Last week I stumbled across a gathering of Tea-Baggers on the streets of Eugene.
I didn’t bother to stay too long, but here is some quick photo coverage of the event.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 22nd, 2010 at 15:10 by Kiefer and is filed under City, Crazy, Eugene, Fiscal Responsibility, Miscellaneous, Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
You’re in point of fact a just right webmaster. The site loading velocity is amazing. It kind of feels that you’re doing any distinctive trick. In addition, The contents are masterwork. you’ve done a fantastic task in this subject!
Malkin is correct to cite Mexican law, I guess. Other than that, the subtext to her article is bunk. As I said already, it’s just an argument of ideological convenience.
Justifying AZ’s law because country X (in this case Mexico) has harsher laws on the issue.
This is an endless exercise. Ironically, it could also be used to support Obama (which Malkin does not every do). That is, as ‘bad, terrible, fascist, commie, or whatever’, Obama is made out to be, a Malkinesque liberal could just point to someone like Pol Pot, Stalin, or someone else like that and justify Obama’s policies by comparing them to examples that are ‘worse’.
Dr.X: Usually start my day with warm fuzzies in our own Register-Guard, and then Reuters or the BBC online. Those will be my springboard to updates and opinion pieces on the national and international net, likely including Google and Yahoo.
Ran into the Malkin piece by coincidence while following the Arizona debate. Given her comments, I suspect she would be considered “on the fringe of the right” if one’s perspective were that of the fringe on the left. The issue is whether she’s correct.
C.T. Behemoth: Gotcha. You’re not a big fan of Michelle Malkin. Don’t forget your passport next time you cross the border. 🙂
I’ve never heard Michelle Malkin say anything intelligent. Same goes for her writing.
I’ve got nothing against her, per se, but her journalism is terrible.
As for the ‘how Mexico treats illegal aliens’ argument, this is just a lame attempt to justify our actions (or AZ’s in this case) by comparing them to something worse. You heard it all of the time when it came to Iraq (“We’re better than Saddam!”). It’s just moral gymnastics of ideological convenience; although, I will admit that the ploy does work with a lot of people.
“Hey, dont’ get mad at me! Look at him, he’s eating his own feces…I’m only eating my boogers with my thumb up my butt…it’s not nearly as bad”.
It’s no…big…deal! See? : )
So we know that Michelle Malkin is one of your new sources. Beyond being extremely hot, isn’t Michelle kind of on the fringe of the right? In any event, that got be wondering about your comment: “I’ll keep following hte news. Just hoping you’re not getting yours all in one place.” I start ever day at news.google.com, probably the most news in one place on the web. What are some of your news sources of choice? Not a trick question, just interested as someone who is a news junkie.
Watched the clip. Did you read my response/last post? If you’re interested in favorite fascist moments, consider the possibilities in a galaxy not far away:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/04/28/police-state-how-mexico-treats-illegal-aliens/
did you watch the clip? Does “show me your papers” bring to mind any favorite fascist moments?
I’ve already agreed the Arizona law is problematic, dr.x, but where’s the Nazi Germany comparison coming from?
Over 300 million Americans of all flavors are required to show their passports when entering other countries or reentering their own. There are also documents like green cards and visas. Ironically, just yesterday a middle-aged white male complained to me about being hassled by border security while hoping to enter Mexico “por una cervesa.” Same routine on returning. His wife, who held a green card, had an easier time than he did.
I’ll keep following the news. Just hoping you’re not getting yours all in one place.
Well, Captain Adventure, we’re both in the same boat, then. There’s no way to avoid death and taxes, so you just keep working harder until you can afford that new car or a home. That’s what I did and Bush didn’t help me to do it. I wish I’d had that tax credit for both, let me tell you.
And Java, if you’ve been following the news, there has already been at least one case of a citizen being detained because he didn’t have his papers. What are we, in Nazi Germany? On YouTube, search: “AZ Immigration Law Already Backfiring” just in case this link is disabled by the forum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6AradppFx4&playnext_from=TL&videos=vZOlXnwiwGM
man what is yo facebook page?
Also,
* I earn too much to take the earned income tax credit, which is not difficult to do, btw
* Don’t have kids
* Can’t be bought off by $400
* Kept my job
* A tuition credit has been around in one form or another for at least a decade
* Can’t afford to buy a home
* Didn’t buy a new car
* Don’t have a home to make energy efficient
So i guess he really didn’t do a whole lot for me…
Ummmm… Wow
You guys are confusing tax credits with tax cuts. There’s a difference, I suggest you look it up.
An expansion of tax credits is not the same thing as a tax cut.
And C.T. Behemoth, really, if you read the news you are already familiar with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.
Or maybe you have a misunderstatnding of what the term “maximize tax revenue” means.
I dunno, but it’s a waste of my time to find out.
Glad you got a laugh, dr.x, and extra points for the list of Presidential accomplishments.
As for the new law in Arizona, I’m for doing the right thing. (See the U.S. Constitution.) Unfortunately, your question is based on a biased oversimplification. If this state law does nothing more than pick on people for their ( you did mean ethnic, right?) appearance, expect court challenges.
Whether the law itself is a success, or whether it gives impetus to genuine immigration reform, the people of Arizona made their frustrations known at the ballot box.
Here’s what your president has done for you so far Captain Adventure:
The credits included:
*An increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit
*An expansion of the Child Tax Credit
*For those who work, the Making Work Pay tax credit offered $400 per individual and $800 per couple
*For those who lost their job, there was a 65 percent tax credit to help cover the cost of health care. The first $2,400 in unemployment benefits went tax-free
*Up to $2,500 under the American Opportunity Credit for students and parents paying for college tuition
*$8,000 for first-time home buyers
*A deduction of state and local taxes paid on a new car
*Up to $1,500 for home improvements to increase energy efficiency
I’ve seen first hand how these tax breaks have helped people get by during the recession.
94.3 percent of workers receive a tax cut under Obama’s plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. You don’t get a tax cut if you are a couple making over $250,000 or are single and making over $200,000.
The key here is that ‘working’ families do indeed get a tax cut. Obama didn’t quite get the amounts he wanted ($500/$1000), but it was close at $400 for singles, $800 for couples.
The only tax increase I can find is a federal tax on cigarettes. Vice taxes are pretty common though, and while you can argue their discriminatory nature, everyone is raising them…not just Obama.
Perhaps you can show how Obama is going to maximize tax revenue? That might help people understand your position, which is currently between reality and speculation…closer to speculation.
How has Obama cut taxes?
If one watches the legislation he and his party have passed,are trying to pass, or looking to introduce indicates that for all intents and purposes they are preparing to maximize tax revenue.
hahaha. You’re a riot, Java. So on a related note, are you for or against the new Arizona legislation that allows police to require anyone who looks like an immigrant to show their “papers?”
Poor Dan.
Is that the best you can muster? Ad hominem?
The “Tea Party” doesn’t exist. It’s a misnomer on top of that. That’s why you can have such a huge spectrum of interaction, from ingnoramus racist to good people acting on bad information. It’s just a huge umbrella label. The statistics about this group are revealing though, and they often argue about things they obviously don’t understand (or have no good information on).
Uh, dr. x, tea comes in various strengths, depending on how long you let it steep in hot water. Generalized and demeaning labeling of a groups which peaceably assemble has negative merit at best.
Fact: While checking out the local Tea Party, those people who interacted with me politely listed to my views.
Fact: Partyers seemed more positive about their agenda than angry.
Fact: Partyers were white – and they did seem to love Sarah Palin.
Fact: If you go looking for hate, it’ll find you.
The so-called Tea Party is a loose affiliation of angry white people who hate Obama, immigrants, and government social welfare programs. That’s about the only thing they can agree on. That, and they love Sarah Palin.
Demonizing the president is nothing original. Lacking diversity is an irrelevant side issue. For my money the biggest problem with the Tea Party is the lack of a coherent message.
Taxed Enough Already? Obama has lowered taxes, and there no plans in the near future to raise taxes. The deficit? Yeah, that couples really well with concern about high taxes. The bank bailouts? Even as unpopular as they are now, most serious commentators believe they pulled us from the brink of a much more severe depression. And why doesn’t opposition to the bailouts translate to supporting financial reform?
I don’t think there’s a coherent policy argument behind the Tea Party. Rather, it’s motivated by a vague, emotionally-based feeling that the country is being run into the ground, exacerbated by the sense Obama does not share their conservative views about the size of government.
Dr. X: There are no traditional leaders for the Tea Party. If you actually paid atttention, most of the people you mentioned are attached to the Tea Parties as “leaders” by members of the media. Sure, they’re involved with the tea parties, but that doesn’t mean they’re actually “leading”.
C.T. Behemoth: Actually, it’s a perfect analogy. You just don’t like it because it takes away your ability to launch pogroms against the Tea Party. That is, unless you think the Anti-War people were a bunch of idiots (which they were), then you could theoretically move in with the insult of the tea party people, to which you would then be backhanded with the fact that a majority of the tea party people are not idiots, and are in fact both educated and true working-class folk.
The problem is that the people who comment on this blog, myself and a few others excluded, seem to want to demonize the tea parties for actually doing something…when we all know that those who are commenting are probably pretty proud of being lazy pot smokers with relatively no life.
Yeah, that was a very confused response. Are you saying that the recognized Tea Party leaders should not be seen as representing the movement? Then what kind of movement is it? Who are its leaders?
War kills people.
Taxes cost people money.
Your moral compass is broken. These issues shouldn’t really be seen as logical equivalents.
(Tea Party = War Protesters) = False Equivalency
Nice try though!!
Well, Dr. X, you do need to take a look at the other side of the coin: The war protesters back in 2006-2008.
You had Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Gore Vidal, Ed Schultz, et al demonizing Bush like you wouldn’t believe and raising the general level of fear and paranoia about the impending takeover of the neocons. The Old Media is their outpost.
If you’re gonna bemoan the Tea Party people, then you need to do the same for the Bush Bashers way back when. Because it’s the same thing.
I don’t think all of the Tea Party’s concerns are a joke (taxes clearly are serious business, though ironically, under Obama we’ve seen taxes cut). Here’s why I think the movement as a whole is a joke. Look who is leading the Tea Party: Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Sean Hannity, et al. They are demonizing Obama like you wouldn’t believe and raising the general level of fear and paranoia about the impending takeover of the communists. The Fox News Channel is their outpost. They are generally not racially diverse or aware of a world outside of the white (and occasionally black) middle class. They don’t show any interest in hearing both sides of a story and so they are still peddling old, outdated, disproved stories about Obama, healthcare, immigration, and so forth.
If they want to call the Tea Party people “Tea-baggers”, then let them. It’ll just fall back on them later, especially since the Tea Party folks are actually adopting that nickname as their own.
Frankly, “tea-bagging” is no longer a pogrom. It is now a part of the common vernacular, with no help from the media of course.
@ dr. x:
I am not a member of the Tea Party but, why are they a joke?
@OC:
I can understand the OC not supporting the Tea Party, but why does this publication have to degrade the movement. I mean, “Tea Bagger?” Really? It’s not even funny. Clearly this publication has a lot in common with the Tea Party’s concern. I am obviously referring to a less invasive government and lower taxes for all.
I guess what I’m saying is, if this publication is making a mockery of the Tea Party’s view points, what does that say about your own?
these guys are a joke
Y’all should interview some Tea Party members about their opinions on big government, taxation, and marijuana.