teabaggers complain not enough public transit

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

netrox

New Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2003
Messages
4,769
Reaction score
0
Teabaggers once again show no evidnece of intelligence whatsoever:

"Protesters who attended Saturday’s Tea Party rally in Washington found a new reason to be upset: Apparently they are unhappy with the level of service provided by the subway system.

Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services."

Tea Party Protesters Protest D.C. Metro Service - Washington Wire - WSJ

Teabaggers whine about their taxes being spent on public use and want less governemnt, but demand more PUBLIC transits?!?! Hello?!?! It costs money to provide transist!

What about taxis', what about bikes... or even better, get your own damn car!

I am sure a lot of teabaggers collect SSI, SSDI, and Medicare - pure socialist concepts.
 
Geez, talk about hypocrisy!
 
Not only that, "Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services."

That same person, Brady, VOTED AGAINST the funding for the DC public system THREE TIMES THIS YEAR and he has a friggen nerve to complain about the public transist!?!
 
netrox said:
Not only that, "Rep. Kevin Brady asked for an explanation of why the government-run subway system didn’t, in his view, adequately prepare for this past weekend’s rally to protest government spending and government services."

That same person, Brady, VOTED AGAINST the funding for the DC public system THREE TIMES THIS YEAR and he has a friggen nerve to complain about the public transist!?!
Click to expand...

Obviously, he is an ass. If he complains about the funding to cut off transportation for people who need but BUT complains when he doesnt get it, then he has lost his marbles.
 
Same old tune, different lyrics:

"Get government out of health care, but leave my damned Medicare alone!"
 
:lol: I can see that it´s not only racism but ignorance. They don´t know what socialism is but they only know is AGAINST it.

:roll:
 
:roll: Find a real problem to complain about.
 
jillio said:
Same old tune, different lyrics:

"Get government out of health care, but leave my damned Medicare alone!"
Click to expand...

:lol: Yes I remember those word!!!

I saw on TV about US healthcare system few weeks ago. It amaze me that same people at town hall who oppose “socialized health care” and accuse Obama as a socialist, Nazi, etc were being asked to raise their hand either they have Medicare. Guess what? Almost all people raised their hands and said that they are happy with Medicare and don´t want Government touch their Medicare. It amaze me that they don´t know where Medicare come from?


I can see that a lot of Americans have been brainwashed and taught that communism & socialism are negative and capitalism is freedom. It´s sad.
 
No...

It's because the Soviets hijacked "socialism" and linked it to "communism." So when people think of "communism," they think of an authoritarian government and a socialist economy. The economic part they are not against, but it's the authoritarian government they don't want.

Problem is people have a hard time separating economic from political. Because I bet if Sweden was used as an example of a socialist government rather than the Soviet Union, it wouldn't be a linked to the "big brother" thing.

Just misinterpretation of the definition of socialism based on Lenin's own words over a century ago.

Problem is with the reform is... how are you going to push "mandatory insurance" throughout the U.S. without people feeling threatened by their government?
 
souggy said:
No...

It's because the Soviets hijacked "socialism" and linked it to "communism." So when people think of "communism," they think of an authoritarian government and a socialist economy. The economic part they are not against, but it's the authoritarian government they don't want.

Problem is people have a hard time separating economic from political. Because I bet if Sweden was used as an example of a socialist government rather than the Soviet Union, it wouldn't be a linked to the "big brother" thing.

Just misinterpretation of the definition of socialism based on Lenin's own words over a century ago.

Problem is with the reform is... how are you going to push "mandatory insurance" throughout the U.S. without people feeling threatened by their government?
Click to expand...

that's a good question
 
Goes to show how stupid the teabaggers are.

That should teach em not to listen to Rush Limpballs or Glenn Insane Beck!
 
jillio said:
Same old tune, different lyrics:

"Get government out of health care, but leave my damned Medicare alone!"
Click to expand...

Yeah and they're too stoopid to realize that Medicare=Government run insurance set 40 years ahead of our present Health Care Reform debate.

LBJ should have had done Medicare for All not just the elderly when he rammed it through Congress. If he had done so, Prez Obama wouldnt have to jump through several hoops to get Health Insurance reform done this year.
 
souggy said:
No...

It's because the Soviets hijacked "socialism" and linked it to "communism." So when people think of "communism," they think of an authoritarian government and a socialist economy. The economic part they are not against, but it's the authoritarian government they don't want.

Problem is people have a hard time separating economic from political. Because I bet if Sweden was used as an example of a socialist government rather than the Soviet Union, it wouldn't be a linked to the "big brother" thing.

Just misinterpretation of the definition of socialism based on Lenin's own words over a century ago.

Problem is with the reform is... how are you going to push "mandatory insurance" throughout the U.S. without people feeling threatened by their government?
Click to expand...

Very good question.
 
I think that this whining shows these people's sense of entitlement. Let the whole world stop and make life easy for you. No wonder people have a stereo type of the ugly American tourist. You know, fat, lazy, Hawaiian-shirt wearing folks.

sallylou-albums-misc-picture3738-uglytourists.jpg
 
Protesters need to get their own sponsors. Not rely on the tax payers money.


I do not see abortion clinics sponsoring transportation for the Pro lifes.
 
I'm all in favor of people protesting against lack of public transport.
I'm lucky to live in Birmingham, England where the public transport system is really good.

I don't know what I would do if I lived in an area with poor public transport since taxi's are too expensive and my ex guide dog cannot ride a tandam bicycle.

So I'm all in support of people wanting something like this.

Cars cause pollution so we need less of them.
 
shel90 said:
Geez, talk about hypocrisy!
Click to expand...

confused.

Oposition to Obama care: good thing because they mean to rationalise health care for elderly and disabled people.
While providing health care for people who don't really need it and only want to use it for unethnical practices such as abortion.

Oposition to lack of public transport: Also a good thing. Since cars cause pollution. Better public transport means less cars on the road meaning less pollution.
The old and disabled are the main users of public transport so it's in their best interst to campain for more.

Which means there is nothing contradictory in all this. These americans you call 'teabaggers' sound like they have a lot of common sense.
 
dreama said:
confused.

Oposition to Obama care: good thing because they mean to rationalise health care for elderly and disabled people.
While providing health care for people who don't really need it and only want to use it for unethnical practices such as abortion.

Oposition to lack of public transport: Also a good thing. Since cars cause pollution. Better public transport means less cars on the road meaning less pollution.
The old and disabled are the main users of public transport so it's in their best interst to campain for more.

Which means there is nothing contradictory in all this. These americans you call 'teabaggers' sound like they have a lot of common sense.
Click to expand...


Ahem!

This is not about cars causing pollution. That was not their cause of the protest.


This protest.. Is a protest they arranged themselves. So they need to take care of the financial cost of, it or get their own sponsors. Not to sit back and demand the public to pay for it.

I feel about this with any Protest. If you want to fight what you believe in.. Then go for it! but make no demands for some one to fight your battles.
 
Well it says that they protested about not enough public transport. I would consider a valid complaint. Can't see anywhere where it says they wanted paying to protest?
After all you do pay when you use public transport. Trains especially can be very pricy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top