As far as many of my liberal friends are concerned, the Tea Party movement is only one small step removed from a pack of Nazi's.

*****************

Well, to be fair, that's what many of them say about us.

I ask again, why are they so concerned now? Why didn't they care for the previous 8 years? Where were they, when Bush was erasing the first balanced budget in how many years? Every single time we have this discussion, those on the Teabaggers side come up with excuse after excuse. No more. Answer the question.

Why did they not care when it was Bush spending all the money? What is so different about what Obama is doing, compared to Bush?

Since some of you have stated that you have been to rallys and been on their website, it should be a pretty simple question to answer.

It can't be, perhaps, because a bunch of people got onboard the hope and change express believing things might be different this time, only to find that it was just more politics as usual. It can't be that they were disappointed to learn they elected one more big government dedicated to friends and cronies. It can't be that the promise people making under $250,000 a year wouldn't see one more dime added to their taxes proved to be little more than empty words. It can't be that trillions of dollars went out the door at startling speed.

**************

Exactly when did Obama raise taxes?

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that the majority of people in the Tea party movement voted for Obama? You have got to be kidding. All of sudden what he's spending is bad, but what Bush spent was ok? Please. None of these people were ever on "the hope and change express". Maybe not because the conductor was black. Maybe because he was a liberal. Or a Democrat. Hard to say. But, they certainly were not the ones that put him office.

No one could suddenly be that concerned about government spending. Not after the billions wasted during the Bush administration that they said absolutely nothing about.

As a business practice, it's a bad idea to insult and alienate a significant segment of your customers. As Michael Jordan famously said, when asked why he wasn't more politically active, "Republicans drink Gatorade, too."

There's a huge difference between raising real-life issues in a thought-provoking manner and taking a cheap shot (and a juvenile one at that) at a particular group to further a political agenda. For an example of the former, see Steve Englehart's brilliant run on Captain America. For an example of the latter...well, that's what we have here.

This is just another example of what JB has talked about for years - writers and artists who treat these characters as their own personal sounding board, rather than acting as caretakers of a legacy.

William, I have never heard of the Rufus King Act. I googled it and found no such act. I do know that King was a founding father and, like others at the time, attempted to stop the spread of slavery. He was outspoken about slavery, but he put forth no law that I am aware passed that tried to end it in the south.

I'll also keep it simple from my understanding of history. The 3/5th compromise was done because the south wanted to count their slaves as full people. The north balked at this because slaves were considered property and not human beings. You are right this was done so the south would have more representation in Congress. Knowing the south would not sign the Constitution without some balancing act of power, James Madison devised the idea of counting the slaves as 3/5 of a person to make the southerners more happy with their representation in the House.

However, this had no direct effect on slavery in the south. Part of that agreement was to stop the spread of slavery in existing states that didn't already have slavery. However, there was nothing overt about it tyring to end slavery or it's spread in new states. Rufus King was outspoken during the Missiouri Compromise that new states shouldn't be a slave states. But in the end the Supreme Court claimed that congress had no right to decide that slavery could be illegal in new states. 

The Missouri Compromise and the Dred Scott case would have created a nice loop hole to end slavery if there were real groundwork in the Constituion to end slavery to back up these ideas. The Courts did their job and took the law as the law. They saw no loop holes in the Constitution to give them reason to doubt the laws in place.

Having said all that, I do not see the leap in logic that the 3/5ths compromise was a major turning point in slavery like so many of todays history revisionists claim. If you mean that it was the first shot in claiming that slaves were human beings and not cattle, maybe but not really. The idea to call them human at all was done by the south (who wanted slavery to continue) looking for greater representation in the Federal Govt. This was not an attempt by the North to undermine the south by saying slaves were human beings. It was a compromise to keep the south happy and to sign the Constitution. Nothing more.

I don't know if I have anything to add to the conversation, but I find from watching interviews, and speeches at the Teabag Convention, that many if not most of the protesters have no idea of the facts of the matter, they are just rallying for a vaguely defined 'cause'.

Granted, this is similar to some environmetal protest groups, or even Ross Perot's reform party.

But when the first speaker at the Teabag convention spoke of Obama being elected by a bunch of illiterates who can't even speak English, and got a roar of applause for saying so....

There is no attempt at mind-reading on my part - I specfically refer to Brian kind of wittily dropping a reference to tea-bagging and people in this thread responding to him thinking he was referring to something else.

*******************

I just think it's awesome someone thought I was even somewhat witty. Thanks, Mike.

While not organized like the Tea Parties, there were protests of Bush's spending record on the right from fiscal and ideological conservatives who did not see him as genuinely like-minded through his acts of governance and (at least perceived) cronyism.

Excepting emotional bias stereotyping such a group it's hardly surprising after eight years some, already frustrated with governmental fiscal irresponsibility, would say ENOUGH when (fiscal) "Change" didn't come, particularly directed at someone of the ideological opposition now in power.

As for Jodi's signs, protesters of all stripes or causes will go outside the bounds of polite discourse to "make their point," "express their passion," etc. It isn't difficult to locate animal comparisons, misogynist, misandrist or racist signs from protesters on the Left or Right.

As for taxation, I may be behind but the last I read President Obama and his Democratic allies in congress want to allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire as scheduled this year. Only in politics would taxes going going up not be considered a tax increase.

(Edit note: I was writing this post when Jodi chose to post the private email reply on the forum.)

Edited by Ed Deans on 12 February 2010 at 12:50pm