Carolina Politics Online

Jun 29 2009

July 4th Tea Party in Raleigh

15 responses so far

15 Responses to “July 4th Tea Party in Raleigh”

1. # daleon 30 Jun 2009 at 11:40 am

   “The master should make it his business to show his slaves, that the advancement of his individual interest, is at the same time an advancement of theirs. Once they feel this, it will require little compulsion to make them act as becomes them.” (Southern Agriculturalist IX, 1836.)

   PffT! You are being used, a tool, to advance the top 2 percent.

   You have fallen for the lies of the corporatocracy.

   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561083268377547.html

   The above link to the Wall Street Journal, though corporatist, exposes who is really working behind the scenes and for what.

   “Within hours of [Rick] Santelli’s rant [on February 19, 2009], a website called ChicagoTeaParty.com sprang to life. Essentially inactive until that day, it now featured a YouTube video of Santelli’s “tea party” rant and billed itself as the official home of the Chicago Tea Party. The domain was registered in August, 2008 by Zack Christenson, a dweeby Twitter Republican and producer for a popular Chicago rightwing radio host Milt Rosenberg—a familiar name to Obama campaign people. Last August, Rosenberg, who looks like Martin Short’s Irving Cohen character, caused an outcry when he interviewed Stanley Kurtz, the conservative writer who first “exposed” a personal link between Obama and former Weather Undergound leader Bill Ayers. As a result of Rosenberg’s radio interview, the Ayers story was given a major push through the Republican media echo chamber, culminating in Sarah Palin’s accusation that Obama was “palling around with terrorists.” That Rosenberg’s producer owns the “chicagoteaparty.com” site is already weird—but what’s even stranger is that he first bought the domain last August, right around the time of Rosenburg’s launch of the “Obama is a terrorist” campaign. It’s as if they held this “Chicago tea party” campaign in reserve, like a sleeper-site. Which is exactly what it was.” – from Exiled Online

   “Talk about slavery! It is not the peculiar institution of the South. It exists wherever men are bought and sold, wherever a man allows himself to be made a mere thing or a tool, and surrenders his inalienable rights of reason and conscience. Indeed, this slavery is more complete than that which enslaves the body alone…. I never yet met with, or heard of, a judge [ read: you yourself] who was not a slave of this kind, and so the finest and most unfailing weapon of injustice. He fetches a slightly higher price than the black men only because he is a more valuable slave.”

   Thoreau, Journal, Dec. 4, 1860

   “The person ready to believe unlikely and unproved things is readily made a slave of by the crafty”

   Voltaire

2. # WJon 30 Jun 2009 at 12:49 pm

   To Dale: What???????????????????????????

3. # daleon 30 Jun 2009 at 1:52 pm

   WJ:

   Ask a relevant question and I will be happy to elucidate.

4. # WJon 01 Jul 2009 at 9:02 am

   I am simply not intelligent enought to fully understand your point.

   Are you trying to say that if I go to a Tea Party and protest against wasteful government spending I am being used and a tool of the top 2 percent?

   If so, how, in your view, would I properly protest against wasteful government spending and not be a tool of the top 2 percent?

   By the way does that top 2 percent include Soros, Corzine, Kennedy, Kerry and his wife, Stephen Bing, Warren Buffet, etc. or just wealthy Conservatives??

5. # daleon 01 Jul 2009 at 1:13 pm

   The tea parties were/are a set-up. You may attend them with your own agenda but in reality you are being used as a tool to protect the wealth of the 2 percent. If you don’t understand the alliances you are making and whose agenda you are forwarding by attending you may not want to attend.

   How you would choose to otherwise ‘protest’ wasteful government spending is to vote for those whose interests are alligned with yours. I doubt anyone, republican or democrat, truly has your interest in mind and personally I don’t know anyone in office or running for office who isn’t beholden to corporatist interests. That, in my opinion, is the rub. You might want to either vote for a REAL libertarian (and basically by doing so make a ‘point’ but go unheard and unrepresented) or vote the lesser of 2 evils. The only other option is to accept that things are as they are and vote for ‘lifestyle’ reasons: pro/anti abortion, drug legalization, gay marriage and such.

   If you don’t view the whole issue as a matter of class warfare then you don’t get it at all. The haves have bought and paid for the have-nots to perform a little dance called a tea party (a good picture of misunderstood alliances, of who is your friend, of who has your interests in mind, can be best illustrated by the warring factions and the alliances formed, broken and reformed in France at the time of the French Revolution – history does repeat itself and a careful, knowledgeable citizen protects himself by learning from it).

   Your cynical and misguided stab at me (boy, did YOU miss your mark) with your last comment leaves me thinking you believe in party first then performance. How sad. Personaly if the whole lot were drowning I wouldn’t take the time to laugh as I pushed their heads under water myself.

6. # WJon 01 Jul 2009 at 3:19 pm

   Dale:

   Thank you for taking the time to reply and also in a manner I could now comprehend.

   As to the end of my post, it was not a stab at you, but trying to see if it was all of the top 2% you were writing about, or just one side of the spectrum.

   Cheers

7. # daleon 02 Jul 2009 at 8:35 am

   WJ:

   PffT! As though the republicans are the only ones who have been bought and paid for! How naive and cynical an idea. I’ve never been a party over policy guy.

   Forgive me if I don’t quite believe you when you say it was not a stab at me. Being honest, you DID thrust but missed (you do not know your opponent). Nothing more. But no harm, no foul.

8. # CWJon 02 Jul 2009 at 12:37 pm

   Wouldn’t it be best to have a “real” tea party and forcibly remove all of the professional politicians and return the power to the people for whom the country belongs? Unless someone outside of the system makes the change, then i am afraid (read-cynical) then no real change will ever happen. We are doomed to repeat history anyway. My .02

9. # daleon 02 Jul 2009 at 12:45 pm

   CWJ:

   Finally a reasoned response here (besides my other postings, of course). The professional politician (basically a parasite) should be irradicated. I really don’t need anyone else to decide what is best for me, my money and my life.

10. # Paul Terrellon 02 Jul 2009 at 9:07 pm

    Hey Dale, You might have credibility but you talk about removing professional politicians yet where are your attacks against Democrats?

11. # daleon 06 Jul 2009 at 8:24 am

    Paul:

    I will comment directly about democrats when appropriate to the subject at hand, not just to please you and your sensibilities. As the teabaggers are a republican front group I felt no need to bring up the democrats. See how that works?

12. # mikeon 06 Jul 2009 at 3:24 pm

    dale…
    I don’t agree with you at all. You are, however, entitled to your opinion. The people who attended these tea parties were mostly libertarian or independents. If it was republicans that organized them, they did it out of frustration with the party. Republicans are shamed to be associated with that party lately, considering the fact that the party is looking a lot like the democrat party. Too much compromising on their beliefs has made them weak. If you notice, the Dems are not compromising at all. They are only getting further to the left.

13. # daleon 07 Jul 2009 at 12:50 pm

    Mike:

    Thanks for your opinion. However I believe you to be wrong (please read my initial post as to who formulated the ‘teabaggings’ and who is behind them. Ignoring the facts lead to your error).

    As to the composition of the attendees: mostly libertarian or independent. On what do you base that? Hard facts would be your friend on that point. Do you have any factual information on that at all or is it just your opinion (was it from a random sample of people you talked to, or did libertarians wear pink chiffon frocks and independents wear pencil skirts and heels and republicans were counted as they sat tap-tap-tapping in the men’s room stalls?).

    It’s not a matter of ‘if it was republicans’. The facts exist that say it was. Choosing to close your eyes doesn’t make the boogie man disappear.

    It’s not the ‘democrat’ party. You only lower yourself to the level of a dittohead by using that sort of label. That you take up the language of the republican party is very telling. If you are a libertarian (which I believe you THINK you are) then speak like one.

    The republicans didn’t compromise on their beliefs. They sold them. BIG difference. They have marginalized themselves, hopefully for years to come.

    Hmm. Do you really expect the congressional democrats to compromise with what they believe is bad policy offered by the opposition? Republicans are cut from the same cloth (although they have sold themselves to different masters) and were uncompromising when in ‘control’. Why do you expect any difference? As far as drifting further leftward, I actually disagree and actually see reality pulling them centerward.

    Where is your libertarianism? You sound more like a republican.

14. # Tomon 08 Jul 2009 at 1:56 am

    Once you see someone use the term “teabagging’ you know they are coming with a serious bias to the debate. Talk about an agenda! Dale, just keep watching Oberman on MSNBC.

15. # daleon 08 Jul 2009 at 9:14 am

    Tom:

    You are an idiot but I will still address your ‘issue’.

    You said: ” . . . blah, blah, blah . . . you know they are coming with a serious bias to the debate.” Well, WTF!?! You say ‘bias’. It is not ‘bias’ to use a word that better identifies the party of which I speak. The term was derogatory, yes, and intended humorously, but that does not equate to ‘bias’ (so you are wrong there). The opinion reflected was not ‘biased’ either but based on my perceptions, a point of view based on facts , nothing more, and explained in my previous posts (so you are wrong there, too). You and your word games.

    Talk about an agenda? What agenda did you see? To pull trolls out of the darkness and get them to speak? To allow you an attempt at relevance in the midst of a discussion? To allow you a chance at a pithy retort?

    You add nothing to the discussion. You lack depth. You offer nothing that couldn’t be gotten from squeezing a pimple.

    As far as what I watch: wrong again, bright boy. Don’t watch the pundits as a rule. I prefer my own thoughts to those pre-packaged by the media (as you apparently do as your attempt at a snarky comment shows).

    Try again some time, ‘Tom’. Maybe you might just be able to break past your current losing streak and hit your mark. Maybe. I doubt it though, given your current attempt.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website