Neither depiction is accurate. The (left leaning) media is wrong for thinking it was just a bunch of gun shootin' beer drinkin' wife beatin' hillbillies. However, the (right leaning) media was wrong for holding it up as some kind of overly patriotic and revolutionary event. It was a ****ing protest. And protests, be they right or left leaning, usually only bring out a bunch of disillusioned sheep and a few power hungry sheep herders. Yes, the protesters yesterday came from all walks of life. But that does not imply that the majority of them were not idiots.


From the other side: G20 Protesters. Equally idiotic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_BrD-IS70Q

 

the constitution allows for protest and with a protest both sides are wrong depending on which side you ask.

I think its funny that when he asked a pretty simple questions almost all of them were caught up or studdering and could not give a straight answer.

 

Magish,

Are you missing the points of the rallies? The G20 protests were against the globalization of the world. Because of the G20 summits, banks are under international policies. Hmmmmmmmm....

Tea party (which they should have used a better name) - had a lot to do with discontent Americans. Some Americans pay 33% of their income tax, plus whatever taxes they pay in their state for food, property etc. Taxes need to be spent more wisely. It is that simple. People would not be so irritated if the government wasn't paying AIG millions of dollars to fail.

 

The tea parties in the context of protesting and voicing opinion were all well and good. The issues I had with them is the message of being over taxed and the poor choice in the name itself.

Most of the people protesting actually had their income tax lowered, state and local taxes vary between location and aren't under control of the federal government. If there were part of the minority 5% in attendance, their taxes just went back to pre-Bush levels. Nothing drastic or radical and relatively low compared to 1930's through 1970's where income tax was often between 70% and 90% for the top tier tax bracket.

The name itself should have been vetted better to have avoided all of the "lol tea bagging" comments. The actual Boston Tea party was also a very dangerous endeavor because of the certain retaliation from England. Not to mention that we do have taxation with representation, there are just people who don't feel that way because whomever they voted for most likely didn't get elected. If this is not the case, then it's seems strangly opportunistic for a strongly conservative crowd to protest reckless spending only after a democratic administration has just taken office.

I have no qualms about protesting government for whatever the cause might be, but suddenly being so outraged about wasting tax dollars after Bush is out of office seems suspect.

I won't bother getting into the controversy over who was involved in the planning and the promoting these events as the information is out there and everyone can make their own decision on how "grass roots" this event really was.

Protesting is great and a necessity in our country, but it seems disingenuous to assume this was about anti-government spending and not the new administration. I don't see why this event didn't take place after the first of the bail outs, if not even sooner. Spending tax dollars recklessly should affect people the same way no matter who is in charge when it's happening.