Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Is it just me...

...or is holding a politically partisan and divisive protest in DC on the the weekend of 9/11 a really bad idea?

09.12.09 National Taxpayer Protest | The Tea Party Movement Goes to Capitol Hill

Those involved in planning and promoting this--and everyone who attends--should be ashamed of themselves for exploiting the memories of those who were affected by the 9/11 attacks for partisan gain.


Lista said...

I think that the idea behind using the date of September 11 for this Tea Party is that people have fought and died for the Freedoms that we share in this country and yet the pull towards Socialism by the current Administration is a threat to these Freedoms.

Also, a Protest against pulling back on Military Defense would be appropriate on such a day because it is a day to remember to what extent our country is threatened by forces that come from over seas.

repsac3 said...

No matter the reasoning, I believe that politicizing 9/11 for partisan gain is a really despicable, disgusting thing to do. Americans died on that day, not Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals.

It should be a time of remembrance and reflection, and not a time for partisan protest.

Whatever anyone's problems are with this or any president or party, 9/11 isn't the day to divide Americans unnecessarily.

Anyone who would defile the memories of those who died on that day by making it about their own petty partisan problems rather than about the dead, should hang their heads in shame.

Planting the Tea Party flag in the ashes of the dead is a sad, cynical, subhuman act.

Find another day. This one's taken. Eventually Patriot's Day will be just another excuse to have a sale, but for now, it still means something. And a curse on those who would try to make it about them and their partisan whims.

I'm sorry, Lista. There is no excuse.

Lista said...

You're probably right, Repsac, yet I think that a lot of Republicans think that Democrats have forgotten 9/11 and the threat that it represents to our country. Maybe this isn't the right time for Republicans to express their anger over this fact, yet...

You know, some people think that the dead are "Dishonored" and their Memories "Defiled" by the very fact that what our country used to stand for is being set aside by those who believe in Socialism, rather than Free Enterprise. There are indeed Soldiers who have died for the sake of Freedom, in the form of Capitalism, not Socialism. Should we have picked a day instead that represents an earlier war. I don't know. Maybe so.

Anyway, the death of Shoulders is the very thing that makes the "Partisan Problems" not so "Petty".

Lista said...

We must not forget, Repsac, that so often the push behind war is the defense of ideas. People are actually willing to die for the things they believe in. What better way is there to demonstrate this fact, than to Protest during a time in which people have died not only or our Country, but also for what it used to stand for.

9/11 may or may not be the best date to use in order to illustrate that people have died for a cause. It is simply the most recent, but I do understand why the idea of War is used to express the Intensity of people's feelings in relation to an issue. I don't really think that the Democrats realize how important these things really are to Republicans.

Lista said...

I can't believe to what extent I'm on a roll. Remember, Repsac, the Boston Tea Party lead up to a war and the anger being expressed is not at all "petty". It is very real. I don't think that Taxes is the only issue, either. There are all sorts of Ideas that are being represented in these Demonstrations.

Lista said...

Hmmm! There's no response yet on this one either.

I guess what really got me going, Repsac, was your use of the word "Petty" to describe the concerns of those who have been attending these Tea Parties. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly the way most Liberals view it.

Perhaps we should have picked a day that is significant in relation to the Revolutionary War instead.

The basic thrust of the Tea Parties, Repsac, is that Most Republicans are quite frustrated right now because they feel that the Present Administration has done absolutely nothing to "Reach Across the Isle" and that the Republican Voice is not at all being listened to right now on any of the issues. When there appears to be no way to get ones voice heard, people reach for the loudest, most Emotional Option available to them in order to be heard.

It's totally understandable and the very fact that you think that their concerns are "Petty" shows evidence of why these protests are necessary with the most maximum thrust possible.

repsac3 said...

When I used the word "petty," I only intended it to be in relation to the day they picked. In other words, compared to the Patriot's Day remembrance of those who were hurt or killed on 9/11, ALL partisan bickering, regardless of party or side, is petty.

Obviously, the people creating this protest disagree, and that is their right. But I'm going to continue posting about it until they either give up the day or (God forbid) actually do hold a partisan protest on the weekend of 9/11, as though Patriot's Day is for/about them, rather than about every American, regardless of party or belief.

I look at it this way; 9/11 is a memorial to a whole lotta individuals who died. And just as no sane person with an ounce of compassion for his fellow man would protest a person's funeral or memorial service (no matter what that person, or the protester(s) did or did not stand for, politically or any other way), no person with a heart or a working brain would protest the "memorial" of the people who died on 9/11, no matter the cause.

The socialism meme is getting tired, too. No one is suggesting anything similar to real socialism, and pretending otherwise doesn't do justice to those who suffered under real socialism. In fact, it's possible that all this talk of Obama being a socialist has had the opposite effect from what you folks intend.

Support for socialism among young folks is up, and one theory is, kids think, "if Obama's a socialist, then socialism can't be that bad, because things seem to be getting better since he took office."

Red-baiting only works for so long. Except for a tiny minority, Americans can tell the difference between Castro or Chavez and Obama. They're not fooled by those who wail about socialism. Many of them know enough about Senator Joe McCarthy to know that labels can be easily misused by people who're unhappy that they're not in power.

Capitalism is still the way of the land, here. Reports of it's demise are grossly exaggerated.

I'm not sure where you're "war" analogy is coming from--you bring it up as though I'd spoken against it, but I looked back, and I haven't used the word "war" at all in this thread up to now--but I'm not sure it applies, at least as far as this protest, on this day, is concerned. The vast majority of people who died on 9/11 were just ordinary citizens, going to work or taking a trip somewhere. They were not soldiers in any army, and they did not die for any cause. Even those in the Pentagon were just doing their jobs, not knowingly striking any particular blow against any particular evil. Like the folks in the towers, they were just people at work.

As to the larger issue of the tea party protests in general, I can only say this; Elections have consequences. The American people voted Republicans out for a reason. Eventually, they will vote Republicans back in--and perhaps these tea parties will help that happen, but for now, it's not surprising that conservative ideas are not being widely listened to. The American people voted with their feet, and the ideas for which these tea parties stand were largely rejected by them.

Perhaps you can educate me on the things for which they stand--concretely, and down to earth, if possible. Lofty ideas like "freedom" and "capitalism" are great, but what specifically are the issues that are threatening them, and what specific solutions do you suggest?

I saw the Santelli rant that's rumored to've started the thing, and to me, he just sounds like a selfish child. (As it turns out, the bailouts haven't done much for his overextended neighbor down the block anyway, but at the time, that's who they were supposed to be helping.) I'm not much in favor of helping people keep their McMansions, either, but I have a feeling that most of the people losing their homes are poor & middle class folks who got overextended due to medical bills or college for the kids, rather than buying a five bathroom home they couldn't really afford.

I am no economist by any stretch of the imagination, but even with my limited knowledge of the subject, I saw no good options for us. I hate the idea of giving large sums of money to fatcat corporations, but I also hate the idea of every person who works for those fatcat corporations, and others, in a domino effect, out of a job & on the unemployment lines, which many said would've been the effect of just letting those fatcat corporations fail and fall, outright. In the end, I put my faith in the Bush/McCain/Obama plan to bail these places out. I believed it likely was the lesser evil, but even to this day, I'm not sure.

The problem as I see it is one of oversight and regulation. The money should've come with a whole lot more strings and limits as to what that money could and could not be used for, and the option to refuse the money (& decide to recover/fail on their own) if any corporation didn't like the terms. Bonuses and trips to exotic places should've been disallowed, as long as government money was being used to pay those bills. To me, regulating what corporations can do with government money, and giving them the option not to take it, isn't socialism. YMMV...

Other than that, I don't really know what the tea baggers are on about. Unless they live in DC, they have representation in congress, even if it isn't the representation for whom they personally voted. That's the way the electoral cookie crumbles, but it isn't grounds for shouting about "taxation without representation" like the tea baggers in the 1700's did.

If you wish to explain further, I'm all ears...

Lista said...

Hi Repsac,
I don't know if it's necessary for me to acknowledge you and let you know that I read this or not. It's just a practice that I do once in awhile and I find that people do sometimes appreciate it, but I don't necessarily expect it in return unless the time laps is quite significant.

I read both of the Comments that you have made to me on two of your Posts. Since they are lengthy, I will need to respond when I have time.

Like usual, your thoughts are very good and Interesting.

Jack said...

"When I used the word "petty," I only intended it to be in relation to the day they picked. In other words, compared to the Patriot's Day remembrance of those who were hurt or killed on 9/11, ALL partisan bickering, regardless of party or side, is petty."

Repsac, you are wrong. Patriot's Day, Patriots' Day or Patriots Day is the civic holiday for the battle of Lexington and Concord, which is celebrated on the third Monday in April.

What you tried to refer to is simply just "Patriot Day", the day of remembrance for the 9/11 victoms.

Better Luck next time :)

Lista said...

You know what, Repsac, I was watching Fox News last night and they had a whole group of people in a room that had been attending the Tea Parties and they asked them a bunch of questions. One thing that surprised me is that they do not consider this a "Partisan Protest". Actually, a good part of the following is made up of people who are very frustrated right now with both Parties.

Aside from Republicans, there were quite a number of people from Third Parties present and even a few who have left the Democratic Party, but don't really want to be Republican either.

Obama has also been called a Communist and a Marxist and unfortunately, I don't know enough about their arguments to have an intelligent opinion on the matter.

Are reports of the demise of Capitalism "Grossly Exaggerated"? Hmmm. Let me think on that a minute.

As to war, I only brought it up to explain why the Tea Party Protesters might want to use a date associated with War to give weight to their Concerns. The fact that a lot of what this Country used to stand for and for which a lot of soldiers have died is being taken away is the explanation.

The Freedom of Speech of Religious People, especially Christians is under constant attack and Capitalism is gradually being replaced by Socialism.

You make some interesting points, though, about 9/11 not being the best day for the Protest. For example, your point that there were no actual "Soldiers" killed on 9/11, but just "Ordinary Citizens going to work" is a good point. The victims really weren't fighting for any cause.

Well, I think that I got 2/3rds of the way down your Comment and I need a break before I continue.

Jack said...

"Well, I think that I got 2/3rds of the way down your Comment and I need a break before I continue."

Yeah Lista, Repsac can be long-winded at times. Sometimes he makes great points, but other times he square dances in circles.

Lista said...

Now that I think about it, I guess there were some similarities between Obama's thinking and that of Karl Marx. People have also pointed out similarities between our Current Economic and Political Climate and the rise of Hitler. Are these Exaggerations? I don't know. My hunch is that if an Exaggeration exists, it relates to Communism, not Socialism, yet not knowing for sure is quite scary.

"Perhaps you can educate me on the things for which they stand--concretely, and down to earth, if possible. Lofty ideas like 'Freedom' and 'Capitalism' are great, but what specifically are the issues that are threatening them, and what specific solutions do you suggest?"

Ooo! What a question!!

I've already given the examples of Christian Freedom of Speech and Capitalism gradually being replaced by Socialism.

The solution for the second of these is to stop forbidding the Posting of God's name in Public Places, stop calling "Hate Speech" a belief about Homosexuality being expressed in a Church, or anywhere else for that matter and stop calling the Free Expression of Ideas "Politically Incorrect". I can not tell you how sick of this we are.

As to Capitalism and Socialism, that one might take a little more time and thought, but I'm up for the challenge. Just give me a minute.

Meanwhile, you know what? The dog is so active right now and he needs a walk. I'll be back later with more.

Lista said...

Yeh, but I like him anyway. Catch you guys later. I've got to run.

repsac3 said...

Lista 01: No need to drop a comment just to let me know you'll be making a comment later. You're welcome to, of course, but I'd be just as glad to see you if you just waited until you had time to say (some of/all of) what you want to say, no matter how long it takes. I get e-mails whenever anyone posts, too, so should some thought strike you about something I posted about a week/month/year ago and you decide to leave a comment, I'll get a message & probably reply.

Jack 01:

Thank you for the correction. Since you figured out what I meant, and since my error doesn't make what I said the slightest bit irrelevant, I don't feel all that bad about making it, but this way, I won't make it in future, because I'll always recall the guy who seemed so emphatic about letting me know I made the error the last time I did.

Lista 02, 03:

Taking your tack; It's entirely too late to get involved, just now... I'll have to get back to these points. One thing I will mention, though... I'm hoping we can get even more specific (names, dates, specific situations) on the charges being alleged against Obama/liberals... (instances of christian speech quieted, or capitalism threatened.) ((& you know, I'm going to come back at anything that implicates one/a few libs as only being applicable to those libs who misbehaved, not to all libs.)

Jack 02:

I use as many words as I feel I need to to say what I think needs sayin'. Anyone who needs a nap half way through is welcome to take one, though... Whatever I said 'ill still be there when s/he wakes up.

And don't be knockin' my circled square-dancin'... 't'aint as easy as it looks...

Lista 04:

Thankie, m'dear... I like you anyway as well...
Off to bed....

Lista said...

I'm not good with Names and Dates. Unfortunately, I usually don't remember them. I'm more of a Concept person. Attacks on the Freedom of Speech of Christians, though, is so on going that I'm sure something will come up soon that I can tell you about. Actually, I just read an Article in the paper recently that I ought to see if we still have somewhere.

I'm a little relieved that you didn't take the last of my comments as another "Back Handed Complement". The truth is that I agreed with Jack quickly without thinking fully about it because I was in a hurry to get off the Computer.

I like you anyway, even though you are long winded. It just so happens, so am I. As to the "Square Dancing in Circles", most people do, but I think you actually do pretty well most of the time.

Back with more later.

Lista said...

Well, I've still got a One Page Type Written Comment to Submit and as usual, I'm going to do it a little at a time.

I don't really think that the "Bailouts" are the main issue in the Tea Parties, Repsac, but your suggestion that "The people losing their homes are poor & middle class folks who got overextended due to medical bills or college for the kids, rather than buying a five bathroom home they couldn't really afford." does not explain why the Numbers of Foreclosures was on the Increase. Apparently, the Democrats pressured them to accept Risky Loans and that was part of the problem.

The thing is, though, there is plenty of blame to go around and Greed and Lack of Regulation was part of the problem as well.

To be honest, I'm a little confused by the whole Bailout Issue. I don't know if I agree with the Republicans on this issue or not. I'm like you. I'm no Economist either.

I agree with you that the money should've come with a whole lot more Strings and Limits. I couldn't believe it when I was told about all the Perks and Raises and stuff. What is the matter with the Country? Doesn't anyone have a Brain?

I don't consider a few Government Regulations Socialism either. I'm not sure about all the Environmental Regulations placed on the car companies, though, mostly because there are things that economy cars can't do so well, such as pulling trailers and boats and navigating snow.

Lista said...

What it really comes down to, though, Repsac, is not the Degree of Regulation, nor even the Taxes, but the Size of the Federal Government.

The program that I was watching on Fox News that I mentioned earlier was quite informative. The guy kept asking the crowd what it was that they felt the Media had missed in relation to their cause in these Demonstrations. One thing that came out that I mentioned earlier was that it wasn't just a Republican Cause and another really big theme had to do with the Constitution.

I remember a line being drawn on the Black Board in which the Far Right side of it was Anarchy and the Far Left side of it was 100% Government, or a situation in which all of the Financial Resources and all of the Control belongs to the Federal Government (Socialism).

The Original Document, which was the Articles of Confederation, was Too Far to the side of Anarchy, so they came up with a Second Document that was just a little more to the Left, yet still providing only a Small Level of Government. This Second Document, of course is the Constitution of the United States.

One of the things that is written in the Constitution is certain Limits to what the National Government could do, because most of the Power was intended to belong to the States. State Sovereignty was highly valued and the Constitution was designed in a way that was supposed to protect this and Limit the Power of the National Government.

Socialism, Repsac, is really nothing more than Very Large Government. The Size and Amount of Power of the National Government has done nothing but increase from day one when the Constitution was first written and the end result of this journey is Socialism, plain and simple.

A really big part of the Original Intent of the Constitution was to Protect State Sovereignty, or Protect the States from being Excessively Controlled by the Federal Government.

Lista said...

Anyway, believe it or not, a lot of the people who attend these Tea Parties are Strong Supporters of the Constitution and it's emphasis on State Sovereignty and feel that the amount of Control that has been moved away from the States and given to the Federal Government has gotten way out of hand. One guy said that he had never before been surrounded by so many people who have such a strong belief in the Constitution and all of it's Original Intent.

This is what a lot of People are thinking about when they talk about our journey away from Capitalism and towards Socialism and the Continuous Shift in Power from the States to the Federal Government that keeps occurring though out our History, right up until now, can not be denied.

Many of those who are fed up with both of the Parties have a very interesting view on the whole thing. They say that the only difference between the two parties is the speed at which the Power Transfer occurs. Democrats are moving in the direction of Large Federal Government at a faster rate, yet Republicans are moving in the same exact direction, only at a slower pace.

Anyway, this is the move towards Socialism in a nut shell.

So what does this have to do with War? Well, a lot of Blood was shed for the sake the the Constitution and yet the idea within the Constitution of State Sovereignty has been brushed aside and a Large and Powerful Federal Government has taken over instead.

Most Democrats appear totally oblivious to the actual direction we are moving in. Either that or the idea of Socialism doesn’t bother them.

repsac3 said...

"The solution for the second of these is to stop forbidding the Posting of God's name in Public Places..."Still not sure what you mean by this...

We've had an establishment clause in the first amendment for a very long time, which forbids some religious expression on government property or places sponsored by the government, which was done to protect the citizens from having to worship in the way the government tells you to, or even having to worship, at all.

Organized, teacher-lead prayer in schools is not allowed, but any student who wants to pray in school may do so, and I'm sure many do.

Posting the Ten Commandments at the courthouse can be allowed, but only if it is a part of a secular display, and/or does not favor one religion over another.

If you have another example of "Posting of God's Name in public," please offer it, and we can discuss it.

"...stop calling "Hate Speech" a belief about Homosexuality being expressed in a Church..."---

I guess it depends on what you mean by that, too.

If you're talking about individuals reacting to things they hear from certain pulpits or among some church-going folks by calling it hate speech, I can't go there with you.

Everyone, from the people doing the preaching to the people responding to it by calling it hate, have every right to express their opinions, regardless of what either of us think of their opinions. (Personally, I doubt that many in church preach hate--though I suspect that some do, just as I doubt that many liberals call preaching against homosexuality in church hate speech--though some do.)

If, on the other hand, you're referring to H.R. 1913: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us), which you referenced in another comment somewhere as being an attack on the ability of churches to preach against homosexuality without it being labeled hate speech, I'm not sure what you mean. I read the whole bill, and I don't see where that claim is true. (First off, the whole bill is based on the commission of a violent crime. If there is no violent crime, nothing in this bill affects anyone or anything.) If you see this bill as a threat to the ability of churches to preach against homosexuality, premarital sex, or any other sin, you'll have to explain it further...

"...stop calling the Free Expression of Ideas "Politically Incorrect"'Some ideas are politically incorrect. No one deserves protection against criticism of their ideas, no matter what political or ethical side they're on. Political correctness can go too far, but there is something to be said for not offending people. Just as you have every right to express your displeasure when you think someone has disparaged your faith, native Americans had every right to bitch about how sports teams and fans were portraying them... (the first instances of "political correctness"--by that name, anyway--that I can recall.) Whatever you and I think of native American dances and headdresses, those things were/are as sacred to them as your Christian customs are to you. Imagine a whole bunch of morons cheering on the Detroit Popes, wearing mitres and waving pastoral staffs in the air every time their team got a hit...

Not so much...

On to the next comment soon... (after a bit of "real life" home work, at the very least...) Later or tomorrow...

Lista said...

Take you time Repsac,
I just wrote another one Type Written Page Long Comment in response to you and will be submitting it later after Proof Reading it.

Oh and BTW, I did a Post that is linked to this Page if you are interested. The page is entitled "Extreme vs. Moderation, An Introduction".

Jack said...

"Imagine a whole bunch of morons cheering on the Detroit Popes, wearing mitres and waving pastoral staffs in the air every time their team got a hit... "

Repsac, obviously you are not well versed in sports, let alone baseball. Ever hear of the Sand Diego Padres??? Their mascot is the "Swinging Friar" check out the pics:




Fans even dress up as a friar by wearing sandles,a brown habit with cord,and a wig that has a bald spot on the top of the head. Also, some fans even go as far as to wear a fake belly underneath their habit.

Jack said...

Oh and how can I forget Franken Friar!!!



repsac3 said...

I am indeed sports illiterate. It just ain't my thing.

I'd think my popes might be met with more disapproval than the Padres friar, but the thing about offensiveness is, it's up to the party who may be injured to judge. I'm glad there isn't much backlash against the Padres from the christian community, but I wouldn't blame them if there was, either.

While I think that folks can easily get too sensitive about these kinda things, they have every right to feel as they do, whatever that way is...

Lista said...

Hi Repsac,
Here's what I wrote Yesterday and have not submitted until now.

As to Posting God's name in Public Places, perhaps I should have just said the forbidding of all Religious Expressions on Public Property. The one case that comes to my mind that has really bothered me personally was the attack against the Religious Displays that have been put out for years at Christmas time in the Southern California City of Upland.

Every Christmas for many many years there has been these booths put up in the center of a Public Street; Euclid Avenue. There is a big grassy divider between the north and south bound traffic which was an ideal spot for these displays. They were booths containing the Nativity Scene and other scenes relating to the Christmas Story and the Life of Christ. Visiting this display at Christmas time has been a valued tradition by many and has gone on for many years.

Unfortunately, the people of Upland have had to fight several times for their freedom to put up these displays. I guess the key phrase in the First Amendment that relates to this is "Sponsored by the Government" and that is why it is Sponsored by Private Groups, but this does not change the fact that sometimes people who just like to stir up trouble complain from time to time that they have permission to do it on Public Property.

Fortunately, my mother, who still lives down there, has informed me that the displays do still go up every year and apparently there is one extra one now that contains the Menorah.

As to the Teacher/Prayer issue. There was one case I heard of in which a Teacher got in trouble just because she had a Bible on her desk. She had it there for personal reasons because she studied it during her break. She did not have it there for the purpose of teaching or pushing her Religion in any way.

Lista said...

As to "Hate Speech", this is not about people just expressing their opinion about whether or not they consider something "Hate Speech". It is about Legislating these opinions into law.

Congress Man Wally Herger is the one who made the comment in the News Paper Article that I read that this Bill may be used against Preachers that Preach about their disapproval of the practice of Homosexuality. Unfortunately, I'd have to study the issue further myself in order to explain his concern.

As to "Political Incorrectness", though, you said "Some Ideas are Politically Incorrect.", you also said that "No one deserves protection against criticism of their ideas." The second of these statements is the one that is about Legislating against Politically Incorrect Ideas.

In my Comment on your other Post that I submitted Yesterday, "Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe, Etc.", I explained how the Phrase "Politically Correct" has become an "Emotionally Charged" Phrase.

Because it has become "Emotionally Charged", we need to find different terms to describe the importance of not offending people and we also need to remember that we can never Legislate against "Offending People", for this is an infringement on the Freedom of Speech, just as even you have admitted "Political Correctness can go too far.".