attacking her
                  – A woman will pull Hillary voters to McCain

                  by: huh @ Mon Jun 29, 2009 at 11:21:02 AM EDT

                • Please tell me what they’re fighting for and why?

                  <

                  p>The only concrete statement I can find on their site is their belief that Obama isn’t really president, because he’s not a a US citizen.    

                • I’m not going to play 2nd grade teacher and read you stuff that is sitting on their front page glaring you in the fact that you refuse to acknowledge for some reason.

                • A suspicious amount when I think about it.

                  <

                  p>I’ll ask again: what’s your stake in this?

              • This diary is a straight lift from the the event page.

                <

                p>Note the front page link to Obama the Uconstitutional Office Holder.

                <

                p>Do the math…

                <

                p>This poll is kindof amusing:

                <

                p>

                McCain-Palin; what makes it a solid choice?

                All of the below
                – She is a Pro Drilling, Pro NRA, Pro Life, Tax cutting conservative
                – The Dems will have trouble attacking her
                – A woman will pull Hillary voters to McCain

      • A gay rights supporter who spent all his or her time berating an incumbent Republican is wasting time: it’s more important to build public support for marriage equality, employment non-discrimination, anti-bullying programs, teen suicide prevention, and hate crimes laws. To such a gay rights supporter, I would say, “We lost. Get over it. Let’s get back to work.”

        <

        p>For the most part, the right does not seem to know what “get back to work” means. Not only is approval of the GOP at an all time low, but recent polling showed Republican disapproval of the Republican Party at about a third. Tea parties seem like Michelle Bachman indulgences: wandering off into inflammatory, fact-free paranoia for the emotional thrill. Such rants don’t increase public support for Republicans. They’re a Festival of Marginalization.

        <

        p>”Hooray for us! We’re delusional and angry and proud of it!”

    • Setting aside what Randists have to do with “We The People” and the confusion of taxes and freedom, here’s an excerpt from “Poet/Patriot” Kender Macgowan’s bio:

      <

      p>

      Kender is an unrepentant Man, with all that implies, and believes women are there to take care of us so we should protect them. He likes red meat, good single malt scotch and a well turned leg on a beautiful woman, and we won’t apologize for being a Man, so if that bugs you ladies reading this go call your girlfriend and complain to them about it, because that’s what they’re there for.

      • Following your link, we learn that Kender has a taste for female mud wrestling.

        <

        p>Possibly that will be on offer between the darjeeling and crumpets and the earl grey and tea cakes.

    1. After the last round of tea parties, Kos and others remarked that they showed the right’s inexperience with carrying out protests. If one follows huh’s link, one learns that this event consists of two full hours of speakers followed by an hour of musical of “entertainment” and concluded with still more speakers. Given that they have 23 speakers on their roster, this event promises to be deadly.

    <

    p>Now that’s inexperience!

    <

    p>2. Speaking of deadly, read organizer Brad Marston’s posting on “Smart Girl Politics”. It’s laughably lumpy prose. I bet you can’t wait to hear this guy talk!

    <

    p>3. The last tea party happened somewhat in obscurity. Only Jeanne Garofolo attended, and that as an observer. This one is planted on the Boston Commons on July 4 with hordes of Bostonians and tourists milling about. I’m sure it will be met with a, um, warm — shall we say? — reception.

    <

    p>Possibly that’s the point: Feeling victimized gives them all such a rush. @petehoekstra opportunities await.

    <

    p>4. The tea party program is no more than opposition. They have a list of everything Obama is doing, might do, or might think of doing. No matter what they’re going to oppose it. Do they have a thought about what to do about the recession?

    <

    p>Crises have a way of delegitimizing mere ranters. So Mr. Marston with his hopes of teabagging his way back to relevancy should get prepared for a big letdown.

  3. I need a “I wouldn’t come to listen to ANY of these speakers even if you paid me to come” or “THIS is not my idea of  how to support individual liberty” or “none of the above”.

    <

    p>Todd Fineberg is so boring and inane that I stopped listening to WRKO in part due to his juvenile, shallow, “as long as I get mine who gives a d#@m about the other guy sort of comments.

Archives