Rightbloggers Compare Large National Protests (Union) Unfavorably with Large National Protests (Koch Brothers) [Updated]

tomt200.jpgLast weekend rallies were held in all 50 states in support of the teachers' union in Wisconsin. And at the Wisconsin state capitol, at least 70,000 people came out on Saturday to protest Governor Walker's attempt to break the union.

Sounds like a big deal, right? Hundreds of thousands of people turned out on behalf of teachers in one state who were holding out for collective bargaining rights, despite opposition from Republicans and from bigtime "liberal" columnists who also consider schoolteachers grossly overcompensated.

Yet rightbloggers dismissed these demos as paltry, insignificant, and a failure.

To understand why they think so, we need to review the history of the Tea Party, which has sometimes summoned big crowds itself.

We have followed the progress of the TP movement from tiny shoots to mighty oaks. Their greatest street-action achievements have probably been the April 15 "Tax Day" demos they've summoned in protest of the burden of Federal taxation.

The national 2009 Tax Day rallies were well-publicized before the fact by the constant coverage of rightbloggers and by an organization called FreedomWorks, which is connected via Citizens for a Sound Economy to the Koch Brothers, of whose well-funded efforts on behalf of conservatism you've probably heard a bit in recent months.

FreedomWorks promoted the 2009 Tax Day rallies on a local and national basis with press outreach and other PR tools that helped spread the word to likeminded people. Rightbloggers also did their part, as did Fox News, et alia.

On Tax Day 2009, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran an editorial by Dick Armey, former GOP Congressman and, it so happened, FreedomWorks Chairman, asking, "'TEA PARTIES': THE NEXT GRASS-ROOTS MOVEMENT?" and answering in the affirmative: "Just as the original Boston Tea Party was a grass-roots rebellion against overbearing government, tea party participants are reacting to government that has grown too large... Big-spending politicians beware: Organized taxpayers are watching votes and are getting ready for Election Day."

Armey also said that "the tea parties were organized online, through Facebook and Twitter," but didn't mention his organization's involvement in promoting their work.

National attendance for those gatherings was good, but there was some debate as to how good. Reports were wildly divergent. The Atlantic estimated total attendance at "a bare minimum" of about 26,000, but clearly missed many gatherings outside large metropolitan areas. Demographer Nate Silver put the tally at 300,000+. Nervous reporters who'd been lambasted as fatally prejudiced by conservatives tried to be nice. "By some estimates," the Christian Science Monitor carefully said, "over half a million Americans took to the streets last Wednesday to protest taxes and Washington spending." Tea Party supporters leaned on the high end, with estimates reaching over 600,000.

crowdflag500.jpg
Obviously traitors. Disregard.
With so many events to be tallied, attendance figures became a game of Who Do You Trust, with the hated Main Stream Media, despite their best efforts, generally accused of downgrading the events for their own nefarious purposes ("Besides leaving the impression that the Tea Parties were modest affairs, The [New York] Times chose the two silliest photos it could find to illustrate the article," etc).

This problem persisted with the Tax Day protests the following year, which were abetted by the usual suspects. Attendance, stimulated by the upcoming elections, was clearly larger than the 2009 number -- but how much larger, and than which number? Wikipedia's roundup suggested a few hundred thousand attendees; Tea Party supporters claimed attendance of over a million.

You would of course expect any movement hoping to portray itself as America's destiny to try and get the most flattering estimate of its numbers in front of the public. But as conservatives, Tea Partiers are hard-wired to accuse the Main Stream Media of misrepresenting them. So time and time and time again they told people -- mostly each other -- that the media's portrayal of their strength was utterly untrustworthy, and that only the Elect could know how powerful the Party really was. If they said it was million, then it was a million. Why would they lie?

Now jump forward to last weekend's rallies. Organizing was clearly done by labor unions, who are powerful and very good at that sort of thing. But as the Wisconsin crisis is only a few weeks old, their organizing had to be done on the fly.

How their organizing advantage compares to that of the Tea Party nexus of rightwing moneymen and (let us say) community organizers with many more months of preparation for their big events, we leave to readers to judge. But the weekend events were nonetheless impressive.

You wouldn't know it, though, from the report of Professor William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who flatly declared, "50-State Union Protest Falls Far Short Of Predicted Turnout."

My Voice Nation Help
146 comments
kevinh
kevinh

"When the post-War boom came to a screeching halt in the 1970s, Reagan was right there to reassure the middle and upper classes that welfare queens were taking all of their money. Reagan Democrats and other working-class whites who hopped on the GOP bandwagon in the 1980s for the first time in sixty-plus years were naturally quite receptive to the idea of using the underclass as a whipping boy.

But then the right got all of the possible political mileage out of the poor and the welfare queens, it needed to find a new enemy. The Unions were a logical target. Middle class suburbanites gladly threw their lot in with Management to present a united front against the new enemy. You know what happened next: NAFTA, deregulation, and the end of blue collar industry in the United States.

Having dispatched the poor and the working class (largely by setting them upon one another as Jay Gould boasted about so many years earlier) it has become necessary to move one more step up the ladder and vilify the middle class. Now the leeches and deadbeats are the petit bourgeoise. Civil servants. Teachers. Middle management. Basically anyone with a pension or benefits beyond a salary are destroying the country. And once again people who were integral to the previous wave of Blaming have become the Blamed."

http://www.ginandtacos.com/201...

FedSec
FedSec

"Did the union propose--or agree to--cuts?"

YES!! And the governor won't compromise. All he really wants to to smash the union.

Riggsveda
Riggsveda

Unions always propose or suggest cost-cutting options when they begin negotiations. They do understand the problems facing management...it's their job as negotiators to understand them. It's a collaborative effort and atmosphere that they try to encourage. People mostly don't understand this because the collective bargaining process is a mystery to most people, even the union members who benefit from it.

rasqual
rasqual

I wasn't doing a Boolean when I asked that. I wanted to know which it was.

But tell me, Nikki, why aren't you ragging on Obama to provide the same benefits to federal workers that you believe are so important to state workers? I think Obama must be even worse than Walker. At least we know Walker is a conservative. Obama claims to be so much in favor of unions, yet he leaves federal workers without the precious rights you folk claim are so darned vital to life, joy, and the secret of the universe. He's quite an arse, isn't 'e?

syzygy
syzygy

Interesting. I'm a union member and work as a GS employee for the VA, which, last I heard, was a part of the Federal government. Just voted on our new contract in December, in fact. When you can't even get a basic fact like this correct it makes it a bit difficult for me to take your arguments seriously. Not that I was anyway.

rasqual
rasqual

Mea culpa. Obama's only doing injustice to TSA and ATF workers.

rasqual
rasqual

I inferred it from his remark: "It seems to me this line of reasoning would suggest the author prefers corporate profit over the well-being of society."

S/he has pitted corporate profit against the well-being of society by posing them as an either/or. I infer that s/he prefers the well-being of society (sorry, I'm probably just projecting); ergo, s/he does not prefer corporate profit.

Asdf is welcome to correct my inference.

Asdf
Asdf

While I appreciate your train of thought, I would revert to my earlier remark wherein I suggested that corporations were doing just fine before additional wealth was transferred in the form of lower tax cuts. No contempt for corporate profits here, except when those profits are made at the sacrifice of the general well-being.

@Jakob_B - I can't find the Politifact article you refer to. I did, however, find the report from Wisconsin's Legislative Fiscal Bureau that indicates that tax receipts will be significantly lower due to the special tax cut bills Walker enacted.

@Scott Marquardt - I understand your teeter-totter. A balance sheet needs to balance. Taxes that are too high may indeed suppress the wealth-generating engine of the economy. But it's clear by historic standards that we're not in a high-tax environment. And cutting taxes (at least in recent history) has fared poorly in giving the economy a job-creating jolt.

Jakob_B
Jakob_B

@Asdf - See "Rachel Maddow says Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus this year" To summarize the PolitiFact article: 1) Wisconsin would still have a deficit even without Walker's tax cuts. 2) Walker's tax cuts don't go into effect for 2 years and thus even though they may eventually contribute to Wisconsin's deficit they have had zero effect on the current budget cycle's shortfall.

rasqual
rasqual

Cabover: "Taxpayers and public unions in fact have much the same interests. Your failure to understand this reflects poorly on your sense of citizenship."

Good grief. How is your proposition -- that they have much the same interests -- in the least at odds with my claim: "In short, the taxpayers are the stockholders whose interest competes with the public unions."

I'm talking about a very specific interest, but "much the same interests." Heck, we all need to breath and eat.

I'm talking about the fact that taxpayers do not get to keep their earnings if the state has to tax them higher in order to cover expenses.

Think of it this way. In a corporation, stockholders get dividends when the company is profitable. Taxpayers, on the other hand, are simply taxed less when the government's expenses are lower. When government expenses rise, taxes rise.

The corporate shareholder has an interest in low expense and high profit. The taxpaying citizen has an interest in low expense alone, because there's not profit (aside from whatever services they may receive).

There are two classes of citizens who couldn't care less about government expense: Those who receive services from the state and pay no taxes, and those who have job security working for the state (but of course pay taxes).

The conflict of late is the impatience many of us feel with those latter two classes -- their indifference if not outright hostility to their "shareholders." It's as if a corporation said "don't worry about spending -- the shareholders can do with less dividends." Then why should the shareholders invest? And why should a state's citizens not Galt? Indeed, many are. The exodus from high tax states, I hear, is growing -- a net loss of taxpaying citizens, leaving teat-sucking citizens to draw from even fewer state resources.

DBake
DBake

Think of it this way. In a corporation, stockholders get dividends when the company is profitable. Taxpayers, on the other hand, are simply taxed less when the government's expenses are lower. When government expenses rise, taxes rise.

You apparently slept through the Bush administration.

More importantly, taxes aren't evenly distributed among taxpayers. It is quite possible for government expenses to go up or down, and for any individual taxpayer's taxes to go up or down at the same time.

The corporate shareholder has an interest in low expense and high profit. The taxpaying citizen has an interest in low expense alone, because there's not profit (aside from whatever services they may receive).

Yeah. The services. Who cares about those?

There are two classes of citizens who couldn't care less about government expense: Those who receive services from the state and pay no taxes, and those who have job security working for the state (but of course pay taxes).

Nope. That second group should care about expenses, given your analysis. They might want their own salary higher, but they should also want their taxes to be lower.

But more importantly, how the hell do you know what these people care about? And who the hell are you to say that entire classes of people do not care about public spending?

The conflict of late is the impatience many of us feel with those latter two classes -- their indifference if not outright hostility to their "shareholders."

But you're not shareholders. So I can understand a public employee getting hostile with you if you act like you are.

It's as if a corporation said "don't worry about spending -- the shareholders can do with less dividends."

Actually, no. It's like a school teacher saying she'd like to be paid the salary she contracted for in exchange for teaching children.

Then why should the shareholders invest?

Yeah, why should I give a shit about kids learning and crap like that?

And why should a state's citizens not Galt?

Why should people avoid creating a race to the bottom in terms of the services provided by state and local governments? I'm sorry, is this a trick question?

The exodus from high tax states, I hear, is growing

Well I'm convinced.

-- a net loss of taxpaying citizens, leaving teat-sucking citizens to draw from even fewer state resources.

Teachers are teat-suckers. And those who contribute to campaigns so they can buy public assets without being subject to unfair socialistic practices like bidding are the ones contributing to a state's resources.

rasqual
rasqual

Though I didn't sleep through Bush's rise in spending, I do find it remarkable that those on the left who make a point of that start counting sheep frantically the moment Obama frightfully raises the stakes.

As for how I know what people care about, I'm not talking about their existential internals. What I know is limited to what I see in action. When public unions rally against moves that would save taxpayers money (but would benefit them), it's obvious what they care most about.

You say you can understand public employees getting hostile with taxpayers when they take exception to a union attitude of entitlement. Do you not understand the taxpayer reaction to this attitude of entitlement, however?

As for "why should I give a shit about kids learning and crap like that" -- simple solution: vouchers. Vast numbers of kids are well-educated in private schools where teachers are not as well compensated as in public schools. Currently, most poor families cannot afford such schools, even though their tuition is less than many public schools spend per pupil. Yet the NEA fights vouchers at every turn.

Sorry bucko, it's the NEA union that hates kids. Or their parents. Because everyone knows teachers should have more rights than parents or the kids.

That's the Left's gift to America.

DBake
DBake

Though I didn't sleep through Bush's rise in spending, I do find it remarkable that those on the left who make a point of that start counting sheep frantically the moment Obama frightfully raises the stakes.

So my point was that your claim, that taxes can only go down if spending goes down, is false. Good job missing it, and trying to change the subject.

As for how I know what people care about, I'm not talking about their existential internals.

So by 'care' you don't actually mean care. My mistake.

You say you can understand public employees getting hostile with taxpayers when they take exception to a union attitude of entitlement. Do you not understand the taxpayer reaction to this attitude of entitlement, however?

Ummm... no. I said I can understand public employees getting hostile with you if you treat them like your hirelings, or that they have some sort of obligation to maximize your profits-- i.e., if you act like you are a shareholder in a corporation that they work for. I don't think anyone should have an attitude of entitlement. But I also find it ironic that someone who seems to regard public employees as underlings complains about attitudes of entitlement in others.

As for "why should I give a shit about kids learning and crap like that" -- simple solution: vouchers.

Uhh... that answer doesn't even make grammatical sense. To remind you, you wrote above that as a taxpayer, my only interest is in paying lower taxes. Vouchers, if state funded, would still force some tax liability on me. So why should I even support those? No public education would be cheaper for me than what you're proposing. So what possible reason could I have to support your voucher proposal?

Maybe I've misunderstood your point-- the fact that you suggest vouchers as a solution suggests that I did. But in that case, I missed your point because of what you wrote: The taxpaying citizen has an interest in low expense alone, because there's not profit (aside from whatever services they may receive). Now, since I have no kids at all, vouchers aren't a service I can receive. So according to your claim, I should just want to minimize my expenses, and eliminating all public support for education would do that just fine.

So my point with the rhetorical question was not a point about how education should be provided. That's another debate. The point, rather, was that your shareholder-citizen analogy is a terrible one. In obfuscates more than it clarifies. And it leads you to argue for your position starting from premises that no one could possibly believe. You don't even seem to believe them.

Sorry bucko, it's the NEA union that hates kids.

Since you've already admitted ignorance about 'existential internals' (which I think is your phrase for 'emotions') I'm going to have to assume that by 'hate' you mean something other than hate.

Because everyone knows teachers should have more rights than parents or the kids.

Actually I think the school counsellors should have the most rights. Others favor the custodians. A few even prefer giving all the rights to the hall monitors. We liberals disagree about matters like this.

That's the Left's gift to America.

In the same way that hackneyed prose is your gift to this website?

Asdf
Asdf

Two points for our righty friends:1) To say that the Left is only capable of resorting to ad hominem attacks suggests a painful neglect of the entirety of Roy's weekly right-wing chronicles. Check the archives on this site and then let's talk about ad hominem

2) All this right-wing concern (Hi rasqual!) about unions taking money from taxpayers' pockets is particularly laughable when considered in light of the fact that Wisconsin's deficit was largely caused by tax cuts for corporations. It seems to me this line of reasoning would suggest the author prefers corporate profit over the well-being of society.

Jakob_B
Jakob_B

PolitiFact debunked your second point as false. I tried to post a link but it was moderated.

Nuts
Nuts

You could just post the URL--if it actually exists...

Jakob_B
Jakob_B

As I just mentioned, the website won't let me post the url because of moderation settings. Instead you can go to the politifact website and look up all statements by Rachel Maddow. It should be the most recent false statement in regards to 'Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus year' and her follow up comment that $140 million in tax cuts by Gov Walker derailed that and created the deficit. But according to the fact checks 1) It is false that Wisconsin is on track to have a budget surplus and 2) Gov Walker's tax cuts will not take effect during this budget cycle. So although they may effect the next budget cycle, they certainly cannot account for the deficit of the current cycle.

rasqual
rasqual

Heh. Are state employee pensions invested in the stock market at all? You know -- the place where profits determine dividends and stock value?

Seems to me that contempt for corporate profits is just another way of not caring about union retirement solvency. For shame! ;-)

Meanwhile, you haven't denied that it's a teeter-totter. Increased benefits for state employees means increased cost for taxpayers. Increased earnings retention for taxpayers means decreased benefits for state employees.

The question is how to BALANCE the teeter-totter.

Seems to me with all the millions of green jobs the Obama administration has created, anyone not finding public service personally profitable has a rich opportunity to save the world in this vast new field. ;-)

D. Aristophanes
D. Aristophanes

It is not necessarily a teeter-totter or a 'zero sum game' as you previously wrote, rasqual. State employees are not some sinkhole that taxpayers throw money at with no return. Instead, we taxpayers get various services for our money. Services that might be done well or done poorly depending in part upon the quality of public employee doing them.

In the private sector, business owners and shareholders frequently offer generous benefits and salaries to attract top talent -- though the extra money spent to get better employees is in fact being taken out of the pockets of those owners and shareholders, clearly there are times when they feel that the better return in performance (and ensuing uptick in revenue etc.) they'll be getting justifies spending a bit more.

I fail to see why the same strategy could not apply to the public sector, despite your apparent belief that it cannot be done.

Leeds man
Leeds man

I figured since it's a Wisconsin issue, that yes, of course we're talking about Wisconsin taxes.

Obama created millions of green jobs in Wisconsin?

I did NOT propose to beat you in an argument with my brain tied behind my back

Check behind your back, mate. I think Rasqual brain has taken an unscheduled vacation. Shameful, really, given the light duty required of it.

Cabover Pete
Cabover Pete

Please show where Asdf showed contempt for corporate profits.

Jimcima
Jimcima

The question has *never* been how to balance the teeter-totter, it's how to make the middle-class poorer, regardless of the outcome.

This is why the only logical response it to corporate profits at every opportunity.

Asdf
Asdf

I don't think this is a question of contempt for corporate profits. The market's performance in the last while seems to indicate corporations have been doing just fine without getting additional tax cuts.

You talk about balancing the teeter-totter. Here's how I visualize your teeter-toter: On one side, I see the minority that holds the lion's share of the wealth in the U.S. On the other side, I see the majority that is being asked to give up their increasingly small share of wealth to the minority on the other side. This, to me, does not ever balance.

Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt

Wealth and money are not the same thing. In a robust economy where wealth is actually produced, it would not be a teeter totter. In a stagnant economy it may well be. But the solution is not to destroy the capacity of an economy to produce wealth. That simply destroys an economy.

You're not visualizing my teeter-totter at all. I'm talking about a zero sum budget. The ledger actually has to balance. If public employee benefits increase by X dollars, the state has to obtain X dollars. It does this with taxes or, heaven forfend, more bonds. Whether taxing us today or our grandchildren down the road, the money can't just be created. The ledger has to balance -- regardless of the creative bookkeeping some pols try to foist on us.

A budget is about money, not wealth. But it taxes the wealth-generating engines of the economy, and that suppresses the economy. Increase GDP and you'll increase tax receipts. See the Wikipedia entry for Hauser's Law.

But what I want to know is how you can use phrases like "majority that is being asked to give up their increasingly small share of wealth to the minority on the other side," when you're apparently speaking about people who don't even pay taxes receiving EIC and other benefits at the expense of the minority (taxpayers in high brackets) you believe are the thieves.

In what semantic universe do people who are paying taxes steal from those who are not paying any taxes at all?

Leeds man
Leeds man

The question is how to BALANCE the teeter-totter.

Easy. Increase taxes on those who have had tax breaks for the last 10 years or more.

rasqual
rasqual

"Pay attention. Rasqual wasn't specifying Wisconsin, and my reply was to him. I meant going back to pre-dubya top marginal tax rates."

I figured since it's a Wisconsin issue, that yes, of course we're talking about Wisconsin taxes. Why the deuce would federal revenue be used to bail Wisconsin out of it's woes?

I did NOT propose to beat you in an argument with my brain tied behind my back, but I think you're being overconfident in volunteering to do so yourself. ;-)

Leeds man
Leeds man

so staggeringly simplistic and shallow

No. Simplistic and shallow is spending your life constructing strawmen. Rich is fine, as long as you're not a crook (see Wall Street, the untouchable golden boy of Republicans and Democrats, and plenty of other examples). It comes down to what you think top marginal rates should be. I suspect we disagree.

Leeds man
Leeds man

I trust you're speaking about Wisconsin taxes, right?

Pay attention. Rasqual wasn't specifying Wisconsin, and my reply was to him. I meant going back to pre-dubya top marginal tax rates.

notRich
notRich

Leeds man: "Easy", huh? Hello--EVERYONE has had tax breaks for the last 10 years. The Bush tax cuts were "across the board". But as was pointed out earlier in these comment, the Left seems particularly disinclined to allow those pesky things called facts get in the way of the narrative. So go right on thinking: Rich--bad; Not Rich--good. So easy; but so staggeringly simplistic and shallow.

Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt

I trust you're speaking about Wisconsin taxes, right? If it's "easy," can you be more specific or cite a credible source who is more specific with an actual proposal?

On the other hand, obviously it's "easy" to say "increase taxes." Decreasing spending is always difficult.

Kick that can down the road . . .

Nom de Plume
Nom de Plume

Remember folks: it's only a legitimate movement if it's almost entirely comprised of people on Social Security and Medicare (i.e., most "Tea Party" protests). Everybody else is just a mooch.

rasqual
rasqual

Fine. Let's reform Social Security and Medicare, ASAP.

I'll infer your support, albeit gratuitously. ;-)

Jimcima
Jimcima

No need.

Let "reform" defense spending - you know, the 55% of federal budget that we never cut?

I'll infer your support.

Weavernote
Weavernote

They don't even carry a big enough stick to defend against enemies within their borders (witness France and England with radical Muslim immigrants

Oh, goody. He comes with the full set.

rasqual
rasqual

You have it -- provided the rest of the world that's depended on the U.S. as a superpower to deter aggression (you know, that thing liberals imagine is a figment of the conservative imagination because, don'tcha know, enemies don't really exist?) will ramp up their own defense budgets to deal with threats themselves. Best of luck to their non-nuclear arses with that. They don't even carry a big enough stick to defend against enemies within their borders (witness France and England with radical Muslim immigrants -- a simple fact that doesn't permit you the conceit of imagining me a xenophobe).

You absolutely have my support in trimming defense spending substantially. It'd be cool, however, if you had Obama's support in that regard. I think he shot the unicorn sometime during his first year. ;-)

Jakob_B
Jakob_B

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Also 23% of the Department of Defense budget goes towards the salaries and housing of Department of Defense Employees. Besides grossly exaggerating the percentage of the Federal budget that defense spending accounts for, your 'solution' also ignores the fact that cutting it would mean cutting defense jobs and would also result in a loss of jobs/revenues for many civilian companies as well.

Kwillow
Kwillow

What's a Pog? I imagine something like a Baby's pacifier?

George
George

I notice that you reduced the San Fran numbers from 50,000 - 2,000 as was correct. The sad fact is that even if they achieved 200,000 (which is probably a reach given your other numbers), that's pretty pathetic for such a hot button topic as this is in a country with 300,000,000+ citizens. The majority of people in this country are seeing a dinosaur's last gasps as it tries to cling to life. If liberals would come to terms with the fact that times are changing, then maybe there is an opportunity to save and reform labor unions. Otherwise, they will be relegated to the dust bin of history.

GeoX
GeoX

You just can't reconcile yourself to the idea of a popular movement that's not organized by corporations and isn't designed to help rich people pay fewer taxes, can you? Sad, really. And by "sad," I mean "intensely nauseating."

rasqual
rasqual

But GeoX, pre-Soviet Russian class consciousness could easily be described as "a popular movement that's not organized by corporations and isn't designed to help rich people pay fewer taxes." Not reconciling myself to that idea alone clearly puts me on a par with those who could not reconcile themselves to the Reds. And failing to so reconcile makes me nauseating?

That's bizarre. I think you must be concerned with some OTHER thing you imagine about me, because what you said alone aligns me with the winning side of history with respect to the most excellent Soviet collapse.

Obviously you don't see the revolution and the Wisconsin situation as being on a par, and neither do I. But your only characterization of Wisconsin fails to distinguish it from the rise of pre-Soviet class consciousness.

It's not that I'm comparing the two and claiming some kind of similarity. It's that in claiming what Wisconsin is, you've failed to distinguish it from what pre-Soviet popular communism was.

Your characterization was incomplete, and thus general enough to impugn me with nothing at all.

If you wanna bark, you're going to need Ipecac -- I can't help you. ;-)

rasqual
rasqual

GeoX: As long as you cast those who differ with you as hating working people, you'll never understand them. Do you hear me claiming that teachers want to 'fuck over" taxpayers? No. I'm asserting only that things are out of balance.

Federal workers don't have collective bargaining rights. Are they "fucked over?" If so, why aren't you ranting that Obama's worse than Walker for tolerating a status quo that "fucks over" working people?

GeoX
GeoX

Yeah, why can't I be more "reasonable," like the people who want to fuck over working people just 'cause? It is a great mystery!

rasqual
rasqual

Geox: You just answered a request for substantiation by repeating the gratuitous inference (if it rises even to an attempt at that): "It's mainly because of your desperate need to downplay large, genuinely grassroots protest" is not an explanation of your assertion that I "consider genuinely popular protest illegitimate" -- it's a reiteration of it.

I've said nothing to warrant such an inference on your part. Isn't that unreasonable of you, then?

GeoX
GeoX

It's mainly because of your desperate need to downplay large, genuinely grassroots protest. But I will amend myself: I imagine that you would indeed be in favor of genuinely grassroots protests, as long as they're in the service of fucking over the non-rich.

Scott Marquardt
Scott Marquardt

GeoX: You're failing to distinguish a LOT of things, here. In this case, you're attributing a positive argument to me which I'm not making. There's a difference between a positive argument and a refutation. Learn it.

And don't sophomorically invest your own unwarranted inferences with the force of conclusions worth "duly noting."

As for your closing remark, what on EARTH leads you to infer that I "consider genuinely popular protest illegitimate?" Seriously. What kind of fuel is your inferential engine running on?

GeoX
GeoX

Ah. So it's "communists hold protests that aren't in support of rich people; therefore, everyone who holds a protest not in support of rich people is a communist, or might as well be, but I'm not really saying that of course, ha ha, I'm just SAYIN'."

Duly noted. As is the attempt to obfuscate the fact you really DO consider genuinely popular protest illegitimate.

rasqual
rasqual

You could say the same thing about inchoate class consciousness in pre-Soviet Russia. ;-)

GeoX
GeoX

Sure, you "could," but it would be such an idiotic/nonsensical attempt at a comeback that I can't imagine that anyone actually WOULD.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...