Register to leave a comment, or log in if you already have an account
bxgrl, if that were true my coworker would not have bragged to me the day after she marched in some protest, “I even got to carry the ‘Fuck Bush’ sign!” Speaking out about Bush was not some Underground Remnant activity, it was just normal.
Park Sloper, I’m middle of the road but free speech is free speech. I see it every day in my job, people trying to tell others what they can and can’t know, read, or hear. It’s politically motivated and misinformed a lot of the time, and I don’t like it.
“Maybe if people were more specific as to what they object to in the Tea Party’s agenda it would be easier to have a discussion. Lower taxes? Opposition to cap & trade? Opposition to the stimulus program? Reduction in growth of govt spending?”
Great questions etson. I’ve been asking people for their specific objections for weeks, but all anyone seems to manage are schoolyard insults. Poor nokilissa almost blogacided when I asked her to back up her insults with substantive discussion.
When I first started posting, I had the poor judgement to interrupt an “avuncular” ass kicking session by Denton to Rob. Everybody “knew” that it was a loving ass kicking except me. Taught ME a lesson. 🙂
Maybe if people were more specific as to what they object to in the Tea Party’s agenda it would be easier to have a discussion.
Lower taxes? Opposition to cap & trade? Opposition to the stimulus program? Reduction in growth of govt spending?
I think anyone who claims the left doesn’t beleive in freedom of speech has forgotten how difficult it was to speak out under the Bush administration without getting blasted. If you didn’t toe the Bush/Patriot line you were unAmerican. The only reason the right is supposedly stepping up now to argue (arguably) for freedom of speech is because they have the need to bash everyone who doesn’t buy into their agenda, and it is politically expedient. Hardly the champions of constitutional rights- unless it’s those that benefit them.
DIBS — I have to disagree about accuracy of association with original tea party. Colonists could not elect representatives to English parliament, which imposed the tea duties. Here, tea party folks are complaining about the acts of their own elected representatives. The issue than was a right to self-government and the arbitrary exercise of power of a parliament over which they had no control. One could not be a tea party candidate for parliament in colonial Boston. And it wasn’t really a tax per se that they objected to when they threw the tea into the harbor, but parliament’s enforced imposition of a trading monopoly for BEIC. Colonists did not like being forced to overpay for tea or to be prohibited from trading, for example, with the Dutch. Parliament was effectively telling Boston it had to buy tea and it had to buy it from BEIC. Not an issue of overtaxation or government spending at all.
bxgrl, if that were true my coworker would not have bragged to me the day after she marched in some protest, “I even got to carry the ‘Fuck Bush’ sign!” Speaking out about Bush was not some Underground Remnant activity, it was just normal.
Park Sloper, I’m middle of the road but free speech is free speech. I see it every day in my job, people trying to tell others what they can and can’t know, read, or hear. It’s politically motivated and misinformed a lot of the time, and I don’t like it.
“Maybe if people were more specific as to what they object to in the Tea Party’s agenda it would be easier to have a discussion. Lower taxes? Opposition to cap & trade? Opposition to the stimulus program? Reduction in growth of govt spending?”
Great questions etson. I’ve been asking people for their specific objections for weeks, but all anyone seems to manage are schoolyard insults. Poor nokilissa almost blogacided when I asked her to back up her insults with substantive discussion.
When I first started posting, I had the poor judgement to interrupt an “avuncular” ass kicking session by Denton to Rob. Everybody “knew” that it was a loving ass kicking except me. Taught ME a lesson. 🙂
dibs- what cmu said.
Q.E.D.- yes. Your posts are absolutely Q.E.D.
Maybe if people were more specific as to what they object to in the Tea Party’s agenda it would be easier to have a discussion.
Lower taxes? Opposition to cap & trade? Opposition to the stimulus program? Reduction in growth of govt spending?
You’re getting better with the insults cmu. Is someone helping you?
I think anyone who claims the left doesn’t beleive in freedom of speech has forgotten how difficult it was to speak out under the Bush administration without getting blasted. If you didn’t toe the Bush/Patriot line you were unAmerican. The only reason the right is supposedly stepping up now to argue (arguably) for freedom of speech is because they have the need to bash everyone who doesn’t buy into their agenda, and it is politically expedient. Hardly the champions of constitutional rights- unless it’s those that benefit them.
DIBS — I have to disagree about accuracy of association with original tea party. Colonists could not elect representatives to English parliament, which imposed the tea duties. Here, tea party folks are complaining about the acts of their own elected representatives. The issue than was a right to self-government and the arbitrary exercise of power of a parliament over which they had no control. One could not be a tea party candidate for parliament in colonial Boston. And it wasn’t really a tax per se that they objected to when they threw the tea into the harbor, but parliament’s enforced imposition of a trading monopoly for BEIC. Colonists did not like being forced to overpay for tea or to be prohibited from trading, for example, with the Dutch. Parliament was effectively telling Boston it had to buy tea and it had to buy it from BEIC. Not an issue of overtaxation or government spending at all.
Oh boy, here we go: dave, jester and lechacal showing their true Ann-Coulterish-win-arguments-with-insults-and-lies colors.