Gutfeld went off again last night. good shit. I guess from all the "rallies" (i.e. protests, there was only 1 arrest).
It would seem to me (speaking hypothetically of course because I've never actually participated in a teabagging in any way) that the one doing the teabagging isn't the one who would difficulty speaking. Maybe Anderson Cooper prefers to be the teabaggee?
I suppose that either person could be "tea bagging," but the whole thing is obscene. No wonder no one watches MSNBC. It's like a frathouse.
If there were a gay rights rally that they referred to as a "Tea Party" and ANYONE referred to them as "teabaggers", those news organizations would be called every name in the book by MSNBC and CNN. I guess the double standard is alive and well.
What bothered me was the disdain with which these people were treated by a supposedly unbiased media. I guess in 2009 America, some animals are more equal than others.
The interesting thing here is, there were groups of protesters that the more conservative news outlets (FOX news, and the guests on their shows), treated like they were unAmerican because they didn't agree with a more conservative mindset. I don't recall many people on the right being all that upset about it. While I do like what Lawrence (I forgot if that is his first name or last name) was pointing out that the people who are complaining about the taxes are most likely to pay less under Obama's plan and they're bitching about the Bush current tax structure, it was lost in the initial "haha, I came up with 3 different ways to say penis on TV" work of Shuster. Lawrence at didn't (at least, in that clip) resort to childish comments. I personally don't watch it when Shuster hosts (although I haven't actually watched Countdown in about 4 months now). He's just a 4th rate host. He's the same guy who did the "the Clintons are prostituting" (or whatever it was) Chelsea comment. Had that been someone on Fox (or CNN), I'm sure MSNBC would've called for his resignation, etc. Even if you agree'd with it (as I did, actually. They were using her, and acted like she was off limits for questions), it wasn't a smart thing to say on the air.
This is what I don't get. Why does it matter if you're going to pay less in taxes? Why does it matter if some local jurisdiction is going to get "stimulus" money that may benefit you in some way? The country--already spending at an unsustainable pace--is going even more deeply into debt, and it's debt that my generation can't hope to begin to pay off. Instead, we leave it for our kids. Frankly, I have a tough time looking at my son and telling him he's responsible for making sure my life is easier at the expense of making him poorer. Government does too many things and only does a couple of them well. They are dramatically more inefficient than the private sector and once the Government starts a program, good luck trying to end it. Yet, this is the model we're going to use going forward? It's about freedom and liberty, and the Federal Government is encroaching dangerously on both.
You're right in saying you don't get it. The debt is already there. To put it simply, you saved money in the bank for your son's food and clothing for the next few decades. Banker Bush stole it. Assuming you don't plan on letting him starve or die from exposure, you will have to replace that which Bush stole from you/your son's future care. Banker Obama, who had nothing to do with this theft, has arranged the financing so your son will not die. If you blame Banker Obama for the debt, you are either a very confused individual, or an ungrateful ass.
Because those are the same people that would complain to the mountains if he dare raised their taxes to help pay for the huge debt the previous president left us. You think they'll happily do that, because they're worried about the country going into huge debt? They'd be calling him a "tax and spend liberal" and that he's "stealing their money" and wish that he'd cut their taxes. And god forbid they realize that this is them cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Besides spending money, what do they do well?
You think they'll happily do that, because they're worried about the country going into huge debt? They'd be calling him a "tax and spend liberal" and that he's "stealing their money" and wish that he'd cut their taxes. Again, the outrage wasn't against a dramatic increase in taxes, but rather a dramatic increase in the role of government, which will result in a necessary increase in taxes for EVERYONE over the long term. It blows my mind that people can't do the simple math to see that only the people making over $250K can't possibly pay for these programs. It's going to mean higher taxes for everyone, not just the "rich". I don't pretend to speak for those people (and neither should you), but I would be HIGHLY receptive to a presidential candidate who ran on limiting government, making it more efficient and raising taxes to set up a payment plan for our National debt. Implicit in that agreement is that when the debt was paid off, my taxes would decrease. How so? Because you believe that President Obama is really working in their best interests by massively increasing the size and scope of government? National defense.
my impression of people in this thread: "waah, they downt wike out twea pawties." it's a stupid fucking idea. get over it.
So you believe that peaceful demonstrations are a bad idea? That we should idly accept whatever government tells us to do? Well, it's an opinion.
When a gay rights protest gets covered by Fox news, they should just flat out call them silly AIDS infested homos and we will see what the liberals think. This better not be edited. If it is, I guarantee the Blazers will lose due to bad Karma. Don't do it.
