New Haven Independent

Posted by: Jeez | April 15, 2009 5:11 PM

I look at all these pictures in this story and I think, WoW.... would you just look at all those WHITE people. The tax issue is now another euphemism for RACISM. White people are still under the ellusion that their tax dollars are going to welfare mothers. Sorry folks, its not true. Your tax dollars are going to other RICH White folks who have learned to game the stock market and speculate in real estate and have no concern for you or your children. You guys are idiots! Wake up!

Posted by: jawbone | April 15, 2009 5:12 PM

This really low hanging fruit, but look at the pictures. I've never seen so many ethnic whites in one place in New Haven. For me, they're the scary people.

Posted by: anon | April 15, 2009 5:26 PM

"Long-legged mac-daddy Obama?" Congratulations on sinking to a new low.

Great to see people involved in government, but how did they all get to the event and buy their groceries today? Did they use the multi-billion-dollar government interstate highway that runs up from Milford?

While doing so, did they pause for a minute to think that maybe, just maybe, not all Americans are as fortunate as they are to be able to take off a few hours from work while driving an SUV, guzzling gas from our Middle East subsidiaries, eating Big Macs, and listening to Limbaugh, then returning to their worthless, sheltered hovels in the exurbs?

I'm all for people who are against socialism, but only if they apply their principles of freedom equally -- not just to the parts of it that they like, like interstate highways, defense appropriations and SUVs. If only these nutheads realized that having this kind of dialogue and compromise was the point of a Democracy, and that they would be better off staying home and donating their gas money to charity next time.

Posted by: Jonathan Swift | April 15, 2009 5:38 PM

If they don't like it here, they can always leave. I'd gladly see a few of my tax dollars spent on rowboats which these characters could then use to emigrate to . . oh . . how about . . Somalia.

In addition to getting rid of them, this modest proposal would have the side benefit of raising the state's average IQ by a few points.

Posted by: Daniel Casey | April 15, 2009 6:06 PM

such jack-ass-ery.

Posted by: Edison | April 15, 2009 6:42 PM

It's great to see people all around the country get together and actually try and do something about the oppressive government that was selected for them.
Don't believe the lies written by NYT columnist Krugman when he whines that the Tea Parties are all organized by the Republicans.
They are not.
The people that attended today's Tea Party were from the two main parties and many other from the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party.

Posted by: Steve | April 15, 2009 7:09 PM

Interesting. I did take some time to stop down. what any intelligent observer would be left wondering is what the hell were they griping about? No one there, unless rich people now wear flannel, saw their taxes increase. It was a crowd of made up of seniors saying little and loud minors without a clue. In fact, there was little to no excitement whatsoever. I heard one protester mention how many cars were honking in support, what he missed was that the police did not deem it necessary to block off the street, and thus cars were honking to get by. and grassroots? I have Facebook, Meetup groups, and Twitter, and until FoxNews ran with it, I nor anyone I know ever heard of it. I find it entertaining that it can be self-proclaimed as grassroots yet there was a website created for every location far in advance.

Posted by: Cat2000 | April 15, 2009 8:49 PM

Was this a festivus celebration or a tea party? I hope someone broke into their SUVs...I kid, I kid.

Posted by: tom | April 15, 2009 9:13 PM

wow, I did not see anyone hitting,spitting,kicking,throwing bottles, at any police officers. hhmm, come to think of it I did not see any police officers in riot grear at the scene. thanks true AMERICANS, I love you.

Posted by: Mark meloy | April 15, 2009 10:00 PM

This is a shameless plug for my blog, but I posted my experience of the Long Wharf event.

Unreal.

Posted by: ilovethiscounrty | April 15, 2009 10:12 PM

"I would not be at all surprised to see civil disobedience increase," she said. "Like when the blacks started sitting at the front of the bus."

I think Miller got hit by bus and is still standing.

Posted by: stevesywonder | April 15, 2009 10:12 PM

Tea Parties on tax day? Dear Conservatives: Tea was thrown off a ship nearly 2 & 1/2 centuries ago because we had taxation without representation. We now have elected representation! Obama is NOT imposing tax increases on the middle class, pursuant to his campaign promise.

One reader exclaimed:

Tanya Bachand, of Wallingford, was another of the event's organizers. She said that the rally started with an "anti-bailout, anti-stimulus" focus and "morphed into" a way to let elected officials know that "we're not happy and we're gonna vote them out."

But isn't that the core principle of Conservatism? To sink or swim in the free marketplace? George Bush and his cronies certainly had egg on their collective faces when THEY began the bail-out process and failed to regulate the predatory housing packages being put together by Wall Street on the ill informed and poor. I think we need to credit Obama with keeping to his campaign promise of not raising taxes on the middle class; families that earn $250,000 or less.

To the folks with issues on global warming...I'm just at a loss for words. May your grandchildren flourish in whatever is left of this planet:)

Posted by: 866685544444 | April 15, 2009 11:24 PM

It took men decked out in colonial garb stopping the insanity before I realized that members of NHCAN are kind of sexy.

Posted by: Tom Burns | April 15, 2009 11:53 PM

Hey Jeez --I'm white and they scare me too----what taxes are these people talking about?---finally the rich will pay their share--thank god for Obama and Biden----

Posted by: ElmCityChocs | April 16, 2009 12:09 AM

Driving on a publicly-paid interstate and enjoying our public tax dollars at a state beach is one thing that very few will argue with; we look forward to more much needed infrastructure improvements. The real issue here that led to these tea parties across the nation is spending our tax dollars on bailing out companys and individuals that mismanaged their business/personal debt. Our nation's car companies have ignored cries for improving quality for over a decade - so we provide billions and appoint a board to make more bad business decisions to delay the inevitable bancruptcy? That's not capitalism; not what this country is built on. On an individual level, many people have spent up credit cards and home equity lines living far beyond their means and now realize their ship never came in/didn't win the lottery/ and can't pay their bills. Apparently, they are the ones with IQ a few standard deviations below the mean as they can't manage the simple arithmetic to maintain their own household cash flow... which is the essence of our current economic crisis. And now, our President is preaching to the masses how we need to save each other with stimulus, and seems like many people here are buying into his rhetoric. Problem is, if you look at what's being stimulated, very little is going into infrastructure improvements. Please, we're saving people and businesses that made bad decisions. Our elected in Washington are not representing our best interests for the short and long term... that's the issue here.

Posted by: abg | April 16, 2009 12:38 AM

So the next time an anti-war protest brings out 25,000 people in DC, New York, and San Francisco, there should be ten times as much media coverage as there was for the tea parties... right?

Posted by: DAFeder | April 16, 2009 12:41 AM

Does anyone else find it kind of hilarious that they poured _brewed_ tea into the Sound? I mean, the ideas espoused are giggle-inducing (when they're not just scary), but did anyone stop to think that the original Tea Party maybe dumped _dry_ tea? Must be that insidious gay agenda corrupting their public school history classes.

David

Posted by: Roger | April 16, 2009 2:21 AM

The rich "paying their share?" So I take it the concern is not about raising revenue, but just soaking high earners out of spite? Heck, the top one percent of earners already pay 40 percent of the nation's taxes -- it's easy enough for the other 99 percent of the population to vote in folks who will raise their taxes to confiscatory rates. Fair's fair!

Posted by: tom | April 16, 2009 6:05 AM

if you are ok with higher taxes, then pay higher taxes. if a person thinks they are paying to much in taxes they have a right to speak out. it was peaceful, and a control situation. thats what happens when you act like an adult. to the folks who think this is a white/black, rich/poor issue, well the best part of you was left on your mothers bed, its not your fault. p.s. has anyone seen a war protest around? hhhmmmm

Posted by: True New Havener | April 16, 2009 7:29 AM

Hey Coast Guard/New Haven Police --

Those guys are dumping stuff in our Sound. Shouldn't you be arresting them?

They tried to do that in the Potomac and the DC police said "Not Gonna Happen."

Though I could see how you might have been distracted by the utter hilarity of the event.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | April 16, 2009 7:35 AM

Where was this group at to protest when gas and home heating oil was sky high.Where was this group
at to protest our tax dollars going to this so call war.And they talk about the country going to socialism,Look the the statement by Bill Shields
The use of the ten commandments as the basis for laws.Hey Bill would you not call that Christian Socialisim and Dictatorship by one group to control this Government?

Posted by: ned | April 16, 2009 7:50 AM

Seems like these people are channeling the spirit of the White Citizens Council, rather than the spirit of '76. The Gay hating adds a nice touch too. Now if these people "woke up one day" and weren't so cranky, that would be something to rally about.

Posted by: jackie | April 16, 2009 7:50 AM

you know who was a real socialist? that general dwight d. eisenhower. that was when america was really socialist.

income tax 90% or thereabouts.

Posted by: tp | April 16, 2009 8:08 AM

A bunch of overfed white folks protesting their tax rate, while the current administration is working to *lower* their taxes ... Samuel Adams is rolling in his grave!

But see how their true agenda comes out when they're interviewed -- xenophobic, pro-theocracy, anti-science. Could there be an agenda more antithetical to the Enlightenment values of our Founding Fathers?

Sam Adams is rolling in his grave ...

Posted by: Bill | April 16, 2009 8:20 AM

To all the liberals who have their heads up Obama's a*s, Obama just increased the cigarette tax which is a tax on the poor. There will also have to be a huge tax increase to pay for his so called stimulus bill.

Posted by: FHR513 | April 16, 2009 8:58 AM

"One day we woke up and we're socialist!"

More like, "One day we (racists) woke up and we found a new cloak to disguise ourselves, patriots against the socialists."

The rise in totalitarianism in economic crisis is something to which we all must be vigilant.

Sure is easy to say let it all come crashing down, "its my money", etc... But there is no alternative proposed to avert the tragic results to the most vulnerable and poor in our country.

Posted by: William Kurtz | April 16, 2009 9:07 AM

Good point about the socialist highway system, Anon.

Honest, open dialog about the stimulus package and tax structure is a great thing, but former Representative Simmons should be ashamed of himself for appearing and the same stage on the same bill with Bill Shields who seems to have explicitly revealed himself as the ignorant racist many have accused him of being. "Long-legged mac-daddy?" Is this really where you want to take dialog in this country, Mr. Shields?

Posted by: Unbelievable | April 16, 2009 9:17 AM

You liberals are SO smug. Let's see...what do you call a traffic jam of Prius hybrids? A smug alert...get it?

Posted by: jack | April 16, 2009 9:27 AM

oh my god! who told these americans they had rights? must have read Alinsky's book. maybe the revolution will be televised, who knew?

Posted by: Steve Higgins | April 16, 2009 9:44 AM

How wonderful to see all of the tolerant, loving comments posted here by our liberal friends. The first four posters are bigots (summary: "all those WHITE people" are "scary", live in "hovels" and have low IQs. How does that sound when you replace "white" with "black" or "Hispanic?") The poster who said drivers honked only to get through traffic is a liar. I was there. Drivers had to slow but there were no real backups, and hundreds of people honked while smiling and giving the thumbs up. As for the tea poured into the Sound, it was brewed in order to minimize the environmental impact. And yes, Bush spent like crazy and conservatives were not happy about that. But Obama is turbo-charging the spending insanity that has gone on for decades, and he must be stopped. Everyone is going to end up paying the price for his multi-trillion dollar fantasies.

Posted by: Mark meloy | April 16, 2009 9:55 AM

Ok, a cigarette tax is a tax on the poor? And property tax discriminates against homeowners, gas tax against drivers, and sales tax against consumers.

Please, please, please....have another cigarette.

Posted by: JMC | April 16, 2009 10:12 AM

Roger: "Heck, the top one percent of earners already pay 40 percent of the nation's taxes"

....because the top 1% control 40% of the nation's wealth.

Given the circumstances, 40% is the LEAST they should pay.

Posted by: Boristt | April 16, 2009 11:16 AM

This isn't a black or white thing, its an american thing, were tired of the spending.Obamas going to bankrup this country. People wake up and turn on 960 am at 9:00 and listen to somebody who knows whats going on and were we are headed.

Posted by: anon | April 16, 2009 11:46 AM

Actually, the poor pay much more in taxes than the rich. Didn't you see the CT Voices study? This should be corrected immediately with a massive tax increase on the wealthy.

Posted by: WhiteGuy | April 16, 2009 11:56 AM

Jeez and Jawbone. You sound like racists. Keep blaming the white man. That will get you far in life, lol.

Posted by: FreeDem | April 16, 2009 12:14 PM

One would think that so close to the actual event folk would recall what the original Tea party was about

Clue: Imagine going to the port and busting all the containers labeled WallMart and dumping the contents into the bay. Then imagine the response of all those teabaggers to the news.

Posted by: S | April 16, 2009 12:20 PM

I think what people need to remember/realize that YOU are the answers to your problmes NOT the government. The government is wasteful and poorly managed.

Posted by: liberalssuck | April 16, 2009 12:24 PM

What a sucess! I think this may be the most commentary that I've seen on any NHI article. Exposing the nonsense that's going on in DC is the goal and we're moving in that direction.

Based upon some of the early responses above, there are a number of people who can not or will not understand that we are in the process of being taxed into oblivion. Calling the people who gathered names only makes you small.

Let's keep the momentum going - the November 2010 elections are only 18 months away. To quote something heard not so long ago, we need "Change we can believe in".

Posted by: Wicked Lester | April 16, 2009 12:55 PM

"The tax issue is now another euphemism for RACISM"

Only if you're a racist. Because racism isn't just for whites anymore.

You see, Obama is not the first politician to approve of massive spending. It's not a black issue, it's a liberal democrat issue.

No, taxes haven't risen, but spending has, and it's our money. Obama has spent more money in his first four months of office than GWB has on the entire Iraq war.

If anyone should have joined in on the protest, it's blacks.

Are blacks happy that that the spending bill helped bailout failed corporations and Wall Street?

Are blacks happy with the pork and special projects of the so-called stimulus package?

Are blacks happy that Obama lied about "spreading the wealth around" on the campaign trail then told everyone to "tighten their belts" after he got elected?

Are blacks happy that Obama is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich?

Any blacks feel economically stimulated?

Just what has your so-called black president done for you?

Posted by: Jeez | April 16, 2009 1:07 PM

Roger...
Since when has someone in the this 1% has had to choose between paying for food, medicine, or rent. Furthermore, you seem to be getting your facts straight from Rush Limbaugh's radio show - a man who has become a multimillionaire spreading lies about everything in creation. You're an idiot. Rush doesn't include you among the the people he would like to live next to.

Posted by: jawbone | April 16, 2009 1:51 PM

White guy, lighten up. I am a white man. I just happen to disagree with the goofballs pictured in this article. Esp. mister tri-cornered hat colonial guy.

Posted by: ArAich | April 16, 2009 1:56 PM

My gosh...I can't believe some of these posts. I guess I would fall into the racist, homophobic, tax hating radical SoB.
At age 51 I found this was the time for me to make my voice heard.

It's not just about taxes:
It's about the abuse of our tax dollars going for pork projects and stimulus packages and bailouts that do nothing but increase our deficit.

Look at all those white paople:
Get a grip folks. Everyone was invited and those who are actually aware of what is transpiring in our beloved country either showed up at the Tea Parties or wished that they were able to attend. Drop the racist crap. We're beyond that...aren't we???

Obama:
Didn't vote for him but I had hoped for the best. Less than 100 days in he has polarized this nation even more than ever. Or is that Bush's fault?

Posted by: robn | April 16, 2009 1:56 PM

Its interesting to see reasonably intelligent middle class people used as pawns for rich people who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes. US post-war prosperity was fueled by progressive taxation which reached its peak in the (Republican) Eisenhower administration. SUCKERS!

Posted by: matt short | April 16, 2009 1:57 PM

I don't usually post, but I'd like to suggest to whomever posted the first comment that they and others do distinguish that not all people of the same race share the same attributes. Please issue your comments accordingly. Your comment was itself inappropriately racist and I felt offended which is unfortunate because I bet you and I share the same politics and voting record. Think about it.

Posted by: Patricia Kane | April 16, 2009 2:24 PM

Where were these people when Bush decided to invade Iraq by lying about weapons of mass destruction?
Did they protest when Habeas Corpus was deleted?
Did they notice when Congress passed legislation to insulate the telecommunication industry from domestic spying in violation of the Constitution?
Were they ready to picket when evidence that our government condoned torture was proven?

Do they really think socialism is worse than the total undoing of our Constitutional protections?

This manufactured event shows how easily manipulated some people are and why education is so important.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | April 16, 2009 2:32 PM

Government can solve the problem.

Bigger government can solve more problems.

Higher taxes will fund bigger government.

Thus, we should give government more money so it can solve more problems.

QED!

(What don't you understand?)

REPEAT

Posted by: DingDong | April 16, 2009 2:40 PM

Right, we get it that you people don't like "socialism." But 1) what do you mean by that word? And 2) What is wrong with it? Don't give me some stupid non-answer like "it's not the American way."

Posted by: SL | April 16, 2009 2:40 PM

Hey Unbelievable, that "smug alert" thing was funny when South Park did it. Back in 2006. You got any more ancient jokes? Maybe something by Seinfeld about airline food?

Posted by: Tom Keating | April 16, 2009 3:43 PM

Maybe Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the federal gov't has gotten too big. Tax me for national security, roads, and education. Don't tax me and then give it someone else to subsidize their costs of living, their mortgages, or anything else of theirs.

Stealing is stealing no matter who does it. And taxing me to give it to another citizen is stealing. The Constitution specifically gives personal property rights (including money) and holds them in the highest regard. Alas, we've forgotten that.

and now, I'm not rich. Don't give me that junk about it's a bunch of rich white people protesting!

Posted by: John | April 16, 2009 3:57 PM

I wish someone would teach these morons what socialism really is.

Posted by: ElmCityChocs | April 16, 2009 4:39 PM

Congress and the President are on a deficit spending rampage and the majority of commenters here - many of which tell others to "get an education" - are too myopic to see what this has to do with taxes. Can you think beyond 5 minutes to 5months or 5 years? Where were you in elementary math class?? If you think the rich will pay for it- you're just silly, because they will take their business elsewhere- India, HongKong will welcome them. It's you and me and our children (but maybe you're too consumed with your minute to minute life to think about that future). I think it's clear that the commenters that 'have the education' are the exact ones looking for their neighbors to help with social programs so they can keep their $200month cable/sattelite bill they can't afford. Social programs DO NOT STIMULATE anything- not the economy, not diversity, not innovation. They do stimulate taxes... and those will be around the corner-- in the form of higher property tax, higher credit card interest rates, state sales taxes, higher energy bills. Something's gotta give, and if you think 95% of Americans will escape higher costs of living&taxes, they won't-- and when things aren't looking so good, we now have lessened travel restrictions to Cuba.

Posted by: lance | April 16, 2009 5:55 PM

I was there for all 3 hours ....there were tons of truck drivers blowing their horns on the way by in support, indicating a lot of the working class "gets it".

I was looking for Bass to say hi but didn't see him.

I don't think there was a person there that collects wefare or food stamps. try saying that about an obama rally.

And for all you non freeloading obama fans, it would be awesome if shaw's or ferraro's market would allow you access to surveillance camera's on the day when the food stamp cards are recharged. you could watch the conga line of people getting food on your dime.

Posted by: Blue Dog Dem | April 16, 2009 6:45 PM

I was at the rally and attended for the sole purpose of supporting the other attendees, who like me, are scared of the implications of all this government waste. I did not support or condone what some people said when they spoke at the OPEN mic, as any one of the idiots posting here with their simplistic and liberal ideas could have spoken if they had shown up. I have an education, and probably better than most of the posters here, so just because my economic views differ from yours does not entitle you to tell me my minors in Finance or Economics is invalid. As far as the Revolution, the main reason that Obama was elected was that many Rep and Indep wanted change, were sick of Bush' spending, and hoped that things could improve. This is not change that I can believe in, or allow to happen to my children, so like other people with the same beliefs, I attended the gathering. Belittling the attendees or the significance of the movement will not make it any less important.

In regards to our views of "socialism" - that means that the government owns or operates all major industries to the detriment of its people. And in no socialist state do the citizens making the most, pay the most. The pain is equally distributed throughout so those counting on a free ride to the detriment of the "rich" better start making some alternative plans.

Posted by: strangerthanfiction | April 16, 2009 8:21 PM

I don't know, it looks to me like that mob did some illegal dumping down there into Long Island Sound. It's a job for CT DEP. Also some serious intellectual dumping going on down there too. Just a ridiculous mess all the way around.

Posted by: jack | April 16, 2009 8:51 PM

the problem with socialism is, eventually you run out of other peoples money

Posted by: robn | April 16, 2009 9:59 PM

Folks,

Heres the difference between conservatives and liberals

Liberals believe in change (liberty)and recognize the Constitution as a living document subject to change by design.
Conservatives resist change and believe that the Constitution is a fixed, unerring document, even though it is structured for change (i.e. amendments).

Liberals believe in a social contract (giving back after you have been given...living in the real world).
Conservatives believe in keeping everything they gain and ignoring the environment in which they've gained (living in a vacuum).

Liberals are cynical but hopeful for change.
Conservatives are hopeful but cynical towards change.

Posted by: bloggers are idiots | April 16, 2009 10:29 PM

read the above.

i rest my case.

Posted by: Jeez | April 17, 2009 12:35 AM

Wicked,

Our Black president has recognized that we need a solvent banking system. That is how we all get pay ... As for giving our money to the rich he at least has circumscribed how the money it to be spent - which was more than what the last administration had done. If you remember your just recent history, Predident Bush released billions of dollars to the banking industry with no restrictions. Thus you had seen these banker who cause these problems getting bonuses. What has Obama done about it? His constant tongue lashing along witht he implict threats from the NY attorney general has gotten a lot of that money back.

Which leave us to ask why those WHITE people were at Long Warf. I am guessing they remember Ronald Reagan using an anticdotal sorry of a Chicago Welfare mother who use three separate identities to scam the government out of welfare checks - (coincidentally thats probably the last year we had anything like a respectable press core in this country)

They were there protesting government intervention in thier lives ....(also not so coincidentally the people in those photos looked over the age of military service. I'm sure they support the wars uniformly ...such cowards) ... they were protesting because the money they do get taxed doesn't get spent they way they would like it. No big surprise thats called democracy ...

For once in the last 80 years we have an economic emergency in this country and you guys have decided you want to go rogue on the programs that help get us out of the last depression. At the same time we should pull together an go invade another country based on lies ... then your 100% American and were all in this together right?

Just for the record, I am white - I have been my whole life. I consider myself a good Christian but get very upset when others call me unchristian when I think critically about what is said about the faith. My advice to you guys is not to believe every thing you hears on conservative or talk radio. Those guys all have a uniform dream to be some sort of an advisor to a powerful politician (aka Kimber) That how they plan to get theirs in life. "Their in on it." Rush Limbaugh would not be doing what he was doing if he wasn't making money - he has no mission. Nor does you local minister.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | April 17, 2009 5:52 AM

ROBN

I looked up "Change" in the dictionary. It is not synonymous with liberalism. I think that Castro, Tito, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ayatollah Khomeni, Mao, Hitler and Mussolini were also advocates for change. Didn't work out so well for them or their people. We should be careful about not learning from history. Unfortunately, it is not taught anymore in schools.

Posted by: lance | April 17, 2009 6:40 AM

robn, nice of you to spout out that liberals are more giving than conservatives. but it's not true.

as a matter of fact, I don't think think obama has given a penny to Punahou School,despite being given a race based free ride worth about $225,000 in today's dollar. check his other track record of charitable giving, it's pathetic when compared to conservatives. he did give $25,000 to jeremiah wright's trinity church though...lol.

Posted by: lance | April 17, 2009 6:42 AM

oh, and check biden's stats ...hardy har har

http://philanthropy.com/news/government/5685/bidens-average-annual-charitable-gift-total-369

Posted by: lance | April 17, 2009 6:44 AM

http://philanthropy.com/news/philanthropytoday/4232/opinion-liberals-are-less-charitable-than-conservatives

Posted by: robn | April 17, 2009 9:39 AM

LANCE,

From the article you linked....

"While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative.." George Will

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Bruce | April 17, 2009 9:44 AM

I think the stimulus and bailouts are an abomination...but I wouldn't be caught dead with some of these nuts. Why tie in anti-immigration, marriage rights and global warming to this? Why claim non-partisanship and then have a candidate stump speech?

Also, where were these guys when Bush was pushing the same bailouts and stimulus packages?

Posted by: Boristt | April 17, 2009 10:50 AM

ROBIN wake up liberals are for change. Liberals stand for everything thats wrong with this country like prochoice gaymarriage abortion etc.The for founders must be rolling over in their graves.

Posted by: Alphonse Credenza | April 17, 2009 11:30 AM

Obama is as white as he is black.

Those who claim him for one race conveniently forget the fact of the other.

Posted by: norton street | April 17, 2009 11:51 AM

Boristt,
none of the founding fathers are doing anything except rot. theyre dead, not rolling over.
change occurs constantly, time is change. to keep things the "same" is a contradiction to life and living aka the process of moving forward.
the problem with this country isnt liberal or conservative, its everything and everybody. we have become so interdependent on things that are far too large to control. We've built the entire infrastructure of this country on cheap energy, everything we do is defined by access to and abundance of cheap energy. this lifestlye is so out of scale with human life that we cant even see the problem. highways, skyscrapers, suburbs, department stores, strip malls, mega malls-all built with cheap energy. oak street, newtownship, hill north, dixwell-all destroyed by modern architecture and the automobile fueled by cheap energy. we cheaply built our country in a way that costs more and more money each year to renew or replace. local living is the only solution, not blaming liberal or conservative-neither have the answer because theyre both retarded (its okay i went to elementary school with tim shriver's son)

Posted by: robn | April 17, 2009 1:03 PM

BORIST,

I'm wide awake. How could I not be since Conservatives lit the house on fire and are now screaming alarms.

Posted by: robn | April 17, 2009 1:29 PM

LANCE,

One more thing about your article and the conclusions you're drawing...

"Red" States
higher charitable giving
higher illiteracy
higher poverty
higher federal assistance
lower taxation

"Blue" States
lower charitable giving
lower illiteracy
lower poverty
lower federal assistance
higher taxation

See a pattern?

Posted by: Blue Dog Democrat | April 17, 2009 3:23 PM

The Constitution is not a living document. It, like the Ten Commandments, the Magna Carta and other truisms, are exactly what they were written to be, and not notes on a cocktail napkin to be edited while under the influence.

I studied three semesters of Constitutional Law, the last with William Kunstler (a recognizable Constitutional advocate all should recognize), and no where in my studies in law school did I find evidence of it being maleable to whatever I wished it to become. No discussions or lectures from Kunstler or others ever showed it to be anything but a document specifically written to promote our exact freedoms.

It allows for Amendments, that must be ratified by Congress, to speak exactly as to what that particular amendment means, and nothing more. The core of the document is not open for interpretation. No where in any documents written by those who labored in creating it do I find reason to believe that the US Constitution stands for anything but what it specifically states and will gladly change my position if anyone can provide proof to the contrary.

The problem with Liberals and their view of charity is that they believe that it should come from the governement, and not from individuals. That leads to corruption and more reliance on government, two things we all can do without. I, and most of my friends, give freely to charities (maybe because we are moderates, not leaning too far to either side), choosing those organizations that mean something to us. We do not need the government telling us which church or food pantry deserves the money more than another. And as far as these charitable statistics go, they are irrelevant since most states are slightly red or blue, and not 100% either way.

Posted by: robn | April 17, 2009 5:36 PM

BDD,

Article V of the Constituiton allows amendments and ddoesn't limit the scope of Amendments in the way you describe. Its a living document dude.

Posted by: Edward_H | April 17, 2009 5:52 PM

If you White liberals don't stop making unfounded claims of racism you are going to put Reverend Al and Jesse Jackson out of business. It hard enough for them to get by without having competition.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | April 17, 2009 6:02 PM

I didn't say it limited the scope of amendments, as a million could be added. But each amendment is very specific, such as the right to vote, etc, so that it cannot be misunderstood as to its specific meaning.

Our disagreement is in the interpretation of "living." Yes, amendments can be added, but no, they are not to be misconstrued as to their exact meaning, such as the right to bear arms, First Amendment protections, etc.

"Church & State" is a perfect example of people misconstruing the intent of the authors, as they condoned each person's ability to worship (or not) how they wished. Their intent was that there would not be a State Mandated Church (such as the Church of England) so that all could worship in their particular manner without any repercussions from the State. Any other interpretation cannot be sustained with all the written papers (Federalist Papers, personal letters, etc.) from not only the authors, but from each of the fifty states respective constitution's preamble.

Posted by: Edward_H | April 17, 2009 7:38 PM

Blue Dog Democrat / Disgruntled Democrat

Perhaps ROBN is refering to the changing interpretation of the Constitution? As an example Plessy v Fergusson and the Brown v Board of Education. The Constitution did not change but the Supreme Courts interpretation did if I recall. I only took one semester of Constitutional law, with an adjunct, so I am sure you will ba able to offer more insight.

I certainly don't agree with this "living document" stuff . The Constitution does not eat, breathe, sleep or poop so it is not living as far as I am concerned.

Posted by: fedupwithliberals | April 18, 2009 7:35 AM

ROBN

"Its interesting to see reasonably intelligent middle class people used as pawns for rich people who don't want to pay their fair share of taxes."

Rich people who don't want to pay taxes preying on the middle class in an effort to manipulate policy. Sounds like evil fat ass Republicans at work! Let's see. We have Treasury Secretary Geithner, Health and Human Services nominee Sebelius, Commerce Secretary nominee Richardson, Health and Human Services nominee Daschle, Labor Secretary nominee Solis, Chief Performance Officer nominee Killefer and US Trade representative Ron Kirk. And all in just 50 days! These are the kind of people that Obama wants to help him change the fate of America. Yep, nothing like being a useful idiot and pawn of the government! More Kool Aid ROBN?

Posted by: Blue Dog Democrat | April 18, 2009 10:16 AM

Edward H

Perfectly correct. The problem when someone states that the Constitution is "living" is that they are using that argument to say that it has changed from its prior meaning. The SC can always make the appropriate changes as times correct themselves (equal rights for schooling, voting, etc.) and make the existing amendments pertain to a greater group of persons. But the Constitution is not maleable to interpretation. Whatever the basis or the Amendment states, thats what it means, and nothing further.

Most liberals interpretation is that since we have "evolved" as a society, the right to bears arms no longer exists because we don't need to protect ourselves from the British, and so on. That is complete BS and until the brilliant Congress repeals the second amend. then I can keep as many guns in my house that I want. (We need to keep the 5th Amend. for Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Pelosi, but thats a different post altogether.)

I am not a Constitutional scholar by any stretch, just someone who enjoys history, and that is why I delved into this two decades ago. It bothers me when someone tries to change something and by constantly repeating it seems to make it the truth.

Posted by: robn | April 18, 2009 6:18 PM

DD/DD,

Its really interesting that you bring up the federalist papers....check out this little ditty from Federalist Paper No. 30.

"Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution. From a deficiency in this particular, one of two evils must ensue; either the people must be subjected to continual plunder, as a substitute for a more eligible mode of supplying the public wants, or the government must sink into a fatal atrophy, and, in a short course of time, perish."
Alexander Hamilton

Posted by: Blue Dog Democrat | April 18, 2009 9:29 PM

ROBN,

First, what does that have to do with a "living" constitution?

Second, taking clips from anything does not prove a point, and anyone can cherry pick a paragraph or two to try to make a point. I am unsure what exactly your point is, as I haven't made any comments regarding taxation, just regarding wasteful spending.

Alexander Hamilton wrote the letter you quoted, along with six others in succession, explaining the necessity of the government having revenue. No one, including Jesus Christ, has ever disputed that governments needed money to provide for their populace.

Obviously there were arguments because people didn't want to pay taxes, so he carefully explained the need. The entire taxation system the founding fathers employed was a consumption tax and taxes on imports to ensure a strong domestic economy. The consumption tax made those who used more goods pay more tax and those who were less fortunate or more frugal paid less. Seems quite fair to me and for some reason, the US didn't have great trade deficits or unbalanced budgets.

You definitely cannot prove a liberal argument by quoting the Federalist Papers in their entirety as not one of these great minds believed that the government was created to provide for its citizens. Please show me, in any document, where they believed welfare was a constitutional right? Pursuit of Happiness doesn't mean on someone else's dime. And I think times were a little tougher back then than now.

So again, I ask, what has this short paragraph, that I believe you are trying to either take out of context or to change the subject, to do with a living constitution? It has been my experience that when having discussions on these boards, when arguments start to fail I am insulted or someone tries to change the subject. Oh, and thanks for not calling me names.

Posted by: Blue Dog Democrat | April 18, 2009 11:45 PM

ROBN,

Thanks for making me re-read some of the letters, as I actually enjoyed it.

I just now went back and read the entire letter, a small part of which you cited. The sole purpose of Hamilton writing this note was to verify the need for a national tax so that the federal government did not have to rely on the 13 separate states to do the right thing when an emergency arose. To paraphrase Hamilton, if we don't have a strong revenue system, then we will suffer from usurious rates or terms when borrowing from foreign powers.

So actually your citation hurts your argument more than helps it as it is eerily familiar to our precarious situation with China and Clinton having to beg them to keep buying our paper and the ramifications for us if they don't.

So I am even more confused than before as to why you cited it.

Posted by: robn | April 19, 2009 1:17 PM

BDD,

I like argument better than name calling so props back at you.

I quoted FP to swing the argument back to the NHI article no to support the idea of the Constitution as a living document.

For the latter, you put it well that its probably a matter of interpretation of "living". I stand by my assertion that the mere presence of Amendments makes it so.

Posted by: Blue Dog Democrat | April 19, 2009 4:57 PM

ROBN,

I respect your opinion. Unfortunately, most don't share your opinion re what makes the Constitution a living document and thats where the confusion/disagreement sets in.

Props back at you for the manner in which you can agreeably disagree.

Posted by: Edward_H | April 19, 2009 7:04 PM

Robn

I quoted FP to swing the argument back to the NHI article no to support the idea of the Constitution as a living document.

Are you assuming the majority of people at the Tea Party are against paying any taxes at all? If so this is not the case. I was there and I am fine with paying taxes, after all, how are we to pay for the prisons and workhouses. :)

Kudo to both of you for keeping this debate so civil. And educational to boot!

Posted by: robn | April 20, 2009 9:10 AM

Gentlemen,

If its any solace to you. I'm not in agreement with a bottomless pit of taxation...I just see social programs as a comparatively small part of the problem... relative to out of control military spending and corporate welfare. Matt Taibbi wrote a very funny and lucid description of the great quantity of fantasy money created in the Credit Default Swap market and I recommend it to you.

The Big Takeover

I'm very uneasy with the bank bailout because it has been focused on bailing out shareholders and failed management rather than stabilizing the overall economy. The irony of our argument is that I don't see recent government actions as socialist, but rather like fascism...the perfect pairing of government and corporate interests.

Posted by: ArAich | April 20, 2009 9:31 AM

Guess I missed it, but, doesn't anybody realize that one of the main reasons for McCain losing to Obama is because he rushed up to Capital Hill and still voted for the first TARP!
Had he voted against it perhaps things would be much differant today.
Us Rich,White, Racist cconservatives are against all the abusive government bailouts. McCain didn't understand that and apparently many of you Educated, Obama lovin' Liberals don't as well.

Posted by: rob | April 20, 2009 1:14 PM

ARAICH,

Your intentions might be noble, but those intentions don't match the anti-tax and anti-socialism rhetoric at these events....

Neither of these is really an issue.

1) Anti-tax sentiment is off-base because higher bracket income taxation is at its lowest (and least progressive state) since the 1930s. Tax "Reform" sentiment might be a better cause, but for some reason, middle class conservatives continue to defend the wealthy with purely anti-tax rhetoric.

Historical Chart of Top Marginal Tax Rates

2) Socialism isn't really an issue because a true socialist would have nationalized the banks, not bailed them out with minimal authority and controls.

The real issues are:

1) The (early 80's until now) erosion of laws and government regulation necessary to level the playing field for businesses and protect consumers.

2) The failure of the current administration to force "too big to fail" banks into bankruptcy so that they can be restructured into something viable.

Posted by: mikepc | April 21, 2009 1:20 PM

The gist of many of the commentaries here is that
if you oppose Obama's policies and exercise your
first Amendment rights you are a "racist?"

If you live in California and vetoed to repeal
the gay marriage decision which the majority of
voters white and black did. But if you are white
then you aligned yourself with black homo-phobes
with whom you dislike or hate because your white
and they are black.
Obama is only half the solution. We need someone
who is 1/8th white,asian,black,hispanic, and is
an agnostic who goes to church because he is scared that there might be a god.

Posted by: blue dog democrat | April 23, 2009 9:12 PM

This article speaks to the post I made a few days ago and might be of interest to those who attended the Tea Party

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html