Massachusetts Tea Party canceled after inclusion of homophobic group

Re: Massachusetts Tea Party canceled after inclusion of homophonic group

The size of the tea party here has to be tiny xD . Not only are we one of the most liberal states, but I have never even encountered someone in Eastern Mass (where the majority of the population lives) who shares the same ideology of the tea party.

And I live 2 miles away from Lexington.

 

Re: Massachusetts Tea Party canceled after inclusion of homophonic group

Homo...phonic group?

"WE SPEAK HOMO >:O"

 

Re: Massachusetts Tea Party canceled after inclusion of homophonic group

I didn't even know there was a large enough tea party supporters to even put a rally together here lol.

 

Re: Massachusetts Tea Party canceled after inclusion of homophonic group

Eh..I know I will get blasted for this...but I am am sort of a tea partier.
Sorry, but the current government has simply gotten out of hand. It is called the arrogance of the majority. The Republicans did the same thing during their last years in power.
Nothing would make me happier than the Speaker losing her Speakership...she has no concept of reality in my opinion.
The thinking that the majority wants to increase taxes, on ANYONE (regardless if you make 30K or 30MM a year when the economy is as unstable as it is..well that's beyond me)
Thus far, Obama has been just a big of a disaster as G.W. Bush (2nd term) in my opinion.

Even though I'm a Repub...I do think the country works better when there is a divided government (meaning one party controls the White House and another controls Congress).

Tea Partier's are not racist or homophobic...most are just average Joe's and Jane's that have finally had enough. Granted, there are kooks in every political movement...and, sadly, those are the ones that get the most attention.

For example, my dad (who never gets involved in politics, hates and despises politics) went to a tea party rally...I would hardly call him a radical, lol.

Just my perspective

 

^ You shouldn't get blasted for having your own opinion.

 

Re: Massachusetts Tea Party canceled after inclusion of homophonic group

the problem is that the tea partiers are basically advocating for all the policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

I commend the politician for taking a stand and pulling out of the rally. Honestly, I suspect that outside of the hate group, like oregon, being a republican in mass doesnt mean the same thing it does in the deep south, or places like arizona.

We should be celebrating this republican politician, not the tea party, which is nothing new, just the republican party pretending to profress something new that is infact the very things that destoryed our econamy, and screwed us socially.

 

Re: Massachusetts Tea Party canceled after inclusion of homophonic group

There were a lot of Tea Partiers when Sarah Palin came to the Boston Commons to speak this spring. It was a big event and there were protesters for it as well.

But props to Eric Dahlberg, whom my roommate works with, for pulling out when he saw that MassResistance was speaking. I would definitely say they are a hate group because they enlist people to illegally take pictures of people (minors included) so they can post them on the Internet to go along with the extremely skewed and twisted articles that they write.

I can hardly think of a situation where the majority ever really wants to increase taxes. The problem is that if you start to cut taxes then you also are going to have to cut the budgets of government programs which is something that is undesirable.

I admit that I haven't kept up with the Tea Party's plans, but I don't believe that they've really spelled out how they plan on keeping it all together and lowering taxes. It seems kind of irresponsible to just say they'll lower taxes without vocalizing all the budget cuts they'll have to make.

 

the tea partiers I have talked to want to chop up the goverment and sell it off to the higest bidder.

basically, that ammounts to giving further control over the american econamy to the fianacial industry *in the case of privitizing social security, which tea party cannidates seem to push for alot* which got greedy and corrupt after deregulation by the republicans, and bankrupted the america econamy, and sent the world into a economic collapse.

It is not about small goverment, which is dangerous in its own right. You cant privitize everything, because history has proven that coorporations will never truly care about anything but the profits they can get. The republicans are paid to want small goverment by big coorporations who know that if they can get those assets, they can further manipulate the system in their favor.

What we need is goverment that has oversight placed on it to ensure that it is working smoothly, and for the benifit of the people.

The problem is, is that the people in power, republican and democrat, dont want oversight. republicans believe everything should be left to the coorporations, and democrats believe that the system is fine, when it is not.

the thing is though, we are doing a heck of alot better right now than we were three-four years ago under the republicans. the big problem in goverment is that republicans are blocking any and all attempts to further support the american people, and further stimulate jobs.

they lie through their teeth when they are on the news shows saying the stimulus *started, oddly enough, by bush* is not working... then head home to their constitutiants to praise all the stimulus money being used to create jobs in their areas, and fund needed projects.

They declare unemployeed people to be lazy moochers.

that is what the tea party, and the right is representing. a anti-middle class, pro coorporate facisem movement that seeks to renact all the policies and agendas reponsible for economic collapse.

 

"The Republicans are blocking any and all attempts to further support the the American people, and further stimulate jobs"
The flaw I see in your argument is this: have you recently checked who runs Congress? At this point the Republicans are nothing more than a side show...they have no votes in the House to do anything, and they do not control the Senate....so how could they block anything?
And what programs are you talking about? Just curious.
And, the policies that were the genesis of this current situation started during the mid 90's under the Clinton Administration. In Bush's Executive Budget in FY2001 he actually called for the halting of the liberal lending policies of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which oddly enough were exempt from the recent financial reform bill that was just signed into law).
The economic problems we face now are not the cause of one specific person or policy, but rather a combo of several different factors.

Some do want to dismantle the government yes. They are idiots. But like I said, there are kooks in every political movement. They need to be reminded of what was said in the Federalist Papers: "The only thing more dangerous than too big of a government, is too little of a government".

sadly it all comes down to this in modern politics: the Republicans are dominated by the scum of the business world. The Democrats are dominated by the scum of the political world. Me? I'll take a businessman any day of the week....at least they will steal from you directly instead of sending the IRS to do it for them.

 

Yeah... this is why I'm an independent. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, etc. warned us all of staying away from political parties, and that it would lead to the demise of the country. I put a whole lot more faith in them than I do a Republican or Democrat.

 

True to that...but remember it was some of our Founding Fathers that led to the creation of political parties...namely Jefferson and Hamilton. I guess the invention of modern political parties can be traced back to them.

 

I think Washington and Adams (Maybe) were the only Presidents to actually stick to their word and stay away from Political Parties. They went away from Politics to do what was best for the country.

 

It was really just Washington, I think. I'm pretty sure Adams and Jefferson feuded forever after that. Until they both died on the same day, July 4th 1826 xD While I'm sure Adams didn't want to cause any further splintering of the government into political parties (like if you watch the Musical 1776 ^_^), he was a total Federalist and Jefferson was the opposite. They were like the Tupac and Biggie of American Presidents They didn't hate eachother, they just hated the opposite's friends. xD

But yeah, We always should've listened to Washington >_>

 

the biggest flaw is that saying because the democrats have a majority, then they are to blame. it is called the filibuster, and republicans have been useing it nonstop to halt everything. This includes bills with they were demanding. Congress is broken because you have one party trying to reverse the policies that created this, and created the atmosphere of greed and corruption that caused all of this mess, and then you have the other party, that is blocking everything because they dont want those policies to be removed, because they were the ones who pushed it through.

the IRS is not the problem here. The tax codes used to require that taxes were taken equally. now, because of republicans, 1.5trillion dollars was added to the deficiet simply to give 5% higher tax breaks to the wealthy 2-4% of america, at the expense of the 96-98% who are suffering now because of it.

the majority of the foreclosures oddly enough are not lower and middle class families foreclosing on thier houses... but the wealthy who could easily pay for it, but realized that they would lose less just to foreclose them and buy up a new equivilant house at lower prices than pay off their existing mortages on properties.

The tea party not only wants to continue the tax cuts for the wealthy, but they want to give further ones. They want to extend the policies that the rest of the world knows are dangerous and corrupt, because that is what the founders of the tea partiers want them to support. the tea party did not grow up organicly. It is not a group that was put into motion by the people. it was crafted by people who had the agenda of giving further handouts to the wealthy. it was people who had a distinctly extreme far right fringe agenda. people like freedom works, americans for *only the wealthy* prosperity, and people at fox news like glenn beck, who pushed the tea party before it had even really made a apperence outside of the far right media.

 

Yeah, but at least in the case of the IRS, you see some of it back in funding for roads, police, education etc. With a businessman, you only see it back when the tabloids report on where his heiress is spending the money

It's also a bit easy to claim that since the democrats have a majority, they can do whatever they want. There is the filibuster, obviously, and then there's also the role of different committees, which can link and change laws in ways that they become unacceptable for even the most ardent initial sponsors of a bill.
And then there's the fact that the parties aren't exactly uniform voting blocks. There's little you can do to punish a congressman or senator who votes against the party, if doing so will help his/her own constituency.

I'm also pretty positive that political parties are an inevitability. Some of the founding fathers no doubt had an idea of an assembly of elected men without affiliation, judging each idea on its merit, and then voting without making arrangements or creating power structures. But human nature doesn't work that way. People will organise themselves to maximise the odds of succes. Hence you get political parties. The idea of a completely non-partisan system is just as against human nature as the idea of perfect communism. The founding fathers were great thinkers, but maybe a bit too optimistic in this regard...

Back to the original topic: I do think that there's nothing wrong with people wanting lower taxes (even though high taxes don't necessarily bother me, euro-socialist that I am :icon_wink). And it is a good thing that at least some part of the tea-party movement wants to keep it about taxes, and not about how evil foreigners and gays are the spawn of the devil. Even though I'd count myself as an opponent of the tea party, this news is pretty positive.

 

The Filibuster is a powerful tool, yet I would hardly say it has been used effectively. While the Democrats are one short of the 60 seat majority, I don't recall a time (since the election of Scott Brown) they have had much trouble getting what they need out of the Senate (what with Sens. Snow and Collins almost always voting with the Dems on major
issues)
I can't understand why some people harbor such a hatred for the rich in this country, other than just pure envy. I'm all for tax breaks for them...and for tax breaks for anyone--regardless of what they make. For the first time in our nation's history we have close to half the population paying no taxes at all...that ain't a good figure. That number is expected to grow next year, Everyone should pay their fair share, but just because you are rich doesn't mean that the Federal government should punish you and gouge you when your tax bill come due.

From a deficit standpoint, I really don't think the Democrats have much credibility on this issue. They all rallied around "pay-go" legislation, but quickly forgot about it when it interfered with what they wanted to spend. What the Republicans got wrong was not the fact that they did cut taxes, but they failed to scale down the budget at the same time.

Bush did not start the Stimulus, that was Obama. Bush started the TARP program.

There is no doubt we need a comprehensive overhaul of of tax system (I mean it's over 44,000 pages long).
But, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

As for social security, I fully supported Bush's proposal. It in no way an effort to privatize the entire system. It was giving someone the option of investing a small percentage of their SS into low risk investments. I mean, it's my money...why should I not have the right to invest some of it? If it had been a requirement by the government that I do it, then I would have been against it. But I see nothing wrong with giving someone a choice. That was once again Congress saying to the American people, "we know better than you, just leave it to us. we're here to help"

There are good people in elective office. They work hard, play by the rules and take care for their districts the best they can. But sadly it seems that most politicians are in favor of one thing: getting re-elected.