Won’t some of 'em face increased taxes under what’s colloquially known as Obamacare?
Not if they have health insurance.
So was BobLibDem correct or incorrect?
I wouldn’t know. Would you?
Doubtful. A lot of them came to the rallies in their Medicare-provided Rascal scooters sucking air from Medicare-provided oxygen tanks protesting to keep government out of health care.
You know, even humor, sarcasm, and ridicule have to comport with logic. So try again.
But before you do, perhaps you could supply the support for your previous idiocy, which I requested. Unless, of course, you’re simply full of shit.
Hmmm…
So you’re extrapolating from “a lot” to get to “never” by way of – “doubtful”.
Help me out with what you mean by “a lot”: are the majority, or a minority, of Tea Party folks on Medicare?
I’d say there are many many more on Medicare than those that would ever assume a tax liability for “Obamacare”. They were out protesting before the bill was even drafted so the notion that they digested the bill and determined whether they would gain or lose is laughable. They weren’t protesting taxes, taxes were and are at historic lows. They weren’t protesting the tax implications of health care reform, they were puppets dancing for the Koch Brothers. What got them to the rallies was Obama’s race, pure and simple.
But certainly not half of 'em are on Medicare, right? And, realistically, not even a third of 'em?
Of course they hadn’t digested the bill; the right-wing talking point that carried the day with 'em was Pelosi’s sound-bite about how “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”. But surely they figured it would involve increasing taxes, as surely as they were told it wouldn’t, as surely as they were correct?
Why must they be protesting a particular, specific tax in order to be a tax protest movement? Why not take them at their word, for what they say they stand for?
Because taxes are a a 60 year low. It is a specious argument, ginned up by the investor class, who would rather increase their profit margin by reducing taxes to an unsustainable level, rather than through honest work, or creating new products or services.
Qur’an
That’s the Tea Partiers.
You can also tell them apart by crowd noise. If you hear something that sounds like a cloud of locusts, it’s the flapping underarm-wattle of a Tea-Party crowd.
I didn’t ask anyone to assume the tea party platform was reasonable or correct. I only asked you to assume good faith-that they actually believe what they say they do. “Their arguments are stupid because taxes are at historic lows” is a valid response to the tea party platform. “What they’re REALLY protesting is that a black person got elected” is not.
Personally, I don’t think the TeaBaggers were protesting because a black man was elected president. I think they were protesting because a Democrat was elected president. The fact that that Democrat was a black man just padded their rolls.
Never looked at their signs, have you? Okay, not black person, Kenyan Muslim instead, okay?
The TPers are in the 99%. That they are protesting tax increases for the 1% shows that they are stupid or brainwashed or both. Either that, or “take back America” might be really what they want - and we know who they want to take it back from, don’t we?
Bookmarked for easy citation the next time someone talks about how the ring wing has a monopoly on discussing violence against disliked targets with approval.
“Bookmarked for easy citation the [del]next[/del] first time someone talks about how the right wing has a monopoly on discussing violence against disliked targets with approval.”
Fixed that for you.
I took it as a bit of a stretchy comparison between USA now, and France a couple centuries ago just before all hell broke loose. Are you sure you actually see approval in FI’s post?