It’s unbelievable. Remember how liberal columnists, bloggers and politicians do everything in their power to portray Tea Party protesters as ‘right-wing radicals’? Well, it seems that Cape Coral, Florida is afraid there may be more ‘nuts’ than they can handle:
[F]lash forward a few hundred years and you’ll find it is happening today in Cape Coral, Florida where city officials canceled a tax day tea party gathering because they “feel too many people could show-up.”
The author continues:
The tea party organizers of Cape Coral, though, aren’t the only ones to find this restriction of their free speech and rights to assemble. Tea party organizers all across the country have begun to find out just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to be “allowed” to exercise their God-given right to speak their minds against government excess and criminality. City governments all across the country are charging fees for “permits,” forcing organizers to pay out huge sums for “insurance policies,” and binding tea party organizers in all sorts of government red tape.
In many instances, organizers are being told that they aren’t “allowed” to hold rallies on government property. Imagine that? We, the taxpayers of the city/state/federal government aren’t “allowed” to gather on property that our own taxes paid for.
Indeed. Ludicrous. Especially considering the peaceful nature of the protests. Unlike the anti-globalism crowd, Tea Party protesters know how to behave. They are angry and concerned, but they are no extremists who believe it is perfectly OK to destroy everything that crosses their paths.
“Too many” protesters. Hmm. And they’re all labeled “nuts” by the Daily Kos crowd. If there are so many of them, perhaps it are not the protesters that are insane, but those who make fun of them and who want to implement extremely expensive economic plans for which future generations will have to pay the price?
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
“If there are so many of them, perhaps it are not the protesters that are insane, but those who make fun of them and who want to implement extremely expensive economic plans for which future generations will have to pay the price?”
Consensus has no objective value, I should point out. The number of tea-baggers or tea-bagger detractors don’t matter really. My main issue with the tea-baggers is that it is similar to the anti-war protests – energized partially by a sensible, patriotic notion, partially by partisan feelings about the president and then co-opted by sheer partisans like Reynolds and more crassly political organizations.
Plus, unlike the notion that Iraq should not be invaded, the notion that all of Obama’s plans are wrong require an alternative in a serious political climate. So we can let the banks fall completely etc.? I’m not expecting signs detailing a better plan (that’s not what protests are for – they’re usually unimpressive affairs on that level) but I can’t see a real alternative offered by the figureheads of the teabagging crowds. Much like the anti-war crowds were fueled by anti-Bush sentiments, I think tea-bagging isn’t the most bi-partisan and serious movement in decades, really.
http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=A4&Dato=20090415&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=904150805&Ref=PH
Just sharing that this “tea party” went off without a hitch……….
tea baggers! now 33 1/3% stronger than the green party!