1. The link to the survey shows that they consist almost exclusively of republicans and most likely the republican leaning independents. Only 7 % were democrats. Demographically they are more of an average, but politically, they attract massively right wingers and have some appeal to centre-rights. Also seems to have soaked up some pro-lifers into the mix.
2. The core values, aren't they really the trusty republican values? Tight fiscal spending, responsibility and free markets? Nevermind what republicans have done lately, but these are traditional american conservative values, are they not?
Wouldn't it then be most correct to call the tea party an offshoot of the conservative side of politics? A conservative movement, with many of the good old conservative causes? Granted, they draw in some independents to their ranks, but massively, they are not from all walks of politics. They are from the right by and large.
Now that's no crime, but I think it would be most fair to call a shovel a shovel and concede that the tea party is largely a right-wing affair, with some appeal to segments of "the middle of the road".
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
1. The link to the survey shows that they consist almost exclusively of republicans and most likely the republican leaning independents. Only 7 % were democrats. Demographically they are more of an average, but politically, they attract massively right wingers and have some appeal to centre-rights. Also seems to have soaked up some pro-lifers into the mix.
2. The core values, aren't they really the trusty republican values? Tight fiscal spending, responsibility and free markets? Nevermind what republicans have done lately, but these are traditional american conservative values, are they not?
Wouldn't it then be most correct to call the tea party an offshoot of the conservative side of politics? A conservative movement, with many of the good old conservative causes? Granted, they draw in some independents to their ranks, but massively, they are not from all walks of politics. They are from the right by and large.
Now that's no crime, but I think it would be most fair to call a shovel a shovel and concede that the tea party is largely a right-wing affair, with some appeal to segments of "the middle of the road".
Peace
Dan
1. the Gallup poll says 43% of tea party supporters are independents, 8% Democrats and 49% Republicans. That means the majority of tea party supporters in the USA are not Republicans if you add the independents with the democrats that comes out to 51% of the tea party supporters are not republicans does it not ?
2. Yes that would be fair to say. . Many of us if not all want to see a lot of these repukes loose their seats. like J. Mcain and Lindsey Grahmn. They gotta go. We ned to replace these people with fisical conservatives like Marco Rubio and J. D. Hayworth
A group of people not happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Individual freedoms seem to be leaving us as well. This didn't start with Obama although he is continuing Bush policies that have intruded into our daily lives. The sooner people understand they are pretty much the same the better this country will be. People sit and complain about two parties at each others throats but don't do anything about it and instead make it worse.
That's why I'm involved.
Unsung, please don't take this as a personal attack against you. Only quoting you because the "individual freedoms" part. And I actually agree with the part about how everyone complains about the two parties but do nothing.
Can someone explain to me exactly which personal freedoms of mine have disappeared over the past couple of years? This argument is one of the Tea Party's biggest rallying cries and I am always racking my brain trying to understand why I have less personal freedom today than I had in 2007, or 2008.
Anyone?
Am I not allowed to go to the grocery store? Oh, wait. I can.
Movies? Hmm, I just did that so that can't be it.
Oh, I know, I can't go out to eat anymore. That's not right. I know there's a Burger King around the corner and it is open.
Seriously. I want a concrete example of how my personal freedoms have eroded and what exactly the Tea Party is going to do to help me get them back. And don't say anything about taxes. I don't make $200,000/year and I actually have paid less in taxes seemingly every year or about the same. I don't notice my taxes going through the roof every year. Probably because they don't.
1. the Gallup poll says 43% of tea party supporters are independents, 8% Democrats and 49% Republicans. That means the majority of tea party supporters in the USA are not Republicans if you add the independents with the democrats that comes out to 51% of the tea party supporters are not republicans does it not ?
Actually, no. You have to take into account that a fair number of people that usually label themselves "independent" are functional republicans in that they vote that way most often. And seeing as that is 43 percent of the 28 tea party percentages, I reckon that for the most part it's the right-leaning independents that have swung that way. Furthermore, seeing a statistic that distributes like that 9-43-48 interprets as a heavy bias towards the right side. Had the distribution been more like 20-50-30, then the non-partisan point might have some legitimacy. Most tea partiers label themselves republican, followed by independents. A very small number label themselves democrats. It's not about what they are not (as in, granted 51% dont say flat out republican), but what they say they are (more than 9/10 are not democrats). If you also throw in the distribution from liberal through moderate to conservative, you get a distribution of 7-22-70, leading to my conclusion that the indies counted here, are largely the conservative indies.
2. Yes that would be fair to say. . Many of us if not all want to see a lot of these repukes loose their seats. like J. Mcain and Lindsey Grahmn. They gotta go. We ned to replace these people with fisical conservatives like Marco Rubio and J. D. Hayworth
Shouldn't you then go for something like "true republicans" or at least "true conservatives"? It is clear on what you say, and very evident in the poll you posted that tea partiers are massively conservative and mostly republican or republican-leaning. So why not stop the pretense, and just label yourselves as the conservatives you really are? Nothing wrong with that.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
but there again....only if you're conspiring against the USA
I generally take the "if you haven't done anything wrong then why worry" stance when it comes to the US tapping phones, emails, etc.....but I know others feel very differently
Otherwise it's just a buzzword that the right uses to enflame their ignorant base
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
A group of people not happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Individual freedoms seem to be leaving us as well. This didn't start with Obama although he is continuing Bush policies that have intruded into our daily lives. The sooner people understand they are pretty much the same the better this country will be. People sit and complain about two parties at each others throats but don't do anything about it and instead make it worse.
That's why I'm involved.
Unsung, please don't take this as a personal attack against you. Only quoting you because the "individual freedoms" part. And I actually agree with the part about how everyone complains about the two parties but do nothing.
Can someone explain to me exactly which personal freedoms of mine have disappeared over the past couple of years? This argument is one of the Tea Party's biggest rallying cries and I am always racking my brain trying to understand why I have less personal freedom today than I had in 2007, or 2008.
Anyone?
Am I not allowed to go to the grocery store? Oh, wait. I can.
Movies? Hmm, I just did that so that can't be it.
Oh, I know, I can't go out to eat anymore. That's not right. I know there's a Burger King around the corner and it is open.
Seriously. I want a concrete example of how my personal freedoms have eroded and what exactly the Tea Party is going to do to help me get them back. And don't say anything about taxes. I don't make $200,000/year and I actually have paid less in taxes seemingly every year or about the same. I don't notice my taxes going through the roof every year. Probably because they don't.
I'd like to know where they stand on freedom of choice.
A group of people not happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Individual freedoms seem to be leaving us as well. This didn't start with Obama although he is continuing Bush policies that have intruded into our daily lives. The sooner people understand they are pretty much the same the better this country will be. People sit and complain about two parties at each others throats but don't do anything about it and instead make it worse.
That's why I'm involved.
Unsung, please don't take this as a personal attack against you. Only quoting you because the "individual freedoms" part. And I actually agree with the part about how everyone complains about the two parties but do nothing.
Can someone explain to me exactly which personal freedoms of mine have disappeared over the past couple of years? This argument is one of the Tea Party's biggest rallying cries and I am always racking my brain trying to understand why I have less personal freedom today than I had in 2007, or 2008.
Anyone?
Am I not allowed to go to the grocery store? Oh, wait. I can.
Movies? Hmm, I just did that so that can't be it.
Oh, I know, I can't go out to eat anymore. That's not right. I know there's a Burger King around the corner and it is open.
Seriously. I want a concrete example of how my personal freedoms have eroded and what exactly the Tea Party is going to do to help me get them back. And don't say anything about taxes. I don't make $200,000/year and I actually have paid less in taxes seemingly every year or about the same. I don't notice my taxes going through the roof every year. Probably because they don't.
Flagg, I've been wondering the same thing about these "freedoms" they are supposedly losing...
I asked couple of teabagger friends of mine, and they couldn't answer....
It only makes sense that the majority of Tea Party activists are mostly conservative. Most left-leaning individuals are going to stick with their team while it is in control. Since I know a fair share of people that associate themselves with the Tea Party, I can say that they have been disillusioned with the expansion and efficiency of government for the last decade, not just the last year. It just took a change in power for them to break free of the two-party concept and realize it’s not working.
Be Excellent To Each Other
Party On, Dudes!
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
It only makes sense that the majority of Tea Party activists are mostly conservative. Most left-leaning individuals are going to stick with their team while it is in control. Since I know a fair share of people that associate themselves with the Tea Party, I can say that they have been disillusioned with the expansion and efficiency of government for the last decade, not just the last year. It just took a change in power for them to break free of the two-party concept and realize it’s not working.
A group of people not happy with how their tax dollars are spent. Individual freedoms seem to be leaving us as well. This didn't start with Obama although he is continuing Bush policies that have intruded into our daily lives. The sooner people understand they are pretty much the same the better this country will be. People sit and complain about two parties at each others throats but don't do anything about it and instead make it worse.
That's why I'm involved.
Unsung, please don't take this as a personal attack against you. Only quoting you because the "individual freedoms" part. And I actually agree with the part about how everyone complains about the two parties but do nothing.
Can someone explain to me exactly which personal freedoms of mine have disappeared over the past couple of years? This argument is one of the Tea Party's biggest rallying cries and I am always racking my brain trying to understand why I have less personal freedom today than I had in 2007, or 2008.
Anyone?
Am I not allowed to go to the grocery store? Oh, wait. I can.
Movies? Hmm, I just did that so that can't be it.
Oh, I know, I can't go out to eat anymore. That's not right. I know there's a Burger King around the corner and it is open.
Seriously. I want a concrete example of how my personal freedoms have eroded and what exactly the Tea Party is going to do to help me get them back. And don't say anything about taxes. I don't make $200,000/year and I actually have paid less in taxes seemingly every year or about the same. I don't notice my taxes going through the roof every year. Probably because they don't.
I will take a stab at it, but I am not purporting to know exactly how everyone else feels. The healthcare bill adds a significant cost to business owners as well as publically traded companies. These new costs will limit hiring, limit pay raises and limit the ability of those owners to invest more of their money into what they want. Any time the government reaches in someone's pocket and takes more money or tells them what they have to do, people are losing their freedom. It doesn't necessarily mean that I cannot walk across the street the same way, it is much more subtle than that right now. The more money they take from me or anyone else, the less money those people have to spend, limiting what they are free to do. It isn't just the federal government, many states are doing this as well.
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7. In many states, it is a LAW that a kid under the age of 16 has to wear a bike helmet.
Some of you ask what is the problem with that, it is the fact that we are becoming a nanny state. I don't think it is the governments responsibility to legislate things like whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, smoking in a public place, eating trans fats, putting a helmet on a 16 year old etc.
I am not even talking about the patriot act, which most people left of the aisle seem to be against . . .
And before you say anything, yes I understand that Bush was behind a lot of the federal government programs, I didn't like him either. True conservatives didn't like Bush anymore than any other spend happy republicans. As much as it is the lesser of the evils for democrats it is for republicans too.
who knows if any of that made sense
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Starfall, you make a very lucid point. The conservitives want LESS govt but want that same govt to INCREASE border security. So, do they want more or less? You can't have it all. I agree that I don't want my tax dollars supporting illegal immigrants. But the ones that work a job and pay taxes are not screwing our system. The lady that cleans a hotel room in San Diego MIGHT be an illegal alien, but that check she gets has taxes taken out of it. Those taxes contribute to our society. Just like yours and mine.
I would say that most illegal immigrants are paid in cash. not by check. If someone is working here I agree they should be able to stay, and if they are paying taxes than they are paying for things they get.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
My brother in law was all worked up about these "lazy people on welfare that have HDTV's and suck off the system and he doesn't have an HDTV blah blah blah". I mean come on.....they create this fictional enemy to rally against and all rational thought is out the window. It isn't easy to get welfare or public assistance. These people that receive it aren't someone to envy.
a-fucking-men! i wanted to start a fight with someone the other day who was telling me about 'people not willing to work' living on 'government handouts.' i wanted to mention that there's really not THAT much money, and people getting it certainly are NOT off living the high life...
(but we were on a small cramped plane, and i actually like the person, so...)
I generally work with a poor population. This story is not always the same and not always the case, but in most cases this is a pretty average example. While in my office, a family of 4 (1 unemployed mom, 3 kids) who were on Medical Assistance, had two kids answer texts on their iPhones! It is that kind of thing that drives me crazy. Someone is paying for that phone and its plan. But all the paper work says the mother gets no gifts and makes no money, so who is paying for it? Someone is cheating the system, it isn't my Job to care about this stuff, but I cannot help be a bit angry when we give medical care to someone who does not appreciate it for FREE (literally no charge to this woman) and then her daughter chats someone up on her iPhone.
I realize that isn't all people on the government take, but from my experience, (4 years worth) they are definitely living just fine. they aren't getting rich, but they aren't getting up much before 11:00 either.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016.
Take it for what it is worth, I suppose there is an argument for greater good and all that, I just found the cost answer, I find them significant even if they may not effect me directly, they are going to effect a lot of people that were supposed to be helped by this. Guess we will know soon what this bill actually does and how much of it was grand standing. I am interested for sure.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016.
Take it for what it is worth, I suppose there is an argument for greater good and all that, I just found the cost answer, I find them significant even if they may not effect me directly, they are going to effect a lot of people that were supposed to be helped by this. Guess we will know soon what this bill actually does and how much of it was grand standing. I am interested for sure.
did you read this?
Bush gave businesses a 28% subsidy to provide certain benefits to retirees.....
Under this subsidy AT&T can deduct $100 for fringe benefits even though the gov't is providing $28 of the cost....so they get a $100 deduction for spending $78
The new bill allows them only to deduct the net cash spent or $28
Yes you read that correctly....under Bush (a Republican) we instituted one of the biggest corporate welfare subsidies ever
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I will take a stab at it, but I am not purporting to know exactly how everyone else feels. The healthcare bill adds a significant cost to business owners as well as publically traded companies. These new costs will limit hiring, limit pay raises and limit the ability of those owners to invest more of their money into what they want. Any time the government reaches in someone's pocket and takes more money or tells them what they have to do, people are losing their freedom. It doesn't necessarily mean that I cannot walk across the street the same way, it is much more subtle than that right now. The more money they take from me or anyone else, the less money those people have to spend, limiting what they are free to do. It isn't just the federal government, many states are doing this as well.
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7. In many states, it is a LAW that a kid under the age of 16 has to wear a bike helmet.
Some of you ask what is the problem with that, it is the fact that we are becoming a nanny state. I don't think it is the governments responsibility to legislate things like whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, smoking in a public place, eating trans fats, putting a helmet on a 16 year old etc.
I am not even talking about the patriot act, which most people left of the aisle seem to be against . . .
And before you say anything, yes I understand that Bush was behind a lot of the federal government programs, I didn't like him either. True conservatives didn't like Bush anymore than any other spend happy republicans. As much as it is the lesser of the evils for democrats it is for republicans too.
who knows if any of that made sense
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree...I get the sense that you feel money equals freedom...I don't agree with that notion...
paying into something that is mandated by the gov't is being a citizen and paying taxes is part of being a citizen of the United States of America...
Using your logic speed limits can be seen as tyranny and robbing me of my freedom...you know, since I'm not free to drive a 100mph (or kph for my metric friends) down city streets...
Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016.
Take it for what it is worth, I suppose there is an argument for greater good and all that, I just found the cost answer, I find them significant even if they may not effect me directly, they are going to effect a lot of people that were supposed to be helped by this. Guess we will know soon what this bill actually does and how much of it was grand standing. I am interested for sure.
did you read this?
Bush gave businesses a 28% subsidy to provide certain benefits to retirees.....
Under this subsidy AT&T can deduct $100 for fringe benefits even though the gov't is providing $28 of the cost....so they get a $100 deduction for spending $78
The new bill allows them only to deduct the net cash spent or $28
Yes you read that correctly....under Bush (a Republican) we instituted one of the biggest corporate welfare subsidies ever
Did you read it? I could care less what subsidies were already given(I mean if we are talking subsidies I don't think people should get them either) the fact is the cost is going to go up for each large scale employe. Do you not get that from this link? here is another one http://www.aarp.org/community/groups/di ... Id=8312602
Do you understand that this is money that they budget for. When you take away the "subsidy" you are costing the company more money...that i very simple to understand. Where the subsidy came from is another problem all together and you will get no argument from me on that. But the fact is that they had it, the new reform does not allow the company to do the same things, and it will now cost them more money. That is the question you asked, and that is the answer you got.
Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.
if you read my response from earlier you would see that I didn't like bush either. the point is, the program is changing things and it is costing companies a lot of money. No government involvement in healthcare has ever proven to be useful, including anything any republican has ever done.
whether you want to see it or not, giving tax breaks to companies does not simply just give the ceo more money, it allows the companies to expand and thus hire more people. Taking away subsidies is fine with me, I was just pointing out the costs that will increase.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I will take a stab at it, but I am not purporting to know exactly how everyone else feels. The healthcare bill adds a significant cost to business owners as well as publically traded companies. These new costs will limit hiring, limit pay raises and limit the ability of those owners to invest more of their money into what they want. Any time the government reaches in someone's pocket and takes more money or tells them what they have to do, people are losing their freedom. It doesn't necessarily mean that I cannot walk across the street the same way, it is much more subtle than that right now. The more money they take from me or anyone else, the less money those people have to spend, limiting what they are free to do. It isn't just the federal government, many states are doing this as well.
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7. In many states, it is a LAW that a kid under the age of 16 has to wear a bike helmet.
Some of you ask what is the problem with that, it is the fact that we are becoming a nanny state. I don't think it is the governments responsibility to legislate things like whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, smoking in a public place, eating trans fats, putting a helmet on a 16 year old etc.
I am not even talking about the patriot act, which most people left of the aisle seem to be against . . .
And before you say anything, yes I understand that Bush was behind a lot of the federal government programs, I didn't like him either. True conservatives didn't like Bush anymore than any other spend happy republicans. As much as it is the lesser of the evils for democrats it is for republicans too.
who knows if any of that made sense
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree...I get the sense that you feel money equals freedom...I don't agree with that notion...
[b]Money does not diretly = freedom. money = more choices, which = more freedom. Not freedom from tyranny, freedom to choose. [/b]
paying into something that is mandated by the gov't is being a citizen and paying taxes is part of being a citizen of the United States of America...
You are right there. Paying taxes is paying for certain things, they should not be paying for me to be required to wear a bike helmet until I am 16 or wear a seat belt. Taxes are necessar, micro managing people's lives is not
Using your logic speed limits can be seen as tyranny and robbing me of my freedom...you know, since I'm not free to drive a 100mph (or kph for my metric friends) down city streets...
This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.
I would just like the government to get further out of my life than further into it. That may not qualify me as a tea bagger, but I don't really understand the logic of wanting the government to be so involved.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Unsung, please don't take this as a personal attack against you. Only quoting you because the "individual freedoms" part. And I actually agree with the part about how everyone complains about the two parties but do nothing.
Can someone explain to me exactly which personal freedoms of mine have disappeared over the past couple of years? This argument is one of the Tea Party's biggest rallying cries and I am always racking my brain trying to understand why I have less personal freedom today than I had in 2007, or 2008.
Anyone?
Am I not allowed to go to the grocery store? Oh, wait. I can.
Movies? Hmm, I just did that so that can't be it.
Oh, I know, I can't go out to eat anymore. That's not right. I know there's a Burger King around the corner and it is open.
Seriously. I want a concrete example of how my personal freedoms have eroded and what exactly the Tea Party is going to do to help me get them back. And don't say anything about taxes. I don't make $200,000/year and I actually have paid less in taxes seemingly every year or about the same. I don't notice my taxes going through the roof every year. Probably because they don't.
I will take a stab at it, but I am not purporting to know exactly how everyone else feels. The healthcare bill adds a significant cost to business owners as well as publically traded companies. These new costs will limit hiring, limit pay raises and limit the ability of those owners to invest more of their money into what they want. Any time the government reaches in someone's pocket and takes more money or tells them what they have to do, people are losing their freedom. It doesn't necessarily mean that I cannot walk across the street the same way, it is much more subtle than that right now. The more money they take from me or anyone else, the less money those people have to spend, limiting what they are free to do. It isn't just the federal government, many states are doing this as well.
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7. In many states, it is a LAW that a kid under the age of 16 has to wear a bike helmet.
Some of you ask what is the problem with that, it is the fact that we are becoming a nanny state. I don't think it is the governments responsibility to legislate things like whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, smoking in a public place, eating trans fats, putting a helmet on a 16 year old etc.
I am not even talking about the patriot act, which most people left of the aisle seem to be against . . .
And before you say anything, yes I understand that Bush was behind a lot of the federal government programs, I didn't like him either. True conservatives didn't like Bush anymore than any other spend happy republicans. As much as it is the lesser of the evils for democrats it is for republicans too.
who knows if any of that made sense
No, it does. Thanks!! I understand a lot of that. I don't agree with some of it though. I think a lot the "nanny state" laws are necessary (seat belts, helmets, etc.) because some people are too stupid to use common sense. And anyway, you would think those kind of rules would keep insurance costs down by preventing more injuries in car accidents.
Trans fats are harmful to your body so I believe that if a company is using that shit, they should tell us. Actually I personally think it should be banned, especially because it doesn't serve a purpose except to make fries more crispy and tasty, I guess. And I personally can't understand why anybody would defend it. Its not like we've been eating it forever. It is relatively new. Its harmful. And I don't think anyone would really know the difference if it just disappeared one day. Common sense would say to get rid of it. But the first thing a company will do (Burger King, McDonald's) is gripe because it is cheap to use and would cost them money to get rid of it and blah, blah, blah. Even though it is banned in other countries. And I don't have any sympathy for a company that posts billions in profits and then has to spend a little to switch out one fat for another.
It is just a difference of opinion.
And on the healthcare costs to business, their costs go up anyway, and they pass the cost on to us anyway (at least my company does). My premiums go up every single year. Every single year my company faces a bigger bill for health insurance benefits. And they have been reducing benefits anyway (mine used to extend the heath care benefit to retires, but now doesn't, and used to provide a prescription benefit to retirees but dropped that too). It is not as if health care benefit costs to companies were spiraling downward and this bill reverses that. From that Business Week article it sounds like AT&T and Verizon and whoever will have to go that route too. But who is to say they wouldn't do that anyway?
I guess we'll see how that part shakes out.
Thanks for your answer. I see what you mean theoretically about taking money from you means taking freedom but I don't know. I am going to pay taxes anyway. Now and forever. Its just now some of it is going to go to this instead of something else. And in a few years it will be something else. And on and on.
I will take a stab at it, but I am not purporting to know exactly how everyone else feels. The healthcare bill adds a significant cost to business owners as well as publically traded companies. These new costs will limit hiring, limit pay raises and limit the ability of those owners to invest more of their money into what they want. Any time the government reaches in someone's pocket and takes more money or tells them what they have to do, people are losing their freedom. It doesn't necessarily mean that I cannot walk across the street the same way, it is much more subtle than that right now. The more money they take from me or anyone else, the less money those people have to spend, limiting what they are free to do. It isn't just the federal government, many states are doing this as well.
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7. In many states, it is a LAW that a kid under the age of 16 has to wear a bike helmet.
Some of you ask what is the problem with that, it is the fact that we are becoming a nanny state. I don't think it is the governments responsibility to legislate things like whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, smoking in a public place, eating trans fats, putting a helmet on a 16 year old etc.
I am not even talking about the patriot act, which most people left of the aisle seem to be against . . .
And before you say anything, yes I understand that Bush was behind a lot of the federal government programs, I didn't like him either. True conservatives didn't like Bush anymore than any other spend happy republicans. As much as it is the lesser of the evils for democrats it is for republicans too.
who knows if any of that made sense
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree...I get the sense that you feel money equals freedom...I don't agree with that notion...
[b]Money does not diretly = freedom. money = more choices, which = more freedom. Not freedom from tyranny, freedom to choose. [/b]
paying into something that is mandated by the gov't is being a citizen and paying taxes is part of being a citizen of the United States of America...
You are right there. Paying taxes is paying for certain things, they should not be paying for me to be required to wear a bike helmet until I am 16 or wear a seat belt. Taxes are necessar, micro managing people's lives is not
Using your logic speed limits can be seen as tyranny and robbing me of my freedom...you know, since I'm not free to drive a 100mph (or kph for my metric friends) down city streets...
This is a strange one for me, as you might be jumping a little too far. Speed limits are a PUBLIC health issue. Not a private one. Me not wearing a helmet is a private health issue, not a public one. But you can use this argument if you like, I just think it is flawed.
I would just like the government to get further out of my life than further into it. That may not qualify me as a tea bagger, but I don't really understand the logic of wanting the government to be so involved.
I don't want the gov't involved more than they are...but I understand gov't role...
let's look at the helmet thing...let's say someone crashes their cycle...and are hurt pretty bad...to the point they qualify for disability via SSI...who pays for that...? answer, you and I...I guess that's limiting my freedom by limiting my choices by taking more money from me and you...
yeah, I know it's a stretch...but it's plausible...
And really, how hard is it to wear a helmet....? or to buckle your kid in...? or to not smoke in a restaurant...? It's not like the gov't is requiring you to do things that are hurtful to you and yours...while you may find them annoying...you're free to ignore them and enjoy the consequences...
If the government's involvement in healthcare is such an unmitigated disaster, then why does Medicare score so much better with their clients than the private insurance sector?
I don't want the gov't involved more than they are...but I understand gov't role...
let's look at the helmet thing...let's say someone crashes their cycle...and are hurt pretty bad...to the point they qualify for disability via SSI...who pays for that...? answer, you and I...I guess that's limiting my freedom by limiting my choices by taking more money from me and you...
yeah, I know it's a stretch...but it's plausible...
And really, how hard is it to wear a helmet....? or to buckle your kid in...? or to not smoke in a restaurant...? It's not like the gov't is requiring you to do things that are hurtful to you and yours...while you may find them annoying...you're free to ignore them and enjoy the consequences...
personally, I would never allow my kid who was new at riding a bike to not where a helmet, but once he can ride it he should not be REQUIRED to wear it. You say it is a mere annoyance, but I don't want to be annoyed. That definitely isn't the role of the government
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't want the gov't involved more than they are...but I understand gov't role...
let's look at the helmet thing...let's say someone crashes their cycle...and are hurt pretty bad...to the point they qualify for disability via SSI...who pays for that...? answer, you and I...I guess that's limiting my freedom by limiting my choices by taking more money from me and you...
yeah, I know it's a stretch...but it's plausible...
And really, how hard is it to wear a helmet....? or to buckle your kid in...? or to not smoke in a restaurant...? It's not like the gov't is requiring you to do things that are hurtful to you and yours...while you may find them annoying...you're free to ignore them and enjoy the consequences...
personally, I would never allow my kid who was new at riding a bike to not where a helmet, but once he can ride it he should not be REQUIRED to wear it. You say it is a mere annoyance, but I don't want to be annoyed. That definitely isn't the role of the government
I assume you feel the role of the gov't is to keep the citizens safe...it just so happens the gov't as decided that wearing a helmet is a safety issue...
and you don't want to be annoyed...well, welcome to the real world...
If the government's involvement in healthcare is such an unmitigated disaster, then why does Medicare score so much better with their clients than the private insurance sector?
even if the "real" number is half of the estimate, isn't that a little ridiculous? How well managed is that tax money that is just that easily siphoned off? There is more too it than the end users of the program being happy with their services...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I don't want the gov't involved more than they are...but I understand gov't role...
let's look at the helmet thing...let's say someone crashes their cycle...and are hurt pretty bad...to the point they qualify for disability via SSI...who pays for that...? answer, you and I...I guess that's limiting my freedom by limiting my choices by taking more money from me and you...
yeah, I know it's a stretch...but it's plausible...
And really, how hard is it to wear a helmet....? or to buckle your kid in...? or to not smoke in a restaurant...? It's not like the gov't is requiring you to do things that are hurtful to you and yours...while you may find them annoying...you're free to ignore them and enjoy the consequences...
personally, I would never allow my kid who was new at riding a bike to not where a helmet, but once he can ride it he should not be REQUIRED to wear it. You say it is a mere annoyance, but I don't want to be annoyed. That definitely isn't the role of the government
I assume you feel the role of the gov't is to keep the citizens safe...it just so happens the gov't as decided that wearing a helmet is a safety issue...
and you don't want to be annoyed...well, welcome to the real world...
Me wearing a helmet does NOT make someone else more safe. Where is the line drawn then?
edited out my double negative
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I assume you feel the role of the gov't is to keep the citizens safe...it just so happens the gov't as decided that wearing a helmet is a safety issue...
and you don't want to be annoyed...well, welcome to the real world...
Me wearing a helmet does NOT make someone else more safe. Where is the line drawn then?
edited out my double negative
you not wearing a helmet makes you less safe...
the gov't is looking to keep you safe...you may not like it, but it is what it is...
I assume you feel the role of the gov't is to keep the citizens safe...it just so happens the gov't as decided that wearing a helmet is a safety issue...
and you don't want to be annoyed...well, welcome to the real world...
Me wearing a helmet does NOT make someone else more safe. Where is the line drawn then?
edited out my double negative
you not wearing a helmet makes you less safe...
the gov't is looking to keep you safe...you may not like it, but it is what it is...
k, then why am I aloud to leave my house. Danger lurks everywhere...where is the line?
I should be able to make choices regarding my safety right? I mean, mountain climbing is dangerous, better outlaw it, people get concussions playing football, better outlaw backyard games. . . it just seems that anything can be a safety issue, that isn't good enough to tell me how to live.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
even if the "real" number is half of the estimate, isn't that a little ridiculous? How well managed is that tax money that is just that easily siphoned off? There is more too it than the end users of the program being happy with their services...
Strawman argument. That has nothing do do with my point: You think the government can't do healthcare correctly, and yet the people that have socialized medicine like it better than the private insurance corporations. Besides, who's commiting the fraud here? Oh wait... PRIVATE entities. Easily remedied by actually FUNDING Medicare instead of reducing the level of service.
Furthermore, the private insurance industry siphoning off 30% of overhead to pay their CEOs billions in profits, while denying care for people, is better than Medicare running with a 3% overhead and denying nobody healthcare?
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Comments
1. The link to the survey shows that they consist almost exclusively of republicans and most likely the republican leaning independents. Only 7 % were democrats. Demographically they are more of an average, but politically, they attract massively right wingers and have some appeal to centre-rights. Also seems to have soaked up some pro-lifers into the mix.
2. The core values, aren't they really the trusty republican values? Tight fiscal spending, responsibility and free markets? Nevermind what republicans have done lately, but these are traditional american conservative values, are they not?
Wouldn't it then be most correct to call the tea party an offshoot of the conservative side of politics? A conservative movement, with many of the good old conservative causes? Granted, they draw in some independents to their ranks, but massively, they are not from all walks of politics. They are from the right by and large.
Now that's no crime, but I think it would be most fair to call a shovel a shovel and concede that the tea party is largely a right-wing affair, with some appeal to segments of "the middle of the road".
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
1. the Gallup poll says 43% of tea party supporters are independents, 8% Democrats and 49% Republicans. That means the majority of tea party supporters in the USA are not Republicans if you add the independents with the democrats that comes out to 51% of the tea party supporters are not republicans does it not ?
2. Yes that would be fair to say. . Many of us if not all want to see a lot of these repukes loose their seats. like J. Mcain and Lindsey Grahmn. They gotta go. We ned to replace these people with fisical conservatives like Marco Rubio and J. D. Hayworth
Unsung, please don't take this as a personal attack against you. Only quoting you because the "individual freedoms" part. And I actually agree with the part about how everyone complains about the two parties but do nothing.
Can someone explain to me exactly which personal freedoms of mine have disappeared over the past couple of years? This argument is one of the Tea Party's biggest rallying cries and I am always racking my brain trying to understand why I have less personal freedom today than I had in 2007, or 2008.
Anyone?
Am I not allowed to go to the grocery store? Oh, wait. I can.
Movies? Hmm, I just did that so that can't be it.
Oh, I know, I can't go out to eat anymore. That's not right. I know there's a Burger King around the corner and it is open.
Seriously. I want a concrete example of how my personal freedoms have eroded and what exactly the Tea Party is going to do to help me get them back. And don't say anything about taxes. I don't make $200,000/year and I actually have paid less in taxes seemingly every year or about the same. I don't notice my taxes going through the roof every year. Probably because they don't.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
Shouldn't you then go for something like "true republicans" or at least "true conservatives"? It is clear on what you say, and very evident in the poll you posted that tea partiers are massively conservative and mostly republican or republican-leaning. So why not stop the pretense, and just label yourselves as the conservatives you really are? Nothing wrong with that.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
but there again....only if you're conspiring against the USA
I generally take the "if you haven't done anything wrong then why worry" stance when it comes to the US tapping phones, emails, etc.....but I know others feel very differently
Otherwise it's just a buzzword that the right uses to enflame their ignorant base
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I'd like to know where they stand on freedom of choice.
Flagg, I've been wondering the same thing about these "freedoms" they are supposedly losing...
I asked couple of teabagger friends of mine, and they couldn't answer....
I'd agree with this.
I will take a stab at it, but I am not purporting to know exactly how everyone else feels. The healthcare bill adds a significant cost to business owners as well as publically traded companies. These new costs will limit hiring, limit pay raises and limit the ability of those owners to invest more of their money into what they want. Any time the government reaches in someone's pocket and takes more money or tells them what they have to do, people are losing their freedom. It doesn't necessarily mean that I cannot walk across the street the same way, it is much more subtle than that right now. The more money they take from me or anyone else, the less money those people have to spend, limiting what they are free to do. It isn't just the federal government, many states are doing this as well.
In minnesota, I have to keep my kid in a car seat/booster until the age of 7. In many states, it is a LAW that a kid under the age of 16 has to wear a bike helmet.
Some of you ask what is the problem with that, it is the fact that we are becoming a nanny state. I don't think it is the governments responsibility to legislate things like whether or not someone is wearing a seatbelt, smoking in a public place, eating trans fats, putting a helmet on a 16 year old etc.
I am not even talking about the patriot act, which most people left of the aisle seem to be against . . .
And before you say anything, yes I understand that Bush was behind a lot of the federal government programs, I didn't like him either. True conservatives didn't like Bush anymore than any other spend happy republicans. As much as it is the lesser of the evils for democrats it is for republicans too.
who knows if any of that made sense
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I would say that most illegal immigrants are paid in cash. not by check. If someone is working here I agree they should be able to stay, and if they are paying taxes than they are paying for things they get.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I generally work with a poor population. This story is not always the same and not always the case, but in most cases this is a pretty average example. While in my office, a family of 4 (1 unemployed mom, 3 kids) who were on Medical Assistance, had two kids answer texts on their iPhones! It is that kind of thing that drives me crazy. Someone is paying for that phone and its plan. But all the paper work says the mother gets no gifts and makes no money, so who is paying for it? Someone is cheating the system, it isn't my Job to care about this stuff, but I cannot help be a bit angry when we give medical care to someone who does not appreciate it for FREE (literally no charge to this woman) and then her daughter chats someone up on her iPhone.
I realize that isn't all people on the government take, but from my experience, (4 years worth) they are definitely living just fine. they aren't getting rich, but they aren't getting up much before 11:00 either.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I assume u meant this for me, so I will try and answer...if not than ignore this.
for businesses
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate1-.html
Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater, starting in 2016.
Take it for what it is worth, I suppose there is an argument for greater good and all that, I just found the cost answer, I find them significant even if they may not effect me directly, they are going to effect a lot of people that were supposed to be helped by this. Guess we will know soon what this bill actually does and how much of it was grand standing. I am interested for sure.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
did you read this?
Bush gave businesses a 28% subsidy to provide certain benefits to retirees.....
Under this subsidy AT&T can deduct $100 for fringe benefits even though the gov't is providing $28 of the cost....so they get a $100 deduction for spending $78
The new bill allows them only to deduct the net cash spent or $28
Yes you read that correctly....under Bush (a Republican) we instituted one of the biggest corporate welfare subsidies ever
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt2
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree...I get the sense that you feel money equals freedom...I don't agree with that notion...
paying into something that is mandated by the gov't is being a citizen and paying taxes is part of being a citizen of the United States of America...
Using your logic speed limits can be seen as tyranny and robbing me of my freedom...you know, since I'm not free to drive a 100mph (or kph for my metric friends) down city streets...
Did you read it? I could care less what subsidies were already given(I mean if we are talking subsidies I don't think people should get them either) the fact is the cost is going to go up for each large scale employe. Do you not get that from this link? here is another one
http://www.aarp.org/community/groups/di ... Id=8312602
Do you understand that this is money that they budget for. When you take away the "subsidy" you are costing the company more money...that i very simple to understand. Where the subsidy came from is another problem all together and you will get no argument from me on that. But the fact is that they had it, the new reform does not allow the company to do the same things, and it will now cost them more money. That is the question you asked, and that is the answer you got.
Let me see if I understand what you were saying. That is like saying that you got an income tax break for 5 years but now don't get it anymore. Is that costing you money or is it not? I believe that it is, they are getting more of my money now than they did before and that means I do not have it in my pocket.
if you read my response from earlier you would see that I didn't like bush either. the point is, the program is changing things and it is costing companies a lot of money. No government involvement in healthcare has ever proven to be useful, including anything any republican has ever done.
whether you want to see it or not, giving tax breaks to companies does not simply just give the ceo more money, it allows the companies to expand and thus hire more people. Taking away subsidies is fine with me, I was just pointing out the costs that will increase.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
No, it does. Thanks!! I understand a lot of that. I don't agree with some of it though. I think a lot the "nanny state" laws are necessary (seat belts, helmets, etc.) because some people are too stupid to use common sense. And anyway, you would think those kind of rules would keep insurance costs down by preventing more injuries in car accidents.
Trans fats are harmful to your body so I believe that if a company is using that shit, they should tell us. Actually I personally think it should be banned, especially because it doesn't serve a purpose except to make fries more crispy and tasty, I guess. And I personally can't understand why anybody would defend it. Its not like we've been eating it forever. It is relatively new. Its harmful. And I don't think anyone would really know the difference if it just disappeared one day. Common sense would say to get rid of it. But the first thing a company will do (Burger King, McDonald's) is gripe because it is cheap to use and would cost them money to get rid of it and blah, blah, blah. Even though it is banned in other countries. And I don't have any sympathy for a company that posts billions in profits and then has to spend a little to switch out one fat for another.
It is just a difference of opinion.
And on the healthcare costs to business, their costs go up anyway, and they pass the cost on to us anyway (at least my company does). My premiums go up every single year. Every single year my company faces a bigger bill for health insurance benefits. And they have been reducing benefits anyway (mine used to extend the heath care benefit to retires, but now doesn't, and used to provide a prescription benefit to retirees but dropped that too). It is not as if health care benefit costs to companies were spiraling downward and this bill reverses that. From that Business Week article it sounds like AT&T and Verizon and whoever will have to go that route too. But who is to say they wouldn't do that anyway?
I guess we'll see how that part shakes out.
Thanks for your answer. I see what you mean theoretically about taking money from you means taking freedom but I don't know. I am going to pay taxes anyway. Now and forever. Its just now some of it is going to go to this instead of something else. And in a few years it will be something else. And on and on.
I am not an expert on any of this either.
BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
HTFD-6/27/08
ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
OKC-11/16/13
SEA-12/6/13
TUL-10/8/14
I don't want the gov't involved more than they are...but I understand gov't role...
let's look at the helmet thing...let's say someone crashes their cycle...and are hurt pretty bad...to the point they qualify for disability via SSI...who pays for that...? answer, you and I...I guess that's limiting my freedom by limiting my choices by taking more money from me and you...
yeah, I know it's a stretch...but it's plausible...
And really, how hard is it to wear a helmet....? or to buckle your kid in...? or to not smoke in a restaurant...? It's not like the gov't is requiring you to do things that are hurtful to you and yours...while you may find them annoying...you're free to ignore them and enjoy the consequences...
Moreover, how come the Veterans Administration, which ranks higher in satisfaction than even Medicare, can negotiate drug prices up to 58% less of what private insurance clients get charged for it?
Yeah, socialized medicine is so horrible that those who have it love it better than private insurance :roll:
personally, I would never allow my kid who was new at riding a bike to not where a helmet, but once he can ride it he should not be REQUIRED to wear it. You say it is a mere annoyance, but I don't want to be annoyed. That definitely isn't the role of the government
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I assume you feel the role of the gov't is to keep the citizens safe...it just so happens the gov't as decided that wearing a helmet is a safety issue...
and you don't want to be annoyed...well, welcome to the real world...
Your thread is a bold-faced lie. You are not trying to understand the Tea Party at all.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/ ... 4390.shtml
Yep, they are pretty well run
even if the "real" number is half of the estimate, isn't that a little ridiculous? How well managed is that tax money that is just that easily siphoned off? There is more too it than the end users of the program being happy with their services...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Me wearing a helmet does NOT make someone else more safe. Where is the line drawn then?
edited out my double negative
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you not wearing a helmet makes you less safe...
the gov't is looking to keep you safe...you may not like it, but it is what it is...
k, then why am I aloud to leave my house. Danger lurks everywhere...where is the line?
I should be able to make choices regarding my safety right? I mean, mountain climbing is dangerous, better outlaw it, people get concussions playing football, better outlaw backyard games. . . it just seems that anything can be a safety issue, that isn't good enough to tell me how to live.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Strawman argument. That has nothing do do with my point: You think the government can't do healthcare correctly, and yet the people that have socialized medicine like it better than the private insurance corporations. Besides, who's commiting the fraud here? Oh wait... PRIVATE entities. Easily remedied by actually FUNDING Medicare instead of reducing the level of service.
Furthermore, the private insurance industry siphoning off 30% of overhead to pay their CEOs billions in profits, while denying care for people, is better than Medicare running with a 3% overhead and denying nobody healthcare?