Tea Party Protesters Mock and Deride a Parkinson's Sufferer.

[Galloism]

Of course this guy probably doesn't realize that about 39% of the wealth is made by the top 1%, 97% by the top 50%, and 3% by the bottom 50%. Fair indeed!

the problem is that 80% of americans believe to be in the top 20% (no i haven't make up numbers)

Let's have a source for that.

After all, 87% of statistics are made up on the spot and all that.

[Panzerjaeger]

Of course this guy probably doesn't realize that about 39% of the wealth is made by the top 1%, 97% by the top 50%, and 3% by the bottom 50%. Fair indeed!

the problem is that 80% of americans believe to be in the top 20% (no i haven't make up numbers)

Let's have a source for that.

After all, 87% of statistics are made up on the spot and all that.

Incorrect, it is 98.2777%.

[Lackadaisical2]

Of course this guy probably doesn't realize that about 39% of the wealth is made by the top 1%, 97% by the top 50%, and 3% by the bottom 50%. Fair indeed!

the problem is that 80% of americans believe to be in the top 20% (no i haven't make up numbers)

Let's have a source for that.

After all, 87% of statistics are made up on the spot and all that.

Incorrect, it is 98.2777%.

Source?

[Autumn Wind]

I wonder what Tea Partiers do for jobs.

I'm sure none of them make less than $50K a year.

[KneelBeforeZod]

Well, we can't expect too much out of them, they aren't exactly known for their high levels of intelligence...

Actually, that makes sense.

Person-posting-picture-of-sign-on-internet fail.

97% tax rate? That's even worse than European tax rates.

I think that sign (and the guy holding it) means, not that the top 50% of wage earners give 97% of their income to the government, but rather that 97% of the government's income tax revenues come from the top 50%.

Not 97% of what the top 50% make, but 97% of the government's income tax revenue, e.g.:

Suppose the government takes in $1 trillion in income taxes; according to the sign in the picture, that would be:
$390 billion (39% of a trillion) from the top 1%
$970 billion (97% of a trillion) from the top 50%
$30 billion (3% of a trillion) from the bottom 50%

[Ixzara]

Of course this guy probably doesn't realize that about 39% of the wealth is made by the top 1%, 97% by the top 50%, and 3% by the bottom 50%. Fair indeed!

the problem is that 80% of americans believe to be in the top 20% (no i haven't make up numbers)

Let's have a source for that.

After all, 87% of statistics are made up on the spot and all that.

Incorrect, it is 98.2777%.

Source?

My natural Mexican ass...Just kidding. He got this from the International Association of Statistic Making Scientists, or the IASMS for short.

[Farnhamia]

I wonder what Tea Partiers do for jobs.

I'm sure none of them make less than $50K a year.

A lot of them have their Social Security and then there's Medicare, you know, and then ...

[Farnhamia]

Well, we can't expect too much out of them, they aren't exactly known for their high levels of intelligence...

Actually, that makes sense.

Person-posting-picture-of-sign-on-internet fail.

97% tax rate? That's even worse than European tax rates.

I think that sign (and the guy holding it) means, not that the top 50% of wage earners give 97% of their income to the government, but rather that 97% of the government's income tax revenues come from the top 50%.

Not 97% of what the top 50% make, but 97% of the government's income tax revenue, e.g.:

Suppose the government takes in $1 trillion in income taxes; according to the sign in the picture, that would be:
$390 billion (39% of a trillion) from the top 1%
$970 billion (97% of a trillion) from the top 50%
$30 billion (3% of a trillion) from the bottom 50%

Once again, if your sign needs as much explanation as it's gotten in this thread alone, you need a new sign. May I suggest, ""'m mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"? At least people understand that.

[Lackadaisical2]

Well, we can't expect too much out of them, they aren't exactly known for their high levels of intelligence...

Actually, that makes sense.

Person-posting-picture-of-sign-on-internet fail.

97% tax rate? That's even worse than European tax rates.

I think that sign (and the guy holding it) means, not that the top 50% of wage earners give 97% of their income to the government, but rather that 97% of the government's income tax revenues come from the top 50%.

Not 97% of what the top 50% make, but 97% of the government's income tax revenue, e.g.:

Suppose the government takes in $1 trillion in income taxes; according to the sign in the picture, that would be:
$390 billion (39% of a trillion) from the top 1%
$970 billion (97% of a trillion) from the top 50%
$30 billion (3% of a trillion) from the bottom 50%

Once again, if your sign needs as much explanation as it's gotten in this thread alone, you need a new sign. May I suggest, ""'m mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"? At least people understand that.

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

[Ifreann]

Well, we can't expect too much out of them, they aren't exactly known for their high levels of intelligence...

Actually, that makes sense.

Person-posting-picture-of-sign-on-internet fail.

97% tax rate? That's even worse than European tax rates.

I think that sign (and the guy holding it) means, not that the top 50% of wage earners give 97% of their income to the government, but rather that 97% of the government's income tax revenues come from the top 50%.

Not 97% of what the top 50% make, but 97% of the government's income tax revenue, e.g.:

Suppose the government takes in $1 trillion in income taxes; according to the sign in the picture, that would be:
$390 billion (39% of a trillion) from the top 1%
$970 billion (97% of a trillion) from the top 50%
$30 billion (3% of a trillion) from the bottom 50%

Once again, if your sign needs as much explanation as it's gotten in this thread alone, you need a new sign. May I suggest, ""'m mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"? At least people understand that.

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

I would hope that most people know that over 9000% of statistics are made up on the spot, but I've far too little faith in humanity.

[Tagmatium]

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

The point still stands, though. If you've got to stand and explain what your sign means, then you probably need to get a better slogan.

Anyways, I watched the video, and whilst it is somewhat distasteful, I find myself finding fault more with the chap who's sitting on the ground than the Tea Party people - he knew exactly what response he'd likely get if he did so, so I can't honestly see the whole "shock, horror!" thing going on here.

It's a friggin' red rag to a bull.

[Farnhamia]

Well, we can't expect too much out of them, they aren't exactly known for their high levels of intelligence...

Actually, that makes sense.

Person-posting-picture-of-sign-on-internet fail.

97% tax rate? That's even worse than European tax rates.

I think that sign (and the guy holding it) means, not that the top 50% of wage earners give 97% of their income to the government, but rather that 97% of the government's income tax revenues come from the top 50%.

Not 97% of what the top 50% make, but 97% of the government's income tax revenue, e.g.:

Suppose the government takes in $1 trillion in income taxes; according to the sign in the picture, that would be:
$390 billion (39% of a trillion) from the top 1%
$970 billion (97% of a trillion) from the top 50%
$30 billion (3% of a trillion) from the bottom 50%

Once again, if your sign needs as much explanation as it's gotten in this thread alone, you need a new sign. May I suggest, ""'m mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"? At least people understand that.

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

Oh, well, it made sense to you? I'll delete the post, shall I? That had to be at least the fifth time someone explained the thing. Fail.

[Techno-Soviet]

97% tax rate? That's even worse than European tax rates.

Its closer to 20%, I think. I'm not sure on income taxes since I don't have a real job.

[Ixzara]

Well, we can't expect too much out of them, they aren't exactly known for their high levels of intelligence...

Actually, that makes sense.

Person-posting-picture-of-sign-on-internet fail.

97% tax rate? That's even worse than European tax rates.

I think that sign (and the guy holding it) means, not that the top 50% of wage earners give 97% of their income to the government, but rather that 97% of the government's income tax revenues come from the top 50%.

Not 97% of what the top 50% make, but 97% of the government's income tax revenue, e.g.:

Suppose the government takes in $1 trillion in income taxes; according to the sign in the picture, that would be:
$390 billion (39% of a trillion) from the top 1%
$970 billion (97% of a trillion) from the top 50%
$30 billion (3% of a trillion) from the bottom 50%

Once again, if your sign needs as much explanation as it's gotten in this thread alone, you need a new sign. May I suggest, ""'m mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"? At least people understand that.

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

The goal of the IASMS is to stamp this out. The IASMS believes that if there are going to be any made up statistics, that it should only be made by the IASMS

[Dyakovo]

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

The point still stands, though. If you've got to stand and explain what your sign means, then you probably need to get a better slogan.

Anyways, I watched the video, and whilst it is somewhat distasteful, I find myself finding fault more with the chap who's sitting on the ground than the Tea Party people - he knew exactly what response he'd likely get if he did so, so I can't honestly see the whole "shock, horror!" thing going on here.

It's a friggin' red rag to a bull.

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

[Ifreann]

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

The point still stands, though. If you've got to stand and explain what your sign means, then you probably need to get a better slogan.

Anyways, I watched the video, and whilst it is somewhat distasteful, I find myself finding fault more with the chap who's sitting on the ground than the Tea Party people - he knew exactly what response he'd likely get if he did so, so I can't honestly see the whole "shock, horror!" thing going on here.

It's a friggin' red rag to a bull.

I disagree. In the same way that you'll still get warned for flaming someone who was flamebaiting here, it's wrong(IMO) to treat someone like shit even if they expected you to treat them like shit.

Seriously, if you were there, would you honestly have given that guy shit because he should have known to expect it? "He should have known that we'd yell at him if he sat in front of us, so I'm gonna yell at him". Wut?

[Tagmatium]

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

However, he is still in front of people who would undoubtedly take issue with his point. Whilst I can'y defend their reactions, it was still an attempt at provocation on his part.

Living flamebait is how it is best described.

[Gauthier]

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

However, he is still in front of people who would undoubtedly take issue with his point. Whilst I can'y defend their reactions, it was still an attempt at provocation on his part.

Living flamebait is how it is best described.

Um, no. Flamebaiting the Teabaggers would have consisted of having Hugo Chavez scream "Socialism Uber Alles!!" at them while a mock Death Panel Trial conducted by an Obama impersonator was held for a bunch of old women.

[Dyakovo]

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

However, he is still in front of people who would undoubtedly take issue with his point. Whilst I can'y defend their reactions, it was still an attempt at provocation on his part.

Living flamebait is how it is best described.

Calmly presenting your viewpoint is flame-baiting according to you?

[New Limacon]

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

However, he is still in front of people who would undoubtedly take issue with his point. Whilst I can'y defend their reactions, it was still an attempt at provocation on his part.

Living flamebait is how it is best described.

There are plenty of ways to disagree, even vehemently argue, with someone without insinuating they are homeless or faking a debilitating disease.

[Ixzara]

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

However, he is still in front of people who would undoubtedly take issue with his point. Whilst I can'y defend their reactions, it was still an attempt at provocation on his part.

Living flamebait is how it is best described.

Um, no. Flamebaiting the Teabaggers would have consisted of having Hugo Chavez scream "Socialism Uber Alles!!" at them while a mock Death Panel Trial conducted by an Obama impersonator was held for a bunch of old women.

[Ifreann]

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

However, he is still in front of people who would undoubtedly take issue with his point. Whilst I can'y defend their reactions, it was still an attempt at provocation on his part.

Living flamebait is how it is best described.

How else are you meant to tell a group of protesters that you disagree with them, if not staging a counter protest? It's no more flamebaiting than this post is.

[Farnhamia]

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

The point still stands, though. If you've got to stand and explain what your sign means, then you probably need to get a better slogan.

Anyways, I watched the video, and whilst it is somewhat distasteful, I find myself finding fault more with the chap who's sitting on the ground than the Tea Party people - he knew exactly what response he'd likely get if he did so, so I can't honestly see the whole "shock, horror!" thing going on here.

It's a friggin' red rag to a bull.

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

Indeed. I thought the Tea Party was the party of responsibility, the party that wanted to return the US to its better days. All I've seen is a disorganized mob in silly hats, screaming invectives at some nebulous "government" (when they aren't likening the President to Hitler), and doing their best to disrupt political discourse. This "party of the people" holds a convention that costs $549 to attend, pays Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak, and expects to be taken seriously? Where was the responsibility, the attention to America's better days in throwing money at an old man sitting by the side of the road?

When the Tea Party starts using its indoor voice, I might listen.

[Ifreann]

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

The point still stands, though. If you've got to stand and explain what your sign means, then you probably need to get a better slogan.

Anyways, I watched the video, and whilst it is somewhat distasteful, I find myself finding fault more with the chap who's sitting on the ground than the Tea Party people - he knew exactly what response he'd likely get if he did so, so I can't honestly see the whole "shock, horror!" thing going on here.

It's a friggin' red rag to a bull.

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

Indeed. I thought the Tea Party was the party of responsibility, the party that wanted to return the US to its better days. All I've seen is a disorganized mob in silly hats, screaming invectives at some nebulous "government" (when they aren't likening the President to Hitler), and doing their best to disrupt political discourse. This "party of the people" holds a convention that costs $549 to attend, pays Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak, and expects to be taken seriously? Where was the responsibility, the attention to America's better days in throwing money at an old man sitting by the side of the road?

When the Tea Party starts using its indoor voice, I might listen.

The Tea Party movement is not a political party, it's a group of protesters. Protests have their place in a democratic society, but when the entirety of your political movement is marching and yelling slogans, then you barely register as relevant. Run some candidates for election, vote in a few spokespeople for your movement. Engage in calm, rational debate with the rest of the grown-ups.

[Gauthier]

It was perfectly understandable to me, some signs work on some people, some don't. Not everyone gives a shit if you're mad, others are more taken my stats.

The point still stands, though. If you've got to stand and explain what your sign means, then you probably need to get a better slogan.

Anyways, I watched the video, and whilst it is somewhat distasteful, I find myself finding fault more with the chap who's sitting on the ground than the Tea Party people - he knew exactly what response he'd likely get if he did so, so I can't honestly see the whole "shock, horror!" thing going on here.

It's a friggin' red rag to a bull.

Yes, it's horrible how provocative a man calmly sitting with a sign that points out flaws in your world view is... How dare he show his view point a calm under-stated way...

Indeed. I thought the Tea Party was the party of responsibility, the party that wanted to return the US to its better days. All I've seen is a disorganized mob in silly hats, screaming invectives at some nebulous "government" (when they aren't likening the President to Hitler), and doing their best to disrupt political discourse. This "party of the people" holds a convention that costs $549 to attend, pays Sarah Palin $100,000 to speak, and expects to be taken seriously? Where was the responsibility, the attention to America's better days in throwing money at an old man sitting by the side of the road?

When the Tea Party starts using its indoor voice, I might listen.

And people still believe the Teabaggers are "independents" rather than Republican tools.