Who went? There's a lot of outrage on these boards at the current state of the government, so I'm sure you aren't all internet whiners and at least a handful of you guys were there support the causes many of you preach so strongly about... I was.

http://i42.tinypic.com/5f3gjp.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/21br6e0.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/28guloy.jpg

http://i44.tinypic.com/729gg9.jpg

Wow. Doesn't look like a lot of unruly people spreading fear and racism. Wonder how it will look on the news?

So what is your take? Respectable people, respectable message?

I was watching Chris Matthews a few weeks ago stumbling all over hisself trying to vilify the Tea Partiers.

I'd considered going to RI's but alas, I must work and have missed too much time in the past few weeks from hydro-induced household issues.

You betcha she be presidential material..not :rotf2: :rotf2:


39417

You betcha she be presidential material..not :rotf2: :rotf2:


39417

I'm pretty sure I'm not going to vote for S.P. but I approve of this message. Spend Less, Tax Less. We are spending FAR MORE than we take in and borrowing a lot to do that. Happened in the last administration and it is hitting ludicrous speed in this administration.

As a country, we are doing what we argued ad-nauseum about WRT the banks and guvmint for the past couple years. If we don't change course hard and soon we're SCREWED. Keep this up and we're only 80 years or so behind the UK in being meaningless.

You betcha she be presidential material..not :rotf2: :rotf2:


39417

She's making 12 million this year. I don't think she wants the pay cut.

Thanks JD, I couldn't make it but I sure appreciate those like yourself who did.

The Tea Party, along with the Right Wing punditry will destroy the credible GOP reformers...

This doesn't make me happy.

-spence

They are mostly independents. I had read in the liberal media that they were wingnuts, but that was a big lie.

Its a shame sarah palin has been chosen to be their voice..... I like their message too, but the messenger is a complete moron...

I watched most of her speech live streamed today, she is a total moron, and her speech writers should be fired.

Its a shame sarah palin has been chosen to be their voice..... I like their message too, but the messenger is a complete moron...

Wow, PaulS is not going to like hearing this kinda talk:rotf2:

New York Times Poll finds Tea Party members are wealthier, more well educated than the general public ,tend to be Republican, white ,male and married, and their strong opposition to the Obama Administration is more rooted in their political ideology than anxiety about their personal economic situation.

They have 3 main concerns:

The recent HC overhaul.
Government spending.
A feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.

So much for Pelosie and the "Astro Turfs".

The recent HC overhaul.
Government spending.
A feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.
My father said the exact same 3 things when Presdient Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug bill into law.

-spence

what did the republicans say about social security?

do it yourself

My father said the exact same 3 things when Presdient Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug bill into law.

-spence

Waay ahead of his time. :hihi:

Thanks JD, I couldn't make it but I sure appreciate those like yourself who did.

I had a meeting in Downtown Crossing. Figured I'd check out what all the commotion is about.

Listening to some of the people talk (not the speakers, spectators), many of them are completely out of their mind. It basically felt like I walked into a Fox News convention. People regurgitating the same baseless crap that you hear on Hannity or Beck on any average night.

A couple gems:
"Communist censorship like they have in China will come to America. You open a NYTimes here and it's 60 pages, in China it's about 7."

"We're all going to be working for Mexicans some day."

"Sarah Palin for President 2012!!"

The majority of people that I saw in attendance were probably over 50 and male. I noticed maybe 5 people that were a race other than white. At least half the people had "Don't Tread on Me" flags and I would bet $100 that most of them didn't have a clue the meaning of the flags.

I had a meeting in Downtown Crossing. Figured I'd check out what all the commotion is about.

Listening to some of the people talk (not the speakers, spectators), many of them are completely out of their mind. It basically felt like I walked into a Fox News convention. People regurgitating the same baseless crap that you hear on Hannity or Beck on any average night.

A couple gems:
"Communist censorship like they have in China will come to America. You open a NYTimes here and it's 60 pages, in China it's about 7."

"We're all going to be working for Mexicans some day."

"Sarah Palin for President 2012!!"

The majority of people that I saw in attendance were probably over 50 and male. I noticed maybe 5 people that were a race other than white. At least half the people had "Don't Tread on Me" flags and I would bet $100 that most of them didn't have a clue the meaning of the flags.

Great report, expected much harsher BS . :rotf2:

I had a meeting in Downtown Crossing. Figured I'd check out what all the commotion is about.

Listening to some of the people talk (not the speakers, spectators), many of them are completely out of their mind. It basically felt like I walked into a Fox News convention. People regurgitating the same baseless crap that you hear on Hannity or Beck on any average night.

A couple gems:
"Communist censorship like they have in China will come to America. You open a NYTimes here and it's 60 pages, in China it's about 7."

"We're all going to be working for Mexicans some day."

"Sarah Palin for President 2012!!"

The majority of people that I saw in attendance were probably over 50 and male. I noticed maybe 5 people that were a race other than white. At least half the people had "Don't Tread on Me" flags and I would bet $100 that most of them didn't have a clue the meaning of the flags.

hehehe - so tell us, what did you like?

I had a meeting in Downtown Crossing. Figured I'd check out what all the commotion is about.

Listening to some of the people talk (not the speakers, spectators), many of them are completely out of their mind. It basically felt like I walked into a Fox News convention. People regurgitating the same baseless crap that you hear on Hannity or Beck on any average night.

A couple gems:
"Communist censorship like they have in China will come to America. You open a NYTimes here and it's 60 pages, in China it's about 7."

"We're all going to be working for Mexicans some day."

"Sarah Palin for President 2012!!"

The majority of people that I saw in attendance were probably over 50 and male. I noticed maybe 5 people that were a race other than white. At least half the people had "Don't Tread on Me" flags and I would bet $100 that most of them didn't have a clue the meaning of the flags.

you should have done what you always do and walk around telling everyone else how ignorant and uninformed they are :uhuh:

so...which was it?

"Who went? I'm sure you aren't all internet whiners and at least a handful of you guys were there support the causes many of you preach so strongly about... I was."

or

"I had a meeting in Downtown Crossing. Figured I'd check out what all the commotion is about.


were you there to support limited government and low taxes and adherence to the Constitution...or to count how many non-whites showed up because you happened to be in the area on business?

My father said the exact same 3 things when Presdient Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug bill into law.

-spence

he was either alligned with other conservatives who vociferously opposed that large expansion of government ...

or he was alligned with other liberals who were only oppose to it because it wasn't a large enough expansion of govermnment in their opinion...and who could not stomach the thought of a Republican president signing into law a huge government entitlement....that's democrap pandering territory exclusively

you constantly roll this out Spence and it's really weak....:

I guess the question to ponder is:

Is the Tea party doing more damage to the Republican party or is the Democratic party doing more damage to itself?

I think it's the latter. This edition of Democratic leadership is a joke.
Say what you will about the Clinton years, but the economy was strong and taxes weren't going up all around us.

Obama isn't anymore respected or liked around the world than Bush was.

New York Times Poll finds Tea Party members are wealthier, more well educated than the general public ,tend to be Republican, white ,male and married, and their strong opposition to the Obama Administration is more rooted in their political ideology than anxiety about their personal economic situation.

They have 3 main concerns:

The recent HC overhaul.
Government spending.
A feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.

So much for Pelosie and the "Astro Turfs".


Can you pls. post a link. I saw a Quinipiac college poll which said that they are less educated and make less money on average than Joe 6 pack.

Wow, PaulS is not going to like hearing this kinda talk:rotf2:

Missed this - why the infatuation? That's not healthy.

I dont know if anyone listens to WTKK, but Jim Braudie (sp?) is one of the most left wing nuts on the radio and even he thinks the tea party is valid and that the members are not all nut jobs.
Part of the momentum is that Obama did a very good job communicating the problems George Bush (apparently) created. Obama has done NOTHING to reverse the problems other than some minor policy changes. We have 2 wars, an unpopular prison camp, a raging defecit and a divided country. Healthcare is not the biggest issue facing this country. He made it his biggest issue and it will be his downfall.

Can you pls. post a link. I saw a Quinipiac college poll which said that they are less educated and make less money on average than Joe 6 pack.

you are confused...that poll was Obama Voters in general... the ..."GIM-ME PARTY" :uhuh:

Can you pls. post a link. I saw a Quinipiac college poll which said that they are less educated and make less money on average than Joe 6 pack.

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?hp)

these people are f'in NUTBAGS!! This is CRAZY TALK !!!!!

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

The demographics of any group consisting mainly of white people over fifty is better educated and makes more in comparison to other groups. White males over fifty hold most of the wealth.

you are confused...that poll was Obama Voters in general... the ..."GIM-ME PARTY" :uhuh:

It must be the area you live in. In my area, Fairfield county, all the Obama supporters are extremely wealthy.

Jimmy - thanks for the link.

It must be the area you live in. In my area, Fairfield county, all the Obama supporters are extremely wealthy.

.

In my area, Fairfield county, all the Obama supporters are extremely wealthy suckers :uhuh:

It must be the area you live in. In my area, Fairfield county, all the Obama supporters are extremely wealthy.

Jimmy - thanks for the link.
same here

these people are f'in NUTBAGS!! This is CRAZY TALK !!!!!

Their responses are like the general public’s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as “fair.” Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.

Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich.

Jimmy,

I agree 100% with the first part of the statement (or actually the 2nd paragraph - not the commentary :)) . My issues is that I think the policies of any pres./admin. should be directed at helping the poor, rather than the rich. I guess is a matter of degrees though.

The demographics of any group consisting mainly of white people over fifty is better educated and makes more in comparison to other groups. White males over fifty hold most of the wealth.

I would replace "hold" with "earn". Its the governments job to ensure equal opportunity. The rest is up to you. I wonder how many Indian americans are creeping into that category? I wonder why racism and white men keeping them down hasnt factored into the massive success of Indians in the US in recent years?

I would replace "hold" with "earn". Its the governments job to ensure equal opportunity. The rest is up to you.
I remember a Thanksgiving dinner several years ago with my in-laws. A cousin of my step brother was a pretty successful guy in his late 20's and making some money. He was adament that his success was his alone, he earned it himself.

Then his much older uncle Paulie proceeded to rip him apart listing all the thnigs done by others so that he could be positioned to do as well as he's doing today.

It was pretty remarkable to watch.

Some wealth is certainly earned, but you can't use "earn" to replace "hold".

I wonder how many Indian americans are creeping into that category? I wonder why racism and white men keeping them down hasnt factored into the massive success of Indians in the US in recent years?
You're joking right?

-spence

I remember a Thanksgiving dinner several years ago with my in-laws. A cousin of my step brother was a pretty successful guy in his late 20's and making some money. He was adament that his success was his alone, he earned it himself. Afterall, he gotten good grades in school, worked hard in college and impressed in boss at his new job.

Then his much older uncle Commie proceeded to rip him apart listing all the things done by others so that he could be positioned to do as well as he's doing today. He reminded him that he'd only climbed the ladder of success by stepping on the backs of those less fortunate and for every dollar he earned some child was starving to death that very second and that he should feel guilty about his success. He told this cousin that he was evil and greedy and ungrateful.

It was pretty scary to watch. Then he kicked the kid in the nuts and took his wallet.

Well, the cousin is an alcoholic now with no self esteem and collecting SSI, barely ever leaves the house....but he no longer gloats about success....or even strives for it...



Some wealth is certainly earned:wall:


-spence

sad story :uhuh:

hehehe - so tell us, what did you like?
It was a very interesting experience. I agree with a lot of what the Tea Party Movement stands for at its core - fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, I think the message is lost within the people that make up the movement, who for the most part come off as complete nutjobs.

As much as I hate to say it, Karl Rove put it best:
"If tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts," Rove wrote. "This includes 9/11 deniers, 'birthers' who insist Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion."

Also, regardless of you opinion of Obama being a socialist or not, Socialist has been yelled about and thrown around so much that no one cares about the word any more and people have grown numb to it.

were you there to support limited government and low taxes and adherence to the Constitution...or to count how many non-whites showed up because you happened to be in the area on business?
Before pulling onto Boylston St, I didn't even know the Tea Party was taking place. A handful on here preach about the Tea Parties and what the Tea Parties stand for, yet I bet they haven't attended one. I wanted to see, in person, what all the hoopla is about - not some filtered, polarized version shown on FoxNews.

Some wealth is certainly earned, but you can't use "earn" to replace "hold".




-spence

"Hold " had to be "earned" by someone .

When it comes to "hold and save", that used to be part of the American Dream
that your chidren would have a better life than you.

The only thing we will leave our children is a life of debt.

I remember a Thanksgiving dinner several years ago with my in-laws. A cousin of my step brother was a pretty successful guy in his late 20's and making some money. He was adament that his success was his alone, he earned it himself.

Then his much older uncle Paulie proceeded to rip him apart listing all the thnigs done by others so that he could be positioned to do as well as he's doing today.

It was pretty remarkable to watch.

Some wealth is certainly earned, but you can't use "earn" to replace "hold".


-spence


you're only proving my point, I didnt say its purely an individual effort. My success is due in a large part to my parents sacrfice. NOT, I REPEAT NOT due to taxpayers sacrafice. I remember thanksgiving and christmas when my Dad was going to work and as a kid I would beg him to stay home and he would explain that he would make triple time going in and tha was 3 days worth of work. I undestood then and understand now.
I dont hold wealth, it was earned not deemed to me by a family name or class structure as "hold" implies.

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair".

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs."

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:“I just feel he’s getting away from what America is,” said Kathy Mayhugh, 67, a retired medical transcriber in Jacksonville. “He’s a socialist. And to tell you the truth, I think he’s a Muslim and trying to head us in that direction, I don’t care what he says. He’s been in office over a year and can’t find a church to go to. That doesn’t say much for him.”

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair".

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs."

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:

Always the unbiased positive thinker JD. :smash:

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair".

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs."

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:


JD, I believe in a lot of what the Tea Party stands for, as well. I also feel that I pay more than enough in taxes, but it's still "fair" because I do get benefits from them. If I had to pay more taxes, I would start to no longer consider the amount fair.

I also support government programs paid for with taxes. If we didn't help the less fortunate, we'd fail to exist as a strong country. But, there has to be limits and/or requirements for these programs. As you've pointed out, people who benefit from the programs should have to contribute in some way to society to be eligible for the benefits. No sitting on the couch with a bag of weed and and an XBox 360 to play.

I'm not sure why anyone would be suprised at the lack of support for Palin. She didn't even complete one term as governor of Alaska. She's way too politically inexperienced to lead this country, much like the guy in the White House now.

The NYT poll is interesting.

As scottw pointed out, the movement is supposedly for lower taxes yet, 52% of Tea Party supporters regard the income tax they pay as "Fair"but oppose the massive increases that are coming..... "supposedly"...no JD, they're actually for much higher taxes

62% of them support Socialized programs and feel "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare worth the costs of those programs." show me where in the poll it states 62% support "socialized programs", if you've paid into these programs your whole life you probably don't consider them "socialized" because you get the statement showing your contributions and what you are getting and figure you are collecting your own contributiuons ..more like a savings...but if you are currently paying and realize that every penny that you contribute today is being transferred to someone else immediately and not being "saved"...then you would consider this a "socialized" program or more aptly... a PONZI SCHEME "

Not to mention 47% of them feel as though their figurehead, Sarah Palin, would *not* be an effective President.I'm guessing most don't expect her to run either


The above is what I'm talking about when I say that the makeup of the party is detrimental to the foundation of the movement.
And then there's always this:you hate the movement, why do you care?

Its a shame sarah palin has been chosen to be their voice..... I like their message too, but the messenger is a complete moron...

Really! She is laughing all the way to the bank.:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

Hey, what till VAT hits
Europe's VAT Lessons - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575172190620528592.html?m od=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1)

The Feds now spend more on employee pensions and benefits then on education. Vote them all out

The Feds now spend more on employee pensions and benefits then on education. Vote them all out

We could say that for Mansfield too

Inheritance is how most wealth is acquired.
Frankly, I'd be careful about the parsing the semantics of 'hold or earn.' The Obama Admin might agree, and get the idea to tax investment income at the higher rate wages are taxed at.

Inheritance is how most wealth is acquired.
Frankly, I'd be careful about the parsing the semantics of 'hold or earn.' The Obama Admin might agree, and get the idea to tax investment income at the higher rate wages are taxed at.

I hope to become a vampire. compounded interest over 300 years should be fine.

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

JR, if you have money in the bank, eventually interest rates are going to soar. Good for the people who are prudent, not willing to gamble on the stock exchange.

I regard the amount I'm spending now in income tax is at the very high end of fair. I would like to see it go down but current is sustainable. What is not sustainable for me is all the new taxes and fees. What is not sustainable is our country's spending right now. This spending is significantly greater than what it takes in. How can this be good?

well, according to Obama in his speech yesterday...you need to stop asking these amusing but rediculous questions and start thanking him :uhuh:

Didn't Joe Biden say it was good to pay taxes?

well, according to Obama in his speech yesterday...you need to stop asking these amusing but rediculous questions and start thanking him :uhuh:

I heard that speach too. He is the most arrogant, insensitive, and classless President ever. He has nothing but disdain for "the opposition". He truly just doesn't get it.

I heard that speach too. He is the most arrogant, insensitive, and classless President ever. He has nothing but disdain for "the opposition". He truly just doesn't get it.

He was just telling them to "Bring It On."

Didn't Joe Biden say it was good to pay taxes?

Joe Biden said "everyone has to have some skin in the game" and something else about paying taxes being patriotic.... the wealthy Joe Biden gave 1.44% of his income to charity last year...almost no skin in that game......Obama did a little better coming in just under 6%...although, his income 5.5 million was almost entirely derived from the fraud Nobel prize that he was handed and income from two fictional books that were written for him....don't know if Mrs. O had any income from her 300k no-show job....so much for "earned income" and charity...easy to spread the wealth around when you did/do little or nothing to earn it...I guess it explains their views on taxation and charity...:rotf2:

complete frauds:uhuh:

Joe Biden said "everyone has to have some skin in the game" and something else about paying taxes being patriotic.... the wealthy Joe Biden gave 1.44% of his income to charity last year...almost no skin in that game......Obama did a little better coming in just under 6%...although, his income 5.5 million was almost entirely derived from the fraud Nobel prize that he was handed and income from two fictional books that were written for him....don't know if Mrs. O had any income from her 300k no-show job....so much for "earned income" and charity...easy to spread the wealth around when you did/do little or nothing to earn it...I guess it explains their views on taxation and charity...:rotf2:

complete frauds:uhuh:


Obama donated 100% of his Nobel Prize money. I'm willing to give him props when he deserves it.

Obama donated 100% of his Nobel Prize money. I'm willing to give him props when he deserves it.

wouldn't you have been shocked if he'd kept a penny of it?

if anyone wants to give me a ton of money that I've done nothing to deserve...I'd also be happy to donate 100% of it to charity....and I'm not even a millionaire or living lavishly and having all of my daily expenses being paid for by campaign contributions, which is what he did for most of 2009...:uhuh:

Buck, I honestly would care if they hadn't given a penny to charity but for all of their rhetoric, the point is that for all of the lip flapping, these guys only practice what they preach with other people's money....

Buckman

this is the difference between somewhat reasonable (you) and blinded by hate (scottw)

The 5.5 was mostly book money, so the income was not including the nobel prize, which was donated 100%

And scott, if someone walked up to me and said here's 1.1 million "that I've done nothing to deserve" I'd donate some but you bet your ass I'd be fishing on a new boat this season :D. I guess you are more giving and liberal than you let on :D


***This is a cut and paste, 100%:***

WASHINGTON - The Tea Party was out railing against taxes on Tax Day on Thursday, but it's a safe bet few of them paid as much as President Obama.

Tax returns released by the White House show Obama's adjusted gross income was $5,505,409 in 2009 - mostly from best-selling book sales.

On that, he owed $1,792,414 in federal taxes, or a third of his income, but overpaid by $8,287. The Obamas applied the refund to next year's bill.

The Obamas' total gross income was $5,623,690, before adjustments.

The President offset his tab somewhat by being very generous, giving $329,100 to 40 different charities.

In addition, the Obamas donated his entire $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize income to charity and paid $163,303 in Illinois state income taxes.

Because Obama donated the entire Nobel award to charity, it didn't count as income and he wasn't able to claim a deduction for those gifts.

Joe and Jill Biden aren't nearly so well-off. The vice president and his wife's income was $333,182, on which they paid $71,147 to Uncle Sam. They gave away $4,820 to charity and paid $13,897 in state income taxes.

The returns show that the Obamas made about as much in charitable contributions as the Bidens earned in 2009.

Among the 10 charities who received contributions from Obama's Nobel cash are the Posse Foundation, a New York-based group that got $125,000 to provide scholarships for students with extraordinary academic and leadership potential.

The Obamas' income included $374,460 in wages, $13,473 in interest, $12,018 in dividends and $4,230 in other income. The overwhelming majority of their income - nearly $5.2 million - was from book royalties.

Like millions of Americans, the Obamas reduced their tax bite by contributing - in their case $49,000 - to a retirement plan.


mmcauliff@nydailynews.com

With Thomas M. DeFrank and Glenn Blain in Albany

Read more: President Obama tax return reveals he made $5.5M in 2009, largely from book sales (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/04/15/2010-04-15_obamas_2009_tax_return_reveals_president_made_m ore_than_55m_mostly_for_book_sale.html#ixzz0lS3lqf zd)

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;763011]Buckman


And scott, if someone walked up to me and said here's 1.1 million "that I've done nothing to deserve" I'd donate some but you bet your ass I'd be fishing on a new boat this season :D. I guess you are more giving and liberal than you let on :D

QUOTE]

so...if you happen to be awarded a prize and attached money around 1.5 million(or any amount for that matter) and there's absolutely no justification for you receiving the award and there are numerous other far more deserving people who actually did something that might earn them the prize...you'd go out and buy a boat??? that's really pathetic....:uhuh: not blinded by hate ...eyes wide open and just want a little honesty, decency and consistency from our dear leader....still waiting :uhuh:

and the cut and paste is as pathetic as Biden's 1.44% and I'd love to compare Obama's charity compared to that of other 5.5 millionaires and see how they rank being charitable with their easy money....


giving and liberal? that's funny...see...I am very "giving" with my own money...I would never feel "entitled" to such a sum of money that I didn't deserve for any reason and particularly if there were those more deserving.....I think we have a trend here with democrat leaders and their rhetoric and their pathetic showing when the numbers come out...the same thing was discovered of Al Gore(your hero) and the Kerry's were paying a miniscule amount in taxes and the Clinton's were deducting their dirty underwear.....nice people...:rotf2:

the perpetual quandry of the limousine liberal

Scott.
If someone walks up to you and said you've been randomly selected to win a million dollars based on having the exact number of posts on S-B, you'd say no?

You are in the minority my friend.


The point I was making is that you claimed a big chunk of the 5.5 he reported as income was Nobel prize money, I was pointing out it wasn't included, so technically, the Obama's donated 300+K + the 1million + of the Nobel money.

In full disclosure, I gave well less as a % than both the Pres and VP.
If you donated more than 10% of your after tax income, (339,000/(5.5Mil - 1.7Mil = ~9%) then you can stand on your soap box on this issue. I would wager that for everyone who has 5.5mil of 'easy' money and donated 10% after taxes to charity, there are at least 2 that don't. Did you give more than that? I didn't. Did you give more than 1.8% after taxes to charity? I didn't. I put what little extra money we had into my mortgage, college fund for jr. and construction on my second floor.

I guess I'm a hypocrite too then.

Scott.
If someone walks up to you and said you've been randomly selected to win a million dollars based on having the exact number of posts on S-B, you'd say no? is this how Obama was selected for the Nobel prize? it was a lottery? or he was randomly selected? he had the right number of "present" votes?...that would make the prize pretty meaningless under your scenario...would it not? I mean more meaningless than they've already denigrated it to be

You are in the minority my friend. I suppose


The point I was making is that you claimed a big chunk of the 5.5 he reported as income was Nobel prize money my point was that they didn't do a whole lot of actual earning like the folks that they attack on a daily basis, if the prize was a wash then I was correct that they donated 5.8% of their "income" to charity...you can give them credit for giving the prize to charity...I say it would have been reprehensible to have kept any of it and he should have refused it in the first place simply on principle so he doesn't get credit, at least from me for donating ill gotten gains, I guess you can say he did the right thing or more correctly, the most obvious thing , I was pointing out it wasn't included, so technically, the Obama's donated 300+K + the 1million + of the Nobel money.technically

In full disclosure, I gave well less as a % than both the Pres and VP.and that is entirely your choosing, I would never question what amount you or someone else gave unless they were in the habit of preaching and then shown to be falling far short of what they were preaching....Obama campaigned through all of 2009...not only did he have no expenses because everything he and his wife did were on the campaign tab, and reports were that they were living quite lavishly while simultaneously lecturing about sacrafice...his earnings required little or no effort, if there were ever and opportunity given all of the rhetoric to put his money where his mouth was...this would have been a good time
If you donated more than 10% of your after tax income, (339,000/(5.5Mil - 1.7Mil = ~9%)talk about number fudging, I'm still not crediting the prize and you keep making it larger then you can stand on your soap box on this issue. so, don't criticize the "one" unless the mailman accidentally drops off a pile of money at your house that should have gone to someone else that you then donate to charity and take credit for?... I would wager that for everyone who has 5.5mil of 'easy' money and donated 10% after taxes to charity, there are at least 2 that don't. Did you give more than that? I didn't. Did you give more than 1.8% after taxes to charity? I didn't. yes, I did I put what little extra money we had into my mortgage, college fund for jr. and construction on my second floor.

I guess I'm a hypocrite too then.

you completely miss the point ...if you pontificate constantly about "sacrafice" and "having skin in the game" and "paying taxes being patriotic" and deamonize others, earners...the evil rich, capitalism... for all sorts of reasons that really boil down to ideaology....then yes...you are a fing hypocrit if your tax return shows a paultry effort vs. a large and largely unearned income...when you are the "leader of the free world" ...you are hardly leading by example ....if you recall, during the primaries, Biden and Obama's previous returns showed the same for previous years....despite having the biggest mouth in Washington...Biden has the tightest wallet...and OBama barely gave squat till he hit it big with his book deals and then he gave the most to the Church of Hate that he attended.....funny that when you simply point out facts about this regime..you are considered blinded by hate....I don't hate..... I can't stand arrogance and hypocricy from these guys with so much power

hey Rock...you equated liberalism with giving recently...pretend O didn't with the Nobel..it's not hard to do...would 1.44% and 5.8% in "giving" from the super lib vice pres and pres be acceptable?

wait..maybe they are improving???

Delaware Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for vice president, and his wife reported giving a fraction of 1 percent of their income to charity during the past decade, below the national average, tax records show.
Over the past decade they reported giving an average of $369 to charity.

The Bidens' giving represents a smaller portion of their income than the $353 then-Vice President Al Gore was criticized for donating on an income of $197,729 in 1997.

The Bidens' deductions for charity ranged from a low of $120 in 1999 to $995 last year. Most were in the range of $260-$380 per year, their tax returns show.


The Obamas gave less than 1 percent of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 to 2004 to charities, their returns showed. They increased their giving to more than 5 percent when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a best-selling book.

Bill Clinton, the former president, earned $109 million from 2000 through 2007. They donated about $10.3 million of that to their own charitable foundation.

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:: rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Scott - try using some current data - your "material" is from September 2008 and maybe also include the complete text and gives us your source:

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent. His wife, Cindy, who files separately, released a summary of her own returns on May 23, which showed she earned $6 million and paid $1.75 million in tax. She didn't release the schedule of her tax returns that discloses her charitable contributions.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:: rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

Scott - try using some current data - your "material" is from September 2008 and maybe also include the complete text and gives us your source:

McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent. His wife, Cindy, who files separately, released a summary of her own returns on May 23, which showed she earned $6 million and paid $1.75 million in tax. She didn't release the schedule of her tax returns that discloses her charitable contributions.

is there a point?

c'mon now....Biden was out yesterday railing against the greedy...Obama is fighting with and impuning ...well...everyone..and seems more angry and nasty with every speech..and you want to talk about Cindy McCain "business woman and phoilanthropist" according to Wikipedia....first show me where she's ever lectured others regarding what they ought be doing with their lives and money as the Obama's and Biden do on a regular basis :uhuh:

Is Bryan right?..."the majority" will happily take credit for being quite charitable with money that fell into their lap and possibly more rightly belongs with someone else... and feel quite good about it...particularly if they keep a little for themselves to buy a boat (one of those "luxuries" that Spence told Jimmy ought to be highly taxed along with trucks...and what about Global Warming", is this a solar powered boat???) sooo...extremely charitable with found money but with earned money...ahhh....not so much....but anxious to tell you that you need to be doing more

Shouldn't the super libs be leading by example? or do they get credit for doing just enough...in Obama's case 5.8% is close enough to the 6% average for charitable giving despite all of the rhetoric? in Biden's case :wall:

these are the Progressives........your money is theirs and their money is theirs...first they deamonize you and impune you...then they take your money claiming to make your life better...they will tell you how to live and what is good for you but don't expect them to apply the same to their own lives...they are exempt from their pontifications and live very high at the public trough....and their defenders are working overtime:uhuh:

Scott, you win.
I don;t have time to go look up every politician's charitable givings and see how it relates to their stance on policy. I don't have the time so I'll throw up the white flag.

have fun

Scott, you win.
I don;t have time to go look up every politician's charitable givings and see how it relates to their stance on policy. I don't have the time so I'll throw up the white flag.

have fun

Bry...as I stated before...you don't need to...just the ones that are in your face constantly telling you what you ought to do...and the ones that impune and besmirch...ohhh...say...the "tea baggers" for instance because they oppose large oppressive government and higher taxation....the hypocricy is on a neon sign telling you "Warning...Danger Will Robinson"...with little arms flailing around....sorry...a little Lost in Space reference:uhuh:


is anyone looking into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Greedy Greedy Wall Street


top contributions to OBAMA

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

Despite the President’s rhetoric, his support for the Democrats’ bailout bills gives big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them “too big to fail.” Just whose side is President Obama on? Here are the facts:

WALL STREET GIVES GENEROUSLY TO THEN-CANDIDATE OBAMA:

• Goldman Sachs, recently charged with defrauding investors, was President Obama’s top Wall Street contributor during the 2008 election cycle, donating nearly $1 million to his campaign.
• Securities & investment firms in general were the fifth largest contributor to President Obama’s 2008 campaign, donating nearly $15 million.
• Big banks also donated more than $3 million to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RHETORIC SAYS “GET TOUGH ON WALL STREET”:

“We will hold Wall Street accountable. We will protect and empower consumers in our financial system. That’s what reform is all about. That’s what we’re fighting for.” (Weekly Address, 4/17/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ACTIONS PUSH PERMANENT BAILOUTS FOR HIS WALL STREET FRIENDS:

• The Dodd Gives Wall Street a Pre-Existing $50 Billion Bailout Slush Fund. Sen. Dodd’s financial bailout bill would create a $50 billion ‘orderly resolution fund’ ($150 billion in Rep. Barney Frank’s bill) that could be repeatedly replenished from industry assessment.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street a Treasury-Backed Credit Line. The FDIC would be authorized to borrow from Treasury up to the amount of cash left in the ‘resolution fund’ plus 90 percent of the value of the assets of any and all too-big-to-fail firms in its control.
• The Dodd Bill Provides a Government-Guaranteed to Wall Street Debt. The FDIC would be authorized to guarantee the debt of any solvent bank, bank holding company, or affiliate in any amount subject only to an aggregate debt limit set by the Treasury Department.
• The Dodd Bill Institutionalizes Unlimited Wall Street Bailouts. The FDIC, as the resolution agency for too-big-to-fail firms, would be given wide latitude to use resources to make payments to anyone in any amounts, at their own discretion.
• The Dodd Bill Gives Wall Street Bridge Bank Authority. The FDIC would be authorized to create a bridge institution as part of resolving a covered institution and vest the FDIC with broad authority to use the orderly resolution fund in connection with the bridge institution.

The Obama Administration is brought to you by Goldman Sachs.

Jide Zeitlin, Adam Storch, Mark Patterson, Tim the Tax Cheat Geithner, Neel Kashkari and Gary Gensler. Storch is of particular interest. He took a job Team Obama created for him as COO of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s enforcement division. Obama’s SEC is the group now going after Goldman Sachs.

Scott, you win.
I don;t have time to go look up every politician's charitable givings and see how it relates to their stance on policy. I don't have the time so I'll throw up the white flag.

have fun

You don't have to when there are 1000 "unbiased, non-partisan":smash: websites to do it for you that you can selectively copy/paste from without providing any link back to the information.

You don't have to when there are 1000 "unbiased, non-partisan":smash: websites to do it for you that you can selectively copy/paste from without providing any link back to the information.

no...you only need to investigate all of the other politicians if the only way to make the "ONE" look better and the "VICE ONE" look not so pathetic is to try to draw some kind of equivalent..can't they be judged individually on the content of their character and what they actually do versus their rhetoric? think I've heard that somewhere before....nope...this is the JD.."they all do it" so it's no big deal easy out, excuse......typical...but Bry is a scientist so he should just "wager" on the numbers as he did regarding the giving of other high earners...that's very scientific.. 2 for every 1 ...I think it was...

of course JD...your info is the only "credible info"...everything else is biased and partisan...he heh....

of course JD...your info is the only "credible info"...everything else is biased and partisan...he heh....

I haven't really provided any info... but when I do, you can bet that there's a link with it - especially when I copy/paste.

I haven't really provided any info... but when I do, you can bet that there's a link with it - especially when I copy/paste.

and that matters because?...you dismiss my c/p as quickly as you dismiss my opinion if it challenges your world view, this is just your intellectually weak method to change the subject :uhuh:....from now on just assume that everything I write and think is because Fox News told me and you will be quite satisfied and you won't have to keep repeating yourself....although...full disclosure...I've never watched Fox News in my life...we've never seen the need to have anything more than basic cable so I don't get the Fox News Channel and all of the programming that you abhor....of course, that means that I'm denying myself the enlightment from brainiacs like Maher, Matthews and the other cable channels....etc....

if you think about it..Obama's entire life and presidency is a cut and paste and he doesn't have to back anything up, he just keeps attacking anyone that does not play by his rules :uhuh:

did you write your letter yet?...you know...to "thank him"...he's waiting...

and that matters because?...you dismiss my c/p as quickly as you dismiss my opinion if it challenges your world view, this is just your intellectually weak method to change the subject :uhuh:....from now on just assume that everything I write and think is because Fox News told me and you will be quite satisfied and you won't have to keep repeating yourself....although...full disclosure...I've never watched Fox News in my life...we've never seen the need to have anything more than basic cable so I don't get the Fox News Channel and all of the programming that you abhor....of course, that means that I'm denying myself the enlightment from brainiacs like Maher, Matthews and the other cable channels....etc....

if you think about it..Obama's entire life and presidency is a cut and paste and he doesn't have to back anything up, he just keeps attacking anyone that does not play by his rules :uhuh:

did you write your letter yet?...you know...to "thank him"...he's waiting...

Nope. I dismiss your copy/paste and your opinion because you selectively leave information out, don't provide a link and then go "see, I told you". Like this gem where you decided to conveniently stop the copy/paste at the point right before there is mention that McCain's wife earned $6 million:
McCain released his own tax returns on April 18, which showed he reported $405,409 of income and gave $105,467 to charity, about 26 percent.

Also, I didn't bother writing a letter. I just sent an email.

Nope. I dismiss your copy/paste and your opinion because you selectively leave information out, don't provide a link and then go "see, I told you". Like this gem where you decided to conveniently stop the copy/paste at the point right before there is mention that McCain's wife earned $6 million:


Also, I didn't bother writing a letter. I just sent an email.

incorrect, the source.......which I sourced(as you said there are thousands of sources)... only mentiond that Mrs. McCain's tax info had not been released...so... am I wrong for not posting info that was not there.... or am I wrong for you accusing me of not posting information that was not there?
and tell me why it matters? I posted what was written regarding McCain because it was a funny juxtaposition from Dear Leader and his Sidekick....you are stuck on it because it is a convenient diversion from the real issue...but that's why I love you...you ignore all of the salient points and find the insignificant point that allows you to say "gotcha"....have I ever said.."see I told you"?

Nope. I dismiss your copy/paste and your opinion because you selectively leave information out, don't provide a link and then go "see, I told you".

.

Like your Tea Party report JD:rotf2:

Like your Tea Party report JD:rotf2:

What info about my observations of the Tea Party did I selectively leave out?

What info about my observations of the Tea Party did I selectively leave out?

The truth

The truth

:jester: Such as? Being so outspoken about the government's waste, I'm sure you must have been there. So what "truths" did I leave out?

I had a meeting in Downtown Crossing. Figured I'd check out what all the commotion is about.

Listening to some of the people talk (not the speakers, spectators), many of them are completely out of their mind. It basically felt like I walked into a Fox News convention. People regurgitating the same baseless crap that you hear on Hannity or Beck on any average night.

A couple gems:
"Communist censorship like they have in China will come to America. You open a NYTimes here and it's 60 pages, in China it's about 7."

"We're all going to be working for Mexicans some day."

"Sarah Palin for President 2012!!"

The majority of people that I saw in attendance were probably over 50 and male. I noticed maybe 5 people that were a race other than white. At least half the people had "Don't Tread on Me" flags and I would bet $100 that most of them didn't have a clue the meaning of the flags.

Let's just say you have a track record of distorting the facts as far as the Tea Party goes so as to belittle the movement. Why don't you explain your disdain for them.

No I wasn't at the rally. I was busy. There are other ways to voice ones opinion JD.
It's understood the whole thread was started by you as a means of discrediting not only the Tea Party, but also to challange those like myself. I guess it also could make you feel bigger.:rotf2:
Once again, why did you start this thread?

I don't know Buck, I just read it again and it sounds exactly like a mainstream media journalist's assessment(although, the last go round, a few of them actually seemed to wonder why these peaceful protesters were being so maligned) .... so he might have another career brewing...he walked around...probably sneering at everyone...didn't talk to anyone.....tried to count how many minorities were in attendance, confirmed all of his preconcieved biases in about 30 seconds and left to report his very scientific findings....:rotf2: Fox News, Hannity, Beck, Palin, Mexicans, clueless ingoramuses......fair and balanced reporting from JDNBC :rotf2:

Let's just say you have a track record of distorting the facts as far as the Tea Party goes so as to belittle the movement. Why don't you explain your disdain for them.

When have I "distorted the facts"? It's fun to make accusations, but I'm curious as to any support for them.

I started the thread for two reasons: 1) A lot of people here continually boast about how big of a deal the tea parties are. That people should support them. Yet, none of those people went. 2) Because the people that I witnessed at the tea party are, for the most part, exactly as depicted by its critics. Old, white, conservative men.

Maybe you forgot this comment I made earlier:
It was a very interesting experience. I agree with a lot of what the Tea Party Movement stands for at its core - fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, I think the message is lost within the people that make up the movement, who for the most part come off as complete nutjobs.

As much as I hate to say it, Karl Rove put it best:
"If tea party groups are to maximize their influence on policy, they must now begin the difficult task of disassociating themselves from cranks and conspiracy nuts," Rove wrote. "This includes 9/11 deniers, 'birthers' who insist Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and militia supporters espousing something vaguely close to armed rebellion."

The people Karl Rove talks about were there in full force and that's where my major criticisms originate - that and a large number of people wearing Palin 2012 shirts.

When have I "distorted the facts"? It's fun to make accusations, but I'm curious as to any support for them.

I started the thread for two reasons: 1) A lot of people here continually boast about how big of a deal the tea parties are.really, name 1 That people should support them. Yet, none of those people went. prove it 2) Because the people that I witnessed at the tea party are, for the most part, exactly as depicted by its critics. Old, white, conservative men.maybe the non-whites are a-scared after they saw that nice african american tea party member in St Louis get the crap kicked out of him and racial slurs hurled at him by the SEIU Thug Union Members....you know the racist history in Boston and lot's of union members there...probably not safe...the RI Tea Party gathering at the State House was run by women and there were lot's of non-Old, White, "Conservatives"(how do you determine this from a distance?)


Maybe you forgot this comment I made earlier:was it intelligent?


The people Karl Rove talks about were there in full force and that's where my major criticisms originate - that and a large number of people wearing Palin 2012 shirts. better than Che Guevara tee shirts..he was a mass murderer

ummm...that's only a portion of his statements, is it out of context?... and you didn't source it properly...practice what you preach:uhuh:

About the tea party movement...

Let me ask a question.

In Rhode Island, the number of participants at the Tax day Rally last yearand this years rally was estimated to roughly be the same. I'm not sure about Boston.

Does that have any significance (i.e. because there were not significantly more people there after a year as a 'movement')?

Not a dig at the tea party. Just curious what you guys think.

About the tea party movement...

Let me ask a question.

In Rhode Island, the number of participants at the Tax day Rally last yearand this years rally was estimated to roughly be the same. I'm not sure about Boston.

Does that have any significance (i.e. because there were not significantly more people there after a year as a 'movement')?

Not a dig at the tea party. Just curious what you guys think.

I think the movement is losing steam. People are feeling like they don't matter. They are being misrepresented and the media has portrayed them poorly. Bashing the Tea Party movement is the new "cool thing" to do if your on the left. Bush bashing is so 2009.

I think come election time, the true feelings of the American people will come out. People who support the Tea Party vote.

well, when the president spends his time impuning you and prodding you for reactions, and the former president is trying to link you to domestic terrorism and the media is misrepresenting you by highlighting whatever fringe element they can drum up, I suppose you become a bit wary as a loosely affiliated "member" of such a "movement"..bottom line, these are not pot smoking hippies that don't have jobs or need showers and can just hang around for days ...and they aren't Union rent-a-mobs that show up on a moments notice...they're average Americans, most who have never done this stuff before and would prefer to be working and taking care of their families but see very clearly where the country is headed and decided this is an outlet for their voices...it's a strange obsession with Palin, Tea Parties and the like for some...can't stomp them into the dirt enough...do you feel threatened ??? they can't affect your life, they aren't on your lawn with their crazy signs and hats...Obama is taking care of everything now, you have nothing to fear....just chant "hope and change" and leave poor Sarah and the Tea Baggers alone will ya? JD...I'm talking to YOU !

About the tea party movement...

Let me ask a question.

In Rhode Island, the number of participants at the Tax day Rally last yearand this years rally was estimated to roughly be the same. I'm not sure about Boston.

Does that have any significance (i.e. because there were not significantly more people there after a year as a 'movement')?

Not a dig at the tea party. Just curious what you guys think.

Why would there be more people at the Tax Day Rally? A majority of Tea Party participants believe the taxes that they pay is fair.


I think the movement is losing steam. People are feeling like they don't matter. They are being misrepresented and the media has portrayed them poorly. Bashing the Tea Party movement is the new "cool thing" to do if your on the left. Bush bashing is so 2009.

I think come election time, the true feelings of the American people will come out. People who support the Tea Party vote.

They aren't being misrepresented... they're portraying themselves poorly.

sarah palin will sink the effort

They are being misrepresented and the media has portrayed them poorly.
I love it, blame the media :jester:

I thought Republicans were the party of self responsibility?

-spence

They aren't being misrepresented... they're portraying themselves poorly.

That's like me saying everyone on StriperTalk are arrogant, know it all, Obama lovers because of a select few:biglaugh:

I love it, blame the media :jester:

I thought Republicans were the party of self responsibility?

-spence

How does being "self responsible" stop someone else from portraying you poorly?

How does being "self responsible" stop someone else from portraying you poorly?
Who proved they did?

-spence

Who proved they did?

-spence

Actually, you didn't answer my question.

Actually, you didn't answer my question.
Which was based on circular logic...

-spence

Which was based on circular logic...

-spence

My question was not based upon the discipline of logic, circular or otherwise. It was a simple query regarding your non-sequitur.

Buckman opined that the media portrayed the TEA PARTY movement poorly. Your response to that was that you thought REPUBLICANS were the party of "self-responsibility." I don't see the connection. Perhaps you are a victim of the media's "poor portrayal" of the tea party (or tea baggers as you refer to them--nice portrayal!) in that you equate the tea party with the Republican Party. So then, I suppose, in your estimation, the portrayal of the tea party also portrays the Republican Party. That is erroneous. Tea partiers are against Republican malfeasance as well as Democrat. But, I expect that sort of biased (centrist?) comment from you.

My question was, also, not based on that. I was merely wondering how being responsible for one's own actions can stop someone else from lying about you, or having and stating a biased, slanted, untrue view of you. The answer is, of course (since you're unable to answer a simple question--I will), YOU CAN'T.

My question was not based upon the discipline of logic, circular or otherwise. It was a simple query regarding your non-sequitur.

Buckman opined that the media portrayed the TEA PARTY movement poorly. Your response to that was that you thought REPUBLICANS were the party of "self-responsibility." I don't see the connection. Perhaps you are a victim of the media's "poor portrayal" of the tea party (or tea baggers as you refer to them--nice portrayal!) in that you equate the tea party with the Republican Party. So then, I suppose, in your estimation, the portrayal of the tea party also portrays the Republican Party. That is erroneous. Tea partiers are against Republican malfeasance as well as Democrat. But, I expect that sort of biased (centrist?) comment from you.

My question was, also, not based on that. I was merely wondering how being responsible for one's own actions can stop someone else from lying about you, or having and stating a biased, slanted, untrue view of you. The answer is, of course (since you're unable to answer a simple question--I will), YOU CAN'T.

it's sad that you actually had to explain this to him....funny that the narrow-minded sentiments being expressed toward this particular group, by some, rival the most vile and twisted thinking that you'd find expressed by committed racists, sexists and homophobes...a mindless disdain for a group based on little more than an opinion formed by observation from afar and irrrational ingrained biases.....these are the truly intolerant...the supporters of the Socialist Movement in this country who are feeling their power currently react with vengance to any opposition....from the president on down, this is the example being set ....nice huh?...70% of Arizonans want the problem of illegal aliens and crime and border issues to be rectified and Obama calls them and the legislation to deal with these problems misguided??? no, we have an angry misguided radical president who is at war with America, he leads a socialist movement at war with an American movement...if you want to be frightened by the fringe of a movement, take a close look at the fringe of Obama's movement...many are/were in or this administration or advise this president....the rhetoric, slurs, attacks and instances of violence from this president, congressional leaders, unions and the left wing minions on ordinary Americans are far worse than any sign, any tee shirt or event at any of the Tea Parties to date...but you would never know that from watching "the media", would ya Spence? and the tea parties have the audacity to speak out against this dictator..."THE ONE" and as such cannot be tolerated, must be crushed...

Why would there be more people at the Tax Day Rally? A majority of Tea Party participants believe the taxes that they pay is fair.

They aren't being misrepresented... they're portraying themselves poorly.

you keep making this claim JD...but I'm pretty sure you found this nugget in the NY Times poll and column posted earlier in the thread...if you read the link...this claim and supposition was based on a NY Times poll of 800 people that claimed to represent the tea party....you may as well have formed your opinion from a Pravda poll...:uhuh:

My question was not based upon the discipline of logic, circular or otherwise. It was a simple query regarding your non-sequitur.

Buckman opined that the media portrayed the TEA PARTY movement poorly. Your response to that was that you thought REPUBLICANS were the party of "self-responsibility." I don't see the connection. Perhaps you are a victim of the media's "poor portrayal" of the tea party (or tea baggers as you refer to them--nice portrayal!) in that you equate the tea party with the Republican Party. So then, I suppose, in your estimation, the portrayal of the tea party also portrays the Republican Party. That is erroneous. Tea partiers are against Republican malfeasance as well as Democrat. But, I expect that sort of biased (centrist?) comment from you.

My question was, also, not based on that. I was merely wondering how being responsible for one's own actions can stop someone else from lying about you, or having and stating a biased, slanted, untrue view of you. The answer is, of course (since you're unable to answer a simple question--I will), YOU CAN'T.
There is no non sequitur pointing out irony or hypocrisy. Your statement assumed a conclusion that the media has indeed portrayed the tea party poorly. This is an opinion and one I wouldn't share.

As to the Tea Party being Republicans. Every statistic I've seen indicates the VAST majority of those who claim association also vote Republican, poll like Republicans, have their events endorsed by Republicans and use Republicans as their celebrities. The Tea Party is indeed an off-shoot of the Republican party.

-spence

There is no non sequitur pointing out irony or hypocrisy. Your statement assumed a conclusion that the media has indeed portrayed the tea party poorly. This is an opinion and one I wouldn't share.

My question made no assumptions. (Quote:"How does being self responsible stop someone else from portraying you poorly?") I did not mention the tea party, Republicans, any person or group in particular. The question asked, for the umpteenth time, IN GENERAL how being self responsible stops someone else from portraying you poorly.

As far as the tea party goes, how does not acting in a homo-sexual manner stop others from referring to them as "tea baggers?" How does the VAST majority not acting in a racist manner stop others from accusing them of being racists? How does not blowing up things and not killing people stop others from calling them the next coming of Timothy McVeigh?

And as for how "the media" has portrayed the tea party--it depends on which "media". Some have portrayed them very favorably. Some, very negatively. Some neutraly.

As to the Tea Party being Republicans. Every statistic I've seen indicates the VAST majority of those who claim association also vote Republican, poll like Republicans, have their events endorsed by Republicans and use Republicans as their celebrities. The Tea Party is indeed an off-shoot of the Republican party.

-spence

The tea party and the Republican Party may have a lot in common, but they are not the same. Yes, it consists of many, most likely a majority of Republicans. It also contains many Libertarians and Democrats. It is not an off-shoot of the Republican party. If anything, the Republicans are trying to ride its coatails into the next election. Some have warned the tea partiers not to be co-opted by the GOP. I assume (and this, not my previous QUESTION, is and assumption) that tea partiers will vote for those who campaign in favor of their concerns. If that be Republicans, so be it. If Democrats cannot abide those concerns, then they will, as is always done in politics, marginalize, misrepresent, and in any way possible discredit the tea party movement.

My question made no assumptions. (Quote:"How does being self responsible stop someone else from portraying you poorly?") I did not mention the tea party, Republicans, any person or group in particular. The question asked, for the umpteenth time, IN GENERAL how being self responsible stops someone else from portraying you poorly.
Without context your question makes little sense. The response to Buck was clearly in context of both the Tea Party and Republicans.

As far as the tea party goes, how does not acting in a homo-sexual manner stop others from referring to them as "tea baggers?"
Members of the Tea Party themselves started using this name and that is news. Additionally, you can't blame anyone for enjoying the irony...at least just a bit :hihi:

How does the VAST majority not acting in a racist manner stop others from accusing them of being racists? How does not blowing up things and not killing people stop others from calling them the next coming of Timothy McVeigh?
There are certainly valid news stories of racial and violent language images being used in Tea Party protests. And it is the responsibility of the media to raise the question if this is pervasive in the movement, or if the movement's leadership is in fact enjoying or inciting this behavior.

Across the board the mainstream reporting on this issue has focused on the individuals and not white washed the entire movement like you have done above. Then again, when FOX News rants about some liberal blog posting, people seem to think that's a big story.

And as for how "the media" has portrayed the tea party--it depends on which "media". Some have portrayed them very favorably. Some, very negatively. Some neutraly.
It sounds like you're assessing the overall coverage as quite neutral overall. Good, the media should be neutral. Glad we can agree again.

tea party and the Republican Party may have a lot in common, but they are not the same. Yes, it consists of many, most likely a majority of Republicans. It also contains many Libertarians and Democrats. It is not an off-shoot of the Republican party. If anything, the Republicans are trying to ride its coatails into the next election. Some have warned the tea partiers not to be co-opted by the GOP. I assume (and this, not my previous QUESTION, is and assumption) that tea partiers will vote for those who campaign in favor of their concerns. If that be Republicans, so be it. If Democrats cannot abide those concerns, then they will, as is always done in politics, marginalize, misrepresent, and in any way possible discredit the tea party movement.
Keep Palin and Bachman on stage and the party will do plenty to discredit themselves.

The sad part is that close to election day voters will return to their party of choice, and for the vast majority of the Tea Party that will be the GOP.

-spence

I guess what is ironic and hypocritical here is that Spence, someone who routinely questions the intellecutal value of the statements of others, is continuing to defend what was a completely inane statement of his own.....:smash: and apparently does not recognize this...very entertaining:uhuh:

Without context your question makes little sense. The response to Buck was clearly in context of both the Tea Party and Republicans.

A question IN GENERAL applies to all contexts. Its intrinsic context is universal. My question can be applied to the "context" of a supposed irony that members of the Tea Party and the Republican Party, supposedly being "self responsible" should not "blame" (your accusatorial locution) the "media" for poorly portraying them. It is beyond irony to the point of being ridiculous to imply, as you did, that being "self responsible" either is supposed to somehow shield one from being poorly portrayed, or if one is, that one should not blame the portrayer but assume that being accused, since you're "self responsible" you are guilty.

There are certainly valid news stories of racial and violent language images being used in Tea Party protests. And it is the responsibility of the media to raise the question if this is pervasive in the movement, or if the movement's leadership is in fact enjoying or inciting this behavior.

So, since the "media" has loudly "raised the question" and has quietly not found racism and violence to be pervasive in the movement, I assume that we can dismiss such charges by various "media" pundits and Democrat politicians.

Across the board the mainstream reporting on this issue has focused on the individuals and not white washed the entire movement like you have done above.

What did I white wash the movement of?

Then again, when FOX News rants about some liberal blog posting, people seem to think that's a big story.

So, if the "media" talks about violent and racial "language" being used by "individuals" at tea party gatherings, that is "valid" news, but if FOX News talks about an individual blog posting, that is "ranting"?

It sounds like you're assessing the overall coverage as quite neutral overall. Good, the media should be neutral. Glad we can agree again.

I don't know if overall it is neutral. I, as probably most tea partiers are, am not concerned one way or the other.

Keep Palin and Bachman on stage and the party will do plenty to discredit themselves.

Discredit in what way?

The sad part is that close to election day voters will return to their party of choice, and for the vast majority of the Tea Party that will be the GOP.

-spence

Why is that, if true, sad?