Tempest in a tea party (a lengthy rant)

[gabosaurus]

I have been wondering about how various protests in the U.S. over the past few years have been met by the conservative media and their willing minions.

I remember back when untold thousands of people jammed the streets of major American cities, protesting what they felt was an illegal, immoral and unjust military action launched by the President of the United States, George W. Bush. There were also protests about the "Patriot Act," which many felt violated basic constitutional rights.
Conservative Republicans didn't like our protests too much. Felt it was an insult to an sitting Commander of Chief during war time. Thought that the Bushies has the right to do whatever they wanted, because what the White House decides is right. If we hate Bush, we hate the troops. Simple as that.
Bush was courageous in his vision, even though it cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Don't just hastily. Those who protested against his plans without giving them a chance to work were anti-American.

New York Mayor Ed Koch said this in 2007 (as quoted on this forum):


President George W. Bush, vilified by many, supported by some, is a hero to me.
Why do I say that? It's not because I agree with the president's domestic agenda. It's not because I think he's done a perfect job in the White House.
George Bush is a hero to me because he has courage.
The president does what he believes to be in the best interest of the United States. He sticks with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day.

Gaffer even made this post about the Dem's hateful attitude about Dubya:


The dem war cry is "We HATE BUSH!" As he is the only enemy and only threat in the world to them.


All that has changed now. The new U.S. President is proposing sweeping changes in health care and looking to shore up areas of the American infrastructure that were neglected or eliminated during the many years that Dubya only cared about overseas warfare.

But is Obama a bold visionary? Is he a "hero" who has courage? Is he being lauded for sticking with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day?
Not on your life.

If I made a post that said "The GOP war cry is "We HATE OBAMA!" As he is the only enemy and only threat in the world to them", I would be mocked and attacked from every end of this forum.

The last time there was an organized "Tea Party" in Orange County, I went. I wanted to hear what they had to say.
There were perhaps 100 or so people there. They made some speeches and passed out some literature. It was angry, but peaceful. No one showed up in opposition. I had no angry words for anyone.
The last time there was an organized anti-war rally in Los Angeles (directed at Bush, not the troops), about 150,000 people showed up. Including me. I posted about in on DP. People thought I was horrible. Someone posted about wanting to take a car and drive it into the protest group.

My question is -- If the anti-Bush rallies were a direct slap against the troops, since Bush is the Commander in Chief, why aren't the anti-Obama rallies also a direct slap against the troops?
After all, taxes fund the military. If you are protesting tax increases, you are against funding the military.

On DP or its predecessor, about three years back, someone posted a story where a marine sergeant is upset over protests against Bush:


When the President makes decisions, he makes them for all of us. I don’t want to bad-mouth the President at all. I mean, to me it’s treason.

I can relate that you don't want increased taxes. Trouble is, the country is run on taxes. You are all for taxes for some programs, but not others.
So who do we allow to decide how tax money is spent? Elected lawmakers!
Some of us didn't like increased military spending, religious programs and other goodies that the Bushies moved across. The conservative right said: "hey, tough squat! you lost, we're in the White House. we are making the decisions."

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. The Dems are in power and pushing through the programs that they want.
What are the conservative righties saying now? "let's protest! it's not right! we lost, but we still want to make the decisions!"

When 100,000 people went to the streets to protest against Bush, Limbaugh said it was insignificant. The people should shut up and obey their leader. After all, Bush is doing what is right for America.
When 100 people go to Tea Parties to protest against Obama, Limbaugh says it is significant. The people should speak out and disobey their leader. After all, Obama is doing what is wrong for America.

Must be nice to only have one way of thinking. The hypocritical way.

[stephanie]

I'll let someone with more patience than I respond to this..

the one thing I found that she said is right, is it is a rant...:laugh2:

[cat slave]

I have no comment....I found myself losing interest.....!

[namvet]

the instrument has yet to be invented to measure my total indifference to this

[Kathianne]

I'll play.


I have been wondering about how various protests in the U.S. over the past few years have been met by the conservative media and their willing minions.

I remember back when untold thousands of people jammed the streets of major American cities, protesting what they felt was an illegal, immoral and unjust military action launched by the President of the United States, George W. Bush. There were also protests about the "Patriot Act," which many felt violated basic constitutional rights. Yep, me too.

Conservative Republicans didn't like our protests too much. Felt it was an insult to an sitting Commander of Chief during war time. Thought that the Bushies has the right to do whatever they wanted, because what the White House decides is right. If we hate Bush, we hate the troops. Simple as that.
Bush was courageous in his vision, even though it cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Don't just hastily. Those who protested against his plans without giving them a chance to work were anti-American. Well since they were protesting the war and using the few bad apples to smear all, yeah. Really had little to do with Bush though. In fact if you think back, many of us had a problem with the strategy by early 2004.

New York Mayor Ed Koch said this in 2007 (as quoted on this forum):



Gaffer even made this post about the Dem's hateful attitude about Dubya:




All that has changed now. The new U.S. President is proposing sweeping changes in health care and looking to shore up areas of the American infrastructure that were neglected or eliminated during the many years that Dubya only cared about overseas warfare.Huh? Forgot social security? Med program? NCLB?

But is Obama a bold visionary? Is he a "hero" who has courage? Is he being lauded for sticking with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day? Not on your life. Funny, that seems to be what your post is about, no?

If I made a post that said "The GOP war cry is "We HATE OBAMA!" As he is the only enemy and only threat in the world to them", I would be mocked and attacked from every end of this forum. Actually I think you'd just be wrong. Seems to me that that yahoo in Venezuela and the other in NK, and the other in Iran, not too mention the Arabs...

The last time there was an organized "Tea Party" in Orange County, I went. I wanted to hear what they had to say. There were perhaps 100 or so people there. They made some speeches and passed out some literature. It was angry, but peaceful. No one showed up in opposition. I had no angry words for anyone.So you are saying that the tea party folks were not acting like an out-of-control mob? Shouldn't you pass that observation onto the WH flash desk? They are looking for the truth you know.

The last time there was an organized anti-war rally in Los Angeles (directed at Bush, not the troops), about 150,000 people showed up. Including me. I posted about in on DP. People thought I was horrible. Someone posted about wanting to take a car and drive it into the protest group. I don't remember that and you don't link, I would hope some would have said that was wrong, the idea of driving a car into any crowd.

My question is -- If the anti-Bush rallies were a direct slap against the troops, since Bush is the Commander in Chief, why aren't the anti-Obama rallies also a direct slap against the troops?Because the troops aren't at the root of the problem? D'oh.

After all, taxes fund the military. If you are protesting tax increases, you are against funding the military.And how many times have discussions about holding down or lowering taxes included the military in our discussions? Face it Gabby, it's health care that is bringing out the numbers and that has nothing to do directly with the military. False premise.

On DP or its predecessor, about three years back, someone posted a story where a marine sergeant is upset over protests against Bush:

I can relate that you don't want increased taxes. Trouble is, the country is run on taxes. You are all for taxes for some programs, but not others. Just like I'm for paying my mortgage, buying food, but avoiding too much credit card debt. Some things are more important than others. I can live without cable or DSL, I can't live without a roof and food.

So who do we allow to decide how tax money is spent? Elected lawmakers!
Some of us didn't like increased military spending, religious programs and other goodies that the Bushies moved across. The conservative right said: "hey, tough squat! you lost, we're in the White House. we are making the decisions."Actually they didn't. I'm not saying a nut or two might have posted something like that, we've had ijits that have brought your child into conversations, yet you know that is not 'most of us', not by a long shot. Neither did the administration for that matter, problem was the Democrats refused to work with him in any form. Notice the cross overs we are seeing for Obama?

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. The Dems are in power and pushing through the programs that they want. What are the conservative righties saying now? "let's protest! it's not right! we lost, but we still want to make the decisions!"Well in actuality it's not quite on the other foot. The Democrats have overwhelming control of House and more than majority in Senate.

Are you denying that people have the right to assemble? To speak freely? To protest to their elected representatives, whether they voted for them or not?

When 100,000 people went to the streets to protest against Bush, Limbaugh said it was insignificant. The people should shut up and obey their leader. After all, Bush is doing what is right for America.

When 100 people go to Tea Parties to protest against Obama, Limbaugh says it is significant. The people should speak out and disobey their leader. After all, Obama is doing what is wrong for America.

Must be nice to only have one way of thinking. The hypocritical way.Gabby it's sort of you that's being hypocritical. You obviously said that protesting is ok at the beginning. Now you are saying because Limbaugh said something, it's not? As for significance of the tea parties, it was the Democrats and many here that said they were of no import. I warned that the diversity would cause growth and now it's happened. That the administration has chosen to declare war on them, and escalate is hardly the fault of those that are trying to impact our system of government.

[Silver]

I have been wondering about how various protests in the U.S. over the past few years have been met by the conservative media and their willing minions.

I remember back when untold thousands of people jammed the streets of major American cities, protesting what they felt was an illegal, immoral and unjust military action launched by the President of the United States, George W. Bush. There were also protests about the "Patriot Act," which many felt violated basic constitutional rights.
Conservative Republicans didn't like our protests too much. Felt it was an insult to an sitting Commander of Chief during war time. Thought that the Bushies has the right to do whatever they wanted, because what the White House decides is right. If we hate Bush, we hate the troops. Simple as that.
Bush was courageous in his vision, even though it cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Don't just hastily. Those who protested against his plans without giving them a chance to work were anti-American.

Just to add to Kathianne's post....
The War was voted on by Congress. Bush didn't just start invading Iraq on a whim....Without the consent of some important Democrats that voted with Bush, the war would not have occurred, and thats just a fact...so the protests against Bush and ignoring the Dems that voted for the war is just so much hypocracy by the left....

The Patriot Act? What about it...we still have it...Obama supports it and has done nothing to rescind it...so wheres the big mouth pinhead lefties that felt it violated basic constitutional rights? They're quiet now right, why...? Obviously because they are hypocrits..... a Dem is in the White House so the protests have ended....

Wheres pinhead Cindy the anti-war nut now? Suddenly shes nowhere to be found....news coverage is non-existent..


New York Mayor Ed Koch said this in 2007 (as quoted on this forum):



Gaffer even made this post about the Dem's hateful attitude about Dubya:




All that has changed now. The new U.S. President is proposing sweeping changes in health care and looking to shore up areas of the American infrastructure that were neglected or eliminated during the many years that Dubya only cared about overseas warfare.

But is Obama a bold visionary? Is he a "hero" who has courage? Is he being lauded for sticking with his beliefs, no matter how intense the criticism and invective that are directed against him every day?
Not on your life.

A bold visionary? Bullshit,...he don't even know whats in the damn Obamacare bill and his partys leaders admit they do even care to read it....
All the lefties want is to ram it through before it can be read and understood and debated....


If I made a post that said "The GOP war cry is "We HATE OBAMA!" As he is the only enemy and only threat in the world to them", I would be mocked and attacked from every end of this forum.

There is no GOP warcry "We hate Obama"....thats only in your imagination...the hate came from lefties chanting how they hated Bush for 8 years....Bush was shown absolutely no respect at all and he never uttered a bad word about the Democrats or Obama, ever....


The last time there was an organized "Tea Party" in Orange County, I went. I wanted to hear what they had to say.
There were perhaps 100 or so people there. They made some speeches and passed out some literature. It was angry, but peaceful. No one showed up in opposition. I had no angry words for anyone.
The last time there was an organized anti-war rally in Los Angeles (directed at Bush, not the troops), about 150,000 people showed up. Including me. I posted about in on DP. People thought I was horrible. Someone posted about wanting to take a car and drive it into the protest group.

When was the last time a Senator got on the Senate floor and compared our troops to Nazies and the Gitmo internment camp akin to a Russian gulag?
Its YOUR DEMOCRATS thats bash the troops...NEVER, NEVER, a Conservative.......and...1 or 2 or 20 posters on here don't speak for the Conservatives or the Republicans...they speak for themselves....


My question is -- If the anti-Bush rallies were a direct slap against the troops, since Bush is the Commander in Chief, why aren't the anti-Obama rallies also a direct slap against the troops?
After all, taxes fund the military. If you are protesting tax increases, you are against funding the military.

At least you seem to recognize that when Bush was President, the "anti" bullshit from the left was solely personal, against Bush...not his policy...but against him personally..pure personal hated....

On DP or its predecessor, about three years back, someone posted a story where a marine sergeant is upset over protests against Bush:



I can relate that you don't want increased taxes. Trouble is, the country is run on taxes. You are all for taxes for some programs, but not others.
So who do we allow to decide how tax money is spent? Elected lawmakers!
Some of us didn't like increased military spending, religious programs and other goodies that the Bushies moved across. The conservative right said: "hey, tough squat! you lost, we're in the White House. we are making the decisions."

increased military spending, religious programs and other goodies that the Bushies moved across.?????

WTF are you talking about....the first and MOST IMPORTANT DUTY of any President is to protect the country and that obviously means a strong military...
and what the hell religious programs are you ranting about...what "goodies" were passed....?

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. The Dems are in power and pushing through the programs that they want.
What are the conservative righties saying now? "let's protest! it's not right! we lost, but we still want to make the decisions!"

You suddenly think we live in a dictatorship....? Sorry....Obama works for us...all of us, not just liberal, and not just Democrats....we all get to speak our minds in this country...or didn't you notice that little fact ....

When 100,000 people went to the streets to protest against Bush, Limbaugh said it was insignificant. The people should shut up and obey their leader. After all, Bush is doing what is right for America.
When 100 people go to Tea Parties to protest against Obama, Limbaugh says it is significant. The people should speak out and disobey their leader. After all, Obama is doing what is wrong for America.

Making up shit again? Who cares what Rush says, or any other entertainer for that matter....

Must be nice to only have one way of thinking. The hypocritical way.

You bet the hypocrites are plentiful....just look in the mirror, look at the MSM, look at the Obama administration....

[5stringJeff]

When 100,000 people went to the streets to protest against Bush, Limbaugh said it was insignificant. The people should shut up and obey their leader. After all, Bush is doing what is right for America.
When 100 people go to Tea Parties to protest against Obama, Limbaugh says it is significant. The people should speak out and disobey their leader. After all, Obama is doing what is wrong for America.

Must be nice to only have one way of thinking. The hypocritical way.

It was OK to protest Bush, and it's OK to protest Obama. Hell, if I ever had some free time, I'd go attend an "end the Fed" rally.

And I'll tell you, from personal experience, that it's more than 100 people attending Tea Party rallies. On April 15, I was at the rally in Atlanta. It was between 10,000 and 15,000 people, mostly with jobs, on a weeknight.

[Kathianne]

You bet the hypocrites are plentiful....just look in the mirror, look at the MSM, look at the Obama administration....

Better additions than the original. :thumb:

[gabosaurus]

Thanks to Kathianne, who took time to read my post thoroughly and not go off on any tangents.

I am totally for the right to protest. I took part in several myself. I support the right of anyone to protest anything they wish.
My point is the fact that the conservative media railed against the anti-Bush rallies with a vengeance. But they feel the tea party concept is revolutionary.
What rankles some of us is being labeled "anti-American" when we were exercising our right to protest. The ConReps were all over, telling us how we hated the troops and loved terrorism.
But, somehow, it is not anti-American when conservatives protest against the government. If you want Obama to fail, aren't you anti-American? Why do you hate our troops?

I don't agree with Kathianne's points, but I appreciate her taking the to make them. At least she didn't make up a lot of slanted bullshit with no basis in fact like some other lame-brained poster in this thread.
Take the whole "Dems voted for the war!" thing. Sure they did, after Bush made up the WMD crap, along with the outrageous claims that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Once the Dems figured out they had been lied to, they reversed their positions. And were labeled flip-floppers.
"Hey, we bullshitted you, now you are stuck with it!"
So why did so many people hate Bush? Besides being a habitual liar who started a war purely to settle a personal score? Or being a mass murderer who sacrificed the lives of over 4,000 Americans in order to get his way?
I have respect for Bush for being a good father and family man. But he was a lousy President with zero morals or ethics.

[namvet]

:bsflag::bsflag:

[stephanie]

Gabby, you're still not going to hang on to that old spiel, that the Dems didn't know what they voted for with Iraq, are you? that is a lie..we've shown proof here over and over how Clinton wanted to go to Iraq, but his cabinet didn't want to risk it, so Bush took it into his hands with the Dems. help..the only reason the Dems. turned on Bush afterwards was for political points...Please stop spreading this lie, because that is all it is...Bush didn't lie, you and the people who keep repeating is lying...
What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq's WMD ??

For several months, John Kerry and his peers have blasted President Bush over the Iraqi War. Interestingly, President Bush stated, simply, that there was a "grave danger" of Saddam Hussein acquiring and building "Nuclear Weapons and other WMDs" during "the next six months, at the time of the outbreak of war.

He later stated: "We all believed there were stockpiles, since we'd been lectured on the subject by the Clinton Administration for several years." To date, not a single Democrat has owned up to responsibility for the claims of "stockpiles", which were not what President Bush stated. We note that the Democrats rely upon the weakness of the memory of the American Public to cloud the issue over. They blame Bush for Democratic Party misrepresentations. ACSA believes the Democrats are trying to ride their own misrepresentations into the White House, we thought we'd publish what each one said, among a crowd of similar statements by ALL the Democrats, who are now accusing Bush of something he did not say and did not do... This dishonesty by the Democratic Party has seriously muddied the political process in the 2004 election.

Here's what the Democrats said about Iraq's WMDs (including the source of each quote):

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

[Insein]

Thanks to Kathianne, who took time to read my post thoroughly and not go off on any tangents.

I am totally for the right to protest. I took part in several myself. I support the right of anyone to protest anything they wish.
My point is the fact that the conservative media railed against the anti-Bush rallies with a vengeance. But they feel the tea party concept is revolutionary.
What rankles some of us is being labeled "anti-American" when we were exercising our right to protest. The ConReps were all over, telling us how we hated the troops and loved terrorism.
But, somehow, it is not anti-American when conservatives protest against the government. If you want Obama to fail, aren't you anti-American? Why do you hate our troops?

I don't agree with Kathianne's points, but I appreciate her taking the to make them. At least she didn't make up a lot of slanted bullshit with no basis in fact like some other lame-brained poster in this thread.
Take the whole "Dems voted for the war!" thing. Sure they did, after Bush made up the WMD crap, along with the outrageous claims that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Once the Dems figured out they had been lied to, they reversed their positions. And were labeled flip-floppers.
"Hey, we bullshitted you, now you are stuck with it!"
So why did so many people hate Bush? Besides being a habitual liar who started a war purely to settle a personal score? Or being a mass murderer who sacrificed the lives of over 4,000 Americans in order to get his way?
I have respect for Bush for being a good father and family man. But he was a lousy President with zero morals or ethics.

Conservative media rallied against the anti-BUSH rallys because they were just that. They were not anti-war or anti-Patriot Act. They were not anti-government or anti-policy. They were anti-Bush. They were rallys in protest of Bush the human being. People readily called for his death. He was hung, burned and worse in effigy. He was ridiculed for his intelligence and labeled as the devil incarnate.

These town halls are anti-healthcare plan. They do not hate Obama as a person. They are questioning his motives and his policies. There have been no open calls for his life. He has not been burned or hung in effigy. While some on the internet (this messageboard included) have called him the darklord or a demon, that hardly qualifies as conservative media.

For 8 years, Bush the person was put through the ringer by the media and the left. Now in 200 days, Obama gets criticized for his policies and the left is crying foul? That is the definition of hypocracy.

[stephanie]

And Gabby to this day still calls President Bush, shrub..

the little Marxist is not doing what is right for America..he is overriding the other party and the people who support them as if he is a dictator...

Bush had to have Bipartisanship with his bills, because he didn't have this super-majority that the Dems have now, and because they do, they believe they can just Ram and Crush over the people...

damn right we are pissed..

[namvet]

not all of us have that ring attached to our nose's

[Kathianne]

Thanks to Kathianne, who took time to read my post thoroughly and not go off on any tangents.

I am totally for the right to protest. I took part in several myself. I support the right of anyone to protest anything they wish.
My point is the fact that the conservative media railed against the anti-Bush rallies with a vengeance. But they feel the tea party concept is revolutionary.
What rankles some of us is being labeled "anti-American" when we were exercising our right to protest. The ConReps were all over, telling us how we hated the troops and loved terrorism.
But, somehow, it is not anti-American when conservatives protest against the government. If you want Obama to fail, aren't you anti-American? Why do you hate our troops?

I don't agree with Kathianne's points, but I appreciate her taking the to make them. At least she didn't make up a lot of slanted bullshit with no basis in fact like some other lame-brained poster in this thread.
Take the whole "Dems voted for the war!" thing. Sure they did, after Bush made up the WMD crap, along with the outrageous claims that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Once the Dems figured out they had been lied to, they reversed their positions. And were labeled flip-floppers.
"Hey, we bullshitted you, now you are stuck with it!"
So why did so many people hate Bush? Besides being a habitual liar who started a war purely to settle a personal score? Or being a mass murderer who sacrificed the lives of over 4,000 Americans in order to get his way?
I have respect for Bush for being a good father and family man. But he was a lousy President with zero morals or ethics.
Gabs, I'd like to know what you didn't agree with. ;)

[Little-Acorn]

I have been wondering about how various protests in the U.S. over the past few years have been met by the conservative media

Not much point in reading further than that, when the writer/ranter is that buried in her own rose-colored world......

[Silver]

Thanks to Kathianne, who took time to read my post thoroughly and not go off on any tangents.

I am totally for the right to protest. I took part in several myself. I support the right of anyone to protest anything they wish.
My point is the fact that the conservative media railed against the anti-Bush rallies with a vengeance. But they feel the tea party concept is revolutionary.
What rankles some of us is being labeled "anti-American" when we were exercising our right to protest. The ConReps were all over, telling us how we hated the troops and loved terrorism.
But, somehow, it is not anti-American when conservatives protest against the government. If you want Obama to fail, aren't you anti-American? Why do you hate our troops?

I don't agree with Kathianne's points, but I appreciate her taking the to make them. At least she didn't make up a lot of slanted bullshit with no basis in fact like some other lame-brained poster in this thread.
Take the whole "Dems voted for the war!" thing. Sure they did, after Bush made up the WMD crap, along with the outrageous claims that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Once the Dems figured out they had been lied to, they reversed their positions. And were labeled flip-floppers.


Thats unbelievable....absolutely unbelievable....
This...this MORON is trying to tell us the Democrats voted for the Iraq War Resolution because the poor lefties bought the outrageous claims that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks? Are you serious...are you even sane????
And WMD....really ...do we need to post the infamous Dem Quotes over and over again and again...will the truth even penetrate you thick ape-like skull?????


"Hey, we bullshitted you, now you are stuck with it!"
So why did so many people hate Bush? Besides being a habitual liar who started a war purely to settle a personal score? Or being a mass murderer who sacrificed the lives of over 4,000 Americans in order to get his way?
I have respect for Bush for being a good father and family man. But he was a lousy President with zero morals or ethics..

Why try to teach a Democrat moron ... its useless....

[gabosaurus]

Even more proof that you can't argue with idiots who have already made up their minds.
Go read your history. The unrevised one.

[stephanie]

Even more proof that you can't argue with idiots who have already made up their minds.
Go read your history. The unrevised one.


sigh, you need to read about our history Gabby..most of us here have lived it..

[SassyLady]

The basic difference with these protests Gabby is the majority of the people have never participated in any type of public protest before and that is what has the politicians and media absolutely baffled. The silent majority is no longer and we will be heard and felt.

My new motto is "never vote for an incumbent again", therefore, we won't have career politicians ...... show them that we expect them to go to Washington and do their job which is not to be perpetually campaigning!!!

[stephanie]

I am so sick of all the career Politicians both Democrats and Republican, I demand we put term limits on them..they have come to believe that only they know what is best for us, and that we work for them...

throw all the sobs out..where's my pitchfork..

[Mr. P]

The basic difference with these protests Gabby is the majority of the people have never participated in any type of public protest before and that is what has the politicians and media absolutely baffled. The silent majority is no longer and we will be heard and felt.

My new motto is "never vote for an incumbent again", therefore, we won't have career politicians ...... show them that we expect them to go to Washington and do their job which is not to be perpetually campaigning!!!

That is exactly what's going on! Baffled is an understatement though. I think they're SHOCKED, they thought they had a mandate, it's apparent to them now that they didn't. I don't see the "silent" majority sitting-out the coming elections as they have in the past.