Political discourse and debate nowadays is insulting to anyone with a knowledge of history or definition.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
If the Tea Party is truly a nonpartisan organization, then why are they not getting involved in the Democratic elections? Why are they only concerned with the Republican candidates?
I read an interview with two of the top Tea Party folks in Louisiana a few months ago, and I thought it summed the local movement up perfectly. The two women started by talking about how the Tea Party was all about family values... which was fine... until they started talking about who they were endorsing in the Senate race in Louisiana. Are they endorsing Charlie Melancon (D), the Blue Dog Democrat and former small business owner? Or are they endorsing David Vitter (R), the married father of four who has been visiting brothels in New Orleans and D.C. since the 90s, and who employed, as his assistant in charge of women's issues, a man who attacked and stabbed his girlfriend in 2008? (side note: when Vitter found out about the stabbing, he suspended the guy without pay for five whole days, then let him return to work. The assistant ended up resigning this year when the news finally broke and the shit hit the fan)
As you've no doubt guessed, the Louisiana Tea Party is endorsing Vitter, the man who lives a life that contradicts everything the local branch of the Tea Party claims it stands for. He sleeps with prostitutes and hired a known spousal abuser to be his assistant in charge of women's issues. Their reasoning is that he, at least, doesn't vote for bills the Democrats propose.
They're more concerned with keeping the Democrats and their allies out of D.C. than they are with making sure the guys running the country are capable people.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
...
I'm certain it is.
Look... I don't claim to be some sort of expert on anything, but I do understand one thing... no one knows for sure what the truth is. With that very simple concept, I apply logic that fits that premise.
Especially when it comes to politics. Simply replacing Democrats with Republicans is not going to solve anything. We will STILL have a two party system where the opposition is demonized and nothing gets done. Doing nothing simply compounds the existing problems. Fixing the problems is extremely difficult because for every political solution, several other complex problems are created... I used the bailouts as an example of this. Letting those big institutions fail would have created disasterous consequences that would require even tougher decisions to come up with viable solutions.
The Tea Party claims to have simple solutions to complex political issues. That is not going to solve anything and perhaps, create even greater problems. I have been following politics for the better part of the last 30 years and have witnessed the results. I don't have any 'right' answers. But, I do believe that at the core of our problems is the belief that politics is about winning or losing. It is more about coming up with solutions to limit future problems and limit risk to our way of life. Politics is not a game... not a sport. But, it has become just that. Where there are only 2 teams in the political arena and people with limited knowledge of the complexities of governing have all of a sudden tossed their opinions into the mix, offering up simple solutions.
Anyway.. in political discussion... it is NOT about winning or losing. It is about thinking about the best path to take by discussion possible solutions, assessing the risk and working out the hundreds of scenarios to limit the long term effects of those solutions. People who think it is about winning or losing tend to be those with little understanding of what all is involved with governing a country of 300 million people.
That's all.
I like simple "Fixing the problems is extremely difficult because for every political solution, several other complex problems are created..." I wonder if these challenges were broke down into single challengs and handled that way ? seems that every bill that is passed has "fine print" at the bottom line that would vote in something totally different from the voted on bill it self...did that make any sense ? any way politicians have a habit combining two proposals on one bill and that comes back to bite us on the ass sometimes and in my humble opinion it should be one bill one choice..maybe that would be a good start.
if that sounds totally messed up..I just couldn't explain it properly derail from tea party...sorry
My apologies if this has been posted already, but it's pretty funny, if extremely one-sided.
note: if you're unsure about clicking on it because you don't know what side the author is on, here are a few quotes from it:
"A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it."
"At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations."
"A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC."
He's fairly complimentary when talking about Ron Paul and the origins of the Tea Party, but the knives come out when he talks about Rand Paul and how the GOP has basically hijacked the Tea Party and used it to its own advantage.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
I don't understand how the Tea Party can have the opinion of 'No Socialism For Me' and 'Hands Off My Medicare' at the same time.
Can a Tea Party member please, explain that to me? Because, I don't get it... I've tried... but, I can't.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Political discourse and debate nowadays is insulting to anyone with a knowledge of history or definition.
Very insulting
...
And how about Glenn Beck?
I was watching one of his show where he came to the conclusion that Hitler and the Nazis were not Christians as those 'Historians' claim. He based his conclusion on his one guest who was in Germany in 1939 as a child... paraphrasing, "This is real history, folks... eyewitness accounts... not words from books".
And later, provides proof of America being founded in God by reciting the Bible... i.e. 'words from books'.
...
My guess... this blew right over his audience's bullshit detectors because they switch it off when they hear the things they want to hear.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
If the Tea Party is truly a nonpartisan organization, then why are they not getting involved in the Democratic elections? Why are they only concerned with the Republican candidates?
I read an interview with two of the top Tea Party folks in Louisiana a few months ago, and I thought it summed the local movement up perfectly. The two women started by talking about how the Tea Party was all about family values... which was fine... until they started talking about who they were endorsing in the Senate race in Louisiana. Are they endorsing Charlie Melancon (D), the Blue Dog Democrat and former small business owner? Or are they endorsing David Vitter (R), the married father of four who has been visiting brothels in New Orleans and D.C. since the 90s, and who employed, as his assistant in charge of women's issues, a man who attacked and stabbed his girlfriend in 2008? (side note: when Vitter found out about the stabbing, he suspended the guy without pay for five whole days, then let him return to work. The assistant ended up resigning this year when the news finally broke and the shit hit the fan)
As you've no doubt guessed, the Louisiana Tea Party is endorsing Vitter, the man who lives a life that contradicts everything the local branch of the Tea Party claims it stands for. He sleeps with prostitutes and hired a known spousal abuser to be his assistant in charge of women's issues. Their reasoning is that he, at least, doesn't vote for bills the Democrats propose.
They're more concerned with keeping the Democrats and their allies out of D.C. than they are with making sure the guys running the country are capable people.
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
If the Tea Party is truly a nonpartisan organization, then why are they not getting involved in the Democratic elections? Why are they only concerned with the Republican candidates?
I read an interview with two of the top Tea Party folks in Louisiana a few months ago, and I thought it summed the local movement up perfectly. The two women started by talking about how the Tea Party was all about family values... which was fine... until they started talking about who they were endorsing in the Senate race in Louisiana. Are they endorsing Charlie Melancon (D), the Blue Dog Democrat and former small business owner? Or are they endorsing David Vitter (R), the married father of four who has been visiting brothels in New Orleans and D.C. since the 90s, and who employed, as his assistant in charge of women's issues, a man who attacked and stabbed his girlfriend in 2008? (side note: when Vitter found out about the stabbing, he suspended the guy without pay for five whole days, then let him return to work. The assistant ended up resigning this year when the news finally broke and the shit hit the fan)
As you've no doubt guessed, the Louisiana Tea Party is endorsing Vitter, the man who lives a life that contradicts everything the local branch of the Tea Party claims it stands for. He sleeps with prostitutes and hired a known spousal abuser to be his assistant in charge of women's issues. Their reasoning is that he, at least, doesn't vote for bills the Democrats propose.
They're more concerned with keeping the Democrats and their allies out of D.C. than they are with making sure the guys running the country are capable people.
that's a really good question and something i can't get my head around either.
they are 138-0 all in favor of only republicans...you would think that if they were nonparitsan they would at least support a blue dog democrat or something...this destroys their claim of being independent and nonpartisan...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
'Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them.'
'So how does a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations get a bunch of broke Middle American white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street? That turns out to be easy. Beneath the surface, the Tea Party is little more than a weird and disorderly mob, a federation of distinct and often competing strains of conservatism that have been unable to coalesce around a leader of their own choosing. Its rallies include not only hardcore libertarians left over from the original Ron Paul "Tea Parties," but gun-rights advocates, fundamentalist Christians, pseudomilitia types like the Oath Keepers (a group of law- enforcement and military professionals who have vowed to disobey "unconstitutional" orders) and mainstream Republicans who have simply lost faith in their party. It's a mistake to cast the Tea Party as anything like a unified, cohesive movement — which makes them easy prey for the very people they should be aiming their pitchforks at.'
'Of course, the fact that we're even sitting here two years after Bush talking about a GOP comeback is a profound testament to two things: One, the American voter's unmatched ability to forget what happened to him 10 seconds ago, and two, the Republican Party's incredible recuperative skill and bureaucratic ingenuity. This is a party that in 2008 was not just beaten but obliterated, with nearly every one of its recognizable leaders reduced to historical-footnote status and pinned with blame for some ghastly political catastrophe. There were literally no healthy bodies left on the bench, but the Republicans managed to get back in the game anyway by plucking an assortment of nativist freaks, village idiots and Internet Hitlers out of thin air and training them into a giant ball of incoherent resentment just in time for the 2010 midterms...'
regardless of one's political views, one can't seriously want a person who doesn't even know the first amendment of the constitution to help govern the country...voting out incumbents and replacing them with dolts will solve nothing
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
regardless of one's political views, one can't seriously want a person who doesn't even know the first amendment of the constitution to help govern the country...voting out incumbents and replacing them with dolts will solve nothing
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Yeah, that's like a comment we make on a regular basis here in Baton Rouge when people start talking about firing Les Miles, the head coach of the worst/luckiest 7-0 football team in history. If you're going to get rid of someone because you don't like him, you'd better make sure the guy you replace him with is an improvement.
And I listen for the voice inside my head... nothing. I'll do this one myself.
I don't understand how the Tea Party can have the opinion of 'No Socialism For Me' and 'Hands Off My Medicare' at the same time.
Can a Tea Party member please, explain that to me? Because, I don't get it... I've tried... but, I can't.
There's this picture painted of the tea party people which depicts them as old gray-haired people who champion socialism (Medicare) and hate it at the same time (for other programs-- like the Health Care Legislation), which makes them look like dumb hypocrites.
Just like in any other group, some of them probably are. But, I'm sure many of these people have thought it out, and are riding the wave of emotion that's out there currently to hopefully change things.
For one thing, a person can completely abhor socialism but still have to deal with it. The fact is, if these elderly tea partiers have worked their whole lives, and have paid into Medicare (whether they agreed with it or not), they are fully entitled to their benefits when those benefits are due to them. After all, they did work for and earn the money, but simply had no choice in where / how it was stored. If the health care bill or any other action by congress threatens to take from a fund in which people pay into in good faith OR under protest, these people have a legitimate reason to be concerned. Many believe that the cost of healthcare services will go up as a result of "Obamacare" as well. Mandated services always brings an increase in cost, which creates a heavier burden on people with fixed incomes, namely that retired Medicare crowd. As they get older, a larger percentage of their expenditures is on their medical bills. Factor in that lots of money will be printed to fund all of this government spending, and yet again these people are looking at being taxed through devaluation.
I personally don't like paying into social security or any of these programs when their original stated intent was to benefit ME, the investor in it, later on in life. Why can't I have the money now, and invest in the way I see fit-- especially considering the completely reckless regard for the currency that has been taking place the past 100 years, and even worse in the past 30 years? Since I know I'm not going to win this battle any time soon, all I have is the hope that it will be there when it's time for me to cash in. I can hate the system, but if I have to live with it, I should get my fair share of what I put into it. At this point, I don't think anyone is realistically expecting their fair share considering how we are all reminded everyday that this system that we continually pay into will be bled to death by the time my generation is ready to retire. I'm 29 years old, and have many years of work ahead of me. If I could strike a deal with Uncle Sam right now to let him keep 100% of everything I've given into these programs in the past, but let me keep that portion for all of my future earnings, I would do it in a heartbeat. It'd be a loss for me in the thousands now, but at least my future retirement and medical funding would be based on my own merit and not the whims of paid-off politicians.
So, in many ways "Hands of my Medicare" and being against socialist programs go completely hand in hand. If a person's property is being taken against his or her will with the promise of it being there decades in the future, you could see how people value that unwillingly-donated money MORE than their own savings.
It's time to look at how people in this country can take care of one another in a different light: just because there is a government program to solve problem "A" doesn't mean that it will actually solve problem "A," and just because people want to have better discretion over their own money because they earned it, does not mean that they will not be charitable with it.
As for social security payouts, I'm not counting on them in 30 years. They might as well print out a picture of a campfire with my dollars descending into it on my pay-stub.
There's this picture painted of the tea party people which depicts them as old gray-haired people who champion socialism (Medicare) and hate it at the same time (for other programs-- like the Health Care Legislation), which makes them look like dumb hypocrites.
Just like in any other group, some of them probably are. But, I'm sure many of these people have thought it out, and are riding the wave of emotion that's out there currently to hopefully change things.
Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh
Widener Law School audience derided O'Donnell for asking: 'Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?'
Richard Adams in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 October 2010
The US constitution has its quirks but it is crystal clear on one issue: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," begins the first amendment, adopted in 1791. But more than 200 years later, its meaning appears to be lost on Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party favourite running for a US Senate seat.
At a debate today for the Delaware Senate seat once occupied by Vice President Joe Biden, O'Donnell appeared to be nonplussed by the wording of the first amendment, repeatedly returning to the subject and sounding incredulous after her Democratic opponent Chris Coons attempted to explain it to her.
When Coons told her the text of the constitution prohibited government from establishing any religion, O'Donnell replied in apparent bewilderment: "You're telling me that's in the first amendment?"
Minutes earlier, the audience at Widener Law School in Delaware had laughed in derision when O'Donnell asked: "Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?"
Not only is the first amendment perhaps the most famous part of the constitution but the "establishment clause", as it is known, is the subject of legal precedent stretching back into the 19th century. No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's authors, declared the clause's aim to build "a wall of separation between church and state".
While O'Donnell's campaign was quick to attempt damage limitation, saying that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the constitution, the gaffe does O'Donnell no favours as her campaign unravels and she trails far behind Coons in latest opinon polls.
O'Donnell's slip is also the latest in a string of blunders by Tea Party candidates around the US, highlighting the danger of pushing untested candidates under the glare of the national media.
On Sunday, security guards for Republican senate candidate Joe Miller forcibly handcuffed a local journalist after a public event in Alaska, while Nevada Republican Sharron Angle recently told a room full of Hispanic students that "some of you look a little more Asian to me".
Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh
Widener Law School audience derided O'Donnell for asking: 'Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?'
Richard Adams in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 October 2010
The US constitution has its quirks but it is crystal clear on one issue: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," begins the first amendment, adopted in 1791. But more than 200 years later, its meaning appears to be lost on Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party favourite running for a US Senate seat.
At a debate today for the Delaware Senate seat once occupied by Vice President Joe Biden, O'Donnell appeared to be nonplussed by the wording of the first amendment, repeatedly returning to the subject and sounding incredulous after her Democratic opponent Chris Coons attempted to explain it to her.
When Coons told her the text of the constitution prohibited government from establishing any religion, O'Donnell replied in apparent bewilderment: "You're telling me that's in the first amendment?"
Minutes earlier, the audience at Widener Law School in Delaware had laughed in derision when O'Donnell asked: "Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?"
Not only is the first amendment perhaps the most famous part of the constitution but the "establishment clause", as it is known, is the subject of legal precedent stretching back into the 19th century. No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's authors, declared the clause's aim to build "a wall of separation between church and state".
While O'Donnell's campaign was quick to attempt damage limitation, saying that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the constitution, the gaffe does O'Donnell no favours as her campaign unravels and she trails far behind Coons in latest opinon polls.
O'Donnell's slip is also the latest in a string of blunders by Tea Party candidates around the US, highlighting the danger of pushing untested candidates under the glare of the national media.
On Sunday, security guards for Republican senate candidate Joe Miller forcibly handcuffed a local journalist after a public event in Alaska, while Nevada Republican Sharron Angle recently told a room full of Hispanic students that "some of you look a little more Asian to me".
a fifth grader would have been able to answer that question about the establishment clause....
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
There is no need to worry about Social Security. It's solvent even under the worst case scenarios. The only retirement accounts people should worry about are those that are invested in the stock market - that is the system that swindles money from people. I find it absolutely fucking ridiculous that in 2010 so many Americans are still debating the merits of a public pension system, and criminal that we don't have public health insurance for all. These things, just like the roads, and police and fire departments, shouldn't ever be privately financed. It's madness. Who honestly wants to live in a society where they have to worry about paying for their basic expenses when they are elderly? I am so very tired of the stories of people who have worked hard all their lives facing financial ruin at the end of their lives - and that is what capitalism inevitably does to people. Not all people, but enough. People shouldn't be allowed to make out like bandits when the result is that others will suffer. It's just that simple, and if you don't agree, YOU are to blame for the misery. I will fully admit that, unlike Obama, I am a socialist. The one thing that the Tea Party has got right is that the Democrats have become entrenched and corrupt. But the same is true of Republican administrations. Washington DC is a magnet for corruption because a shit ton of money flows into it, and the only solution for that is to abandon it as our capitol. You cannot have a functional capitol for 300+ million people in such a vast land. Government should be decentralized and robustly democratized - but this will only work out when people are no longer living to exploit one another.
regardless of one's political views, one can't seriously want a person who doesn't even know the first amendment of the constitution to help govern the country...voting out incumbents and replacing them with dolts will solve nothing
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
regardless of one's political views, one can't seriously want a person who doesn't even know the first amendment of the constitution to help govern the country...voting out incumbents and replacing them with dolts will solve nothing
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
regardless of one's political views, one can't seriously want a person who doesn't even know the first amendment of the constitution to help govern the country...voting out incumbents and replacing them with dolts will solve nothing
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
...
Yeah... because she is going to FIX Washington... WOOOO-WHOOOO!!!
We don't need two Sarah Palin's.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
regardless of one's political views, one can't seriously want a person who doesn't even know the first amendment of the constitution to help govern the country...voting out incumbents and replacing them with dolts will solve nothing
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
She has 40% of the vote, according to the latest poll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ware,_2010 That's 40 percentage points too high. So I gather that's the total percentage of the following groups of people: people who really really hate Obama (white people who hate the idea of black people in charge of them), bible thumpers, pseudo-feminists who say "you go girl!" and people Christine O'Donnell was able to cast spells on back when she dabbled in witchcraft. Am I leaving anyone out? Who the fuck are these people???
regardless of one's political views, one can't seriously want a person who doesn't even know the first amendment of the constitution to help govern the country...voting out incumbents and replacing them with dolts will solve nothing
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
She has 40% of the vote, according to the latest poll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ware,_2010 That's 40 percentage points too high. So I gather that's the total percentage of the following groups of people: people who really really hate Obama (white people who hate the idea of black people in charge of them), bible thumpers, pseudo-feminists who say "you go girl!" and people Christine O'Donnell was able to cast spells on back when she dabbled in witchcraft. Am I leaving anyone out? Who the fuck are these people???
Definitely WAY TOO HIGH! I haven't been catching up with Bill Maher but is he still showing clips of her? She definitely did cast spells on the people who voted for her to win.
Not to O'Donnell but kind of: I don't want a president who says "mama grizzly" and 'says' she's just like us. Since when did all of us have our own private jets? Yeah, she's really just like us.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Weak-minded, suggestible people who function primarily on fear, xenophobia, and racism, and who are incapable of critical thought.
This.
Shows: 6.27.08 Hartford, CT/5.15.10 Hartford, CT/6.18.2011 Hartford, CT (EV Solo)/10.19.13 Brooklyn/10.25.13 Hartford
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
There is no need to worry about Social Security. It's solvent even under the worst case scenarios. The only retirement accounts people should worry about are those that are invested in the stock market - that is the system that swindles money from people. I find it absolutely fucking ridiculous that in 2010 so many Americans are still debating the merits of a public pension system, and criminal that we don't have public health insurance for all. These things, just like the roads, and police and fire departments, shouldn't ever be privately financed. It's madness. Who honestly wants to live in a society where they have to worry about paying for their basic expenses when they are elderly? I am so very tired of the stories of people who have worked hard all their lives facing financial ruin at the end of their lives - and that is what capitalism inevitably does to people. Not all people, but enough. People shouldn't be allowed to make out like bandits when the result is that others will suffer. It's just that simple, and if you don't agree, YOU are to blame for the misery. I will fully admit that, unlike Obama, I am a socialist. The one thing that the Tea Party has got right is that the Democrats have become entrenched and corrupt. But the same is true of Republican administrations. Washington DC is a magnet for corruption because a shit ton of money flows into it, and the only solution for that is to abandon it as our capitol. You cannot have a functional capitol for 300+ million people in such a vast land. Government should be decentralized and robustly democratized - but this will only work out when people are no longer living to exploit one another.
So you'd advocate a public pension system on the state or local level, as you admit that one central government is too attractive to be co-opted by special interests? I'd take that idea over the current system, at least the waste and spending would be easier to monitor, and the pot wouldn't be so big that people would be less attracted to the idea of robbing it. I still don't know why we all can't have our cake and eat it too? Why can't you trust the government with your retirement, and I trust a bank, the stock market, gold bars, cash under my mattress, etc...? Why shouldn't I have the opportunity to opt out of this system, risking my own ruin to do so? No system is foolproof, especially those that eliminate choice and promote waste as typically found in government.
I don't know how you can argue that Social Security is solvent? How? Because the Fed could always print the money to satisfy everyone's ration no matter how much revenue it actually takes in? What if they printed so much money that it became WORTHLESS, which is not inconceivable? Also, I recall a statistic where Social Security is horribly underfunded to the tune of trillions. But again, you trust it more than I do, so you can have it-- why must I be kept in it?
Comments
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
You bastards won't be happy until everyone is eating their french fries with gravy and cheese curds, will you?
EDIT:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02103.html
See, Sharron Angle is on to you brown skinned, Spanish speaking... Canadians.
EDIT 2:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralsto ... tle-more-/
You're off the hook, it looks like the kids were Asians, just like Angle.
I read an interview with two of the top Tea Party folks in Louisiana a few months ago, and I thought it summed the local movement up perfectly. The two women started by talking about how the Tea Party was all about family values... which was fine... until they started talking about who they were endorsing in the Senate race in Louisiana. Are they endorsing Charlie Melancon (D), the Blue Dog Democrat and former small business owner? Or are they endorsing David Vitter (R), the married father of four who has been visiting brothels in New Orleans and D.C. since the 90s, and who employed, as his assistant in charge of women's issues, a man who attacked and stabbed his girlfriend in 2008? (side note: when Vitter found out about the stabbing, he suspended the guy without pay for five whole days, then let him return to work. The assistant ended up resigning this year when the news finally broke and the shit hit the fan)
As you've no doubt guessed, the Louisiana Tea Party is endorsing Vitter, the man who lives a life that contradicts everything the local branch of the Tea Party claims it stands for. He sleeps with prostitutes and hired a known spousal abuser to be his assistant in charge of women's issues. Their reasoning is that he, at least, doesn't vote for bills the Democrats propose.
They're more concerned with keeping the Democrats and their allies out of D.C. than they are with making sure the guys running the country are capable people.
I like simple
if that sounds totally messed up..I just couldn't explain it properly
Godfather.
My apologies if this has been posted already, but it's pretty funny, if extremely one-sided.
note: if you're unsure about clicking on it because you don't know what side the author is on, here are a few quotes from it:
"A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it."
"At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations."
"A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC."
He's fairly complimentary when talking about Ron Paul and the origins of the Tea Party, but the knives come out when he talks about Rand Paul and how the GOP has basically hijacked the Tea Party and used it to its own advantage.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Can a Tea Party member please, explain that to me? Because, I don't get it... I've tried... but, I can't.
Hail, Hail!!!
Very insulting
And how about Glenn Beck?
I was watching one of his show where he came to the conclusion that Hitler and the Nazis were not Christians as those 'Historians' claim. He based his conclusion on his one guest who was in Germany in 1939 as a child... paraphrasing, "This is real history, folks... eyewitness accounts... not words from books".
And later, provides proof of America being founded in God by reciting the Bible... i.e. 'words from books'.
...
My guess... this blew right over his audience's bullshit detectors because they switch it off when they hear the things they want to hear.
Hail, Hail!!!
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
crossed the LIIIIINE
'Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them.'
'So how does a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations get a bunch of broke Middle American white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street? That turns out to be easy. Beneath the surface, the Tea Party is little more than a weird and disorderly mob, a federation of distinct and often competing strains of conservatism that have been unable to coalesce around a leader of their own choosing. Its rallies include not only hardcore libertarians left over from the original Ron Paul "Tea Parties," but gun-rights advocates, fundamentalist Christians, pseudomilitia types like the Oath Keepers (a group of law- enforcement and military professionals who have vowed to disobey "unconstitutional" orders) and mainstream Republicans who have simply lost faith in their party. It's a mistake to cast the Tea Party as anything like a unified, cohesive movement — which makes them easy prey for the very people they should be aiming their pitchforks at.'
'Of course, the fact that we're even sitting here two years after Bush talking about a GOP comeback is a profound testament to two things: One, the American voter's unmatched ability to forget what happened to him 10 seconds ago, and two, the Republican Party's incredible recuperative skill and bureaucratic ingenuity. This is a party that in 2008 was not just beaten but obliterated, with nearly every one of its recognizable leaders reduced to historical-footnote status and pinned with blame for some ghastly political catastrophe. There were literally no healthy bodies left on the bench, but the Republicans managed to get back in the game anyway by plucking an assortment of nativist freaks, village idiots and Internet Hitlers out of thin air and training them into a giant ball of incoherent resentment just in time for the 2010 midterms...'
"Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked him.
When Coons responded that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O'Donnell asked: "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... nn_twitter
Yeah, that's like a comment we make on a regular basis here in Baton Rouge when people start talking about firing Les Miles, the head coach of the worst/luckiest 7-0 football team in history. If you're going to get rid of someone because you don't like him, you'd better make sure the guy you replace him with is an improvement.
There's this picture painted of the tea party people which depicts them as old gray-haired people who champion socialism (Medicare) and hate it at the same time (for other programs-- like the Health Care Legislation), which makes them look like dumb hypocrites.
Just like in any other group, some of them probably are. But, I'm sure many of these people have thought it out, and are riding the wave of emotion that's out there currently to hopefully change things.
For one thing, a person can completely abhor socialism but still have to deal with it. The fact is, if these elderly tea partiers have worked their whole lives, and have paid into Medicare (whether they agreed with it or not), they are fully entitled to their benefits when those benefits are due to them. After all, they did work for and earn the money, but simply had no choice in where / how it was stored. If the health care bill or any other action by congress threatens to take from a fund in which people pay into in good faith OR under protest, these people have a legitimate reason to be concerned. Many believe that the cost of healthcare services will go up as a result of "Obamacare" as well. Mandated services always brings an increase in cost, which creates a heavier burden on people with fixed incomes, namely that retired Medicare crowd. As they get older, a larger percentage of their expenditures is on their medical bills. Factor in that lots of money will be printed to fund all of this government spending, and yet again these people are looking at being taxed through devaluation.
I personally don't like paying into social security or any of these programs when their original stated intent was to benefit ME, the investor in it, later on in life. Why can't I have the money now, and invest in the way I see fit-- especially considering the completely reckless regard for the currency that has been taking place the past 100 years, and even worse in the past 30 years? Since I know I'm not going to win this battle any time soon, all I have is the hope that it will be there when it's time for me to cash in. I can hate the system, but if I have to live with it, I should get my fair share of what I put into it. At this point, I don't think anyone is realistically expecting their fair share considering how we are all reminded everyday that this system that we continually pay into will be bled to death by the time my generation is ready to retire. I'm 29 years old, and have many years of work ahead of me. If I could strike a deal with Uncle Sam right now to let him keep 100% of everything I've given into these programs in the past, but let me keep that portion for all of my future earnings, I would do it in a heartbeat. It'd be a loss for me in the thousands now, but at least my future retirement and medical funding would be based on my own merit and not the whims of paid-off politicians.
So, in many ways "Hands of my Medicare" and being against socialist programs go completely hand in hand. If a person's property is being taken against his or her will with the promise of it being there decades in the future, you could see how people value that unwillingly-donated money MORE than their own savings.
It's time to look at how people in this country can take care of one another in a different light: just because there is a government program to solve problem "A" doesn't mean that it will actually solve problem "A," and just because people want to have better discretion over their own money because they earned it, does not mean that they will not be charitable with it.
As for social security payouts, I'm not counting on them in 30 years. They might as well print out a picture of a campfire with my dollars descending into it on my pay-stub.
Did you read this article? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/210904
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oc ... tate-gaffe
Christine O'Donnell's church and state gaffe makes voters laugh
Widener Law School audience derided O'Donnell for asking: 'Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?'
Richard Adams in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 October 2010
The US constitution has its quirks but it is crystal clear on one issue: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," begins the first amendment, adopted in 1791. But more than 200 years later, its meaning appears to be lost on Christine O'Donnell, the Tea Party favourite running for a US Senate seat.
At a debate today for the Delaware Senate seat once occupied by Vice President Joe Biden, O'Donnell appeared to be nonplussed by the wording of the first amendment, repeatedly returning to the subject and sounding incredulous after her Democratic opponent Chris Coons attempted to explain it to her.
When Coons told her the text of the constitution prohibited government from establishing any religion, O'Donnell replied in apparent bewilderment: "You're telling me that's in the first amendment?"
Minutes earlier, the audience at Widener Law School in Delaware had laughed in derision when O'Donnell asked: "Where in the constitution is the separation of church and state?"
Not only is the first amendment perhaps the most famous part of the constitution but the "establishment clause", as it is known, is the subject of legal precedent stretching back into the 19th century. No less an authority than Thomas Jefferson, one of the constitution's authors, declared the clause's aim to build "a wall of separation between church and state".
While O'Donnell's campaign was quick to attempt damage limitation, saying that the words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the constitution, the gaffe does O'Donnell no favours as her campaign unravels and she trails far behind Coons in latest opinon polls.
O'Donnell's slip is also the latest in a string of blunders by Tea Party candidates around the US, highlighting the danger of pushing untested candidates under the glare of the national media.
On Sunday, security guards for Republican senate candidate Joe Miller forcibly handcuffed a local journalist after a public event in Alaska, while Nevada Republican Sharron Angle recently told a room full of Hispanic students that "some of you look a little more Asian to me".
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Yeah... because she is going to FIX Washington... WOOOO-WHOOOO!!!
Hail, Hail!!!
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
She has 40% of the vote, according to the latest poll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... ware,_2010 That's 40 percentage points too high. So I gather that's the total percentage of the following groups of people: people who really really hate Obama (white people who hate the idea of black people in charge of them), bible thumpers, pseudo-feminists who say "you go girl!" and people Christine O'Donnell was able to cast spells on back when she dabbled in witchcraft. Am I leaving anyone out? Who the fuck are these people???
Not to O'Donnell but kind of: I don't want a president who says "mama grizzly" and 'says' she's just like us. Since when did all of us have our own private jets? Yeah, she's really just like us.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
Weak-minded, suggestible people who function primarily on fear, xenophobia, and racism, and who are incapable of critical thought.
"Becoming a Bruce fan is like hitting puberty as a musical fan. It's inevitable." - dcfaithful
So you'd advocate a public pension system on the state or local level, as you admit that one central government is too attractive to be co-opted by special interests? I'd take that idea over the current system, at least the waste and spending would be easier to monitor, and the pot wouldn't be so big that people would be less attracted to the idea of robbing it. I still don't know why we all can't have our cake and eat it too? Why can't you trust the government with your retirement, and I trust a bank, the stock market, gold bars, cash under my mattress, etc...? Why shouldn't I have the opportunity to opt out of this system, risking my own ruin to do so? No system is foolproof, especially those that eliminate choice and promote waste as typically found in government.
I don't know how you can argue that Social Security is solvent? How? Because the Fed could always print the money to satisfy everyone's ration no matter how much revenue it actually takes in? What if they printed so much money that it became WORTHLESS, which is not inconceivable? Also, I recall a statistic where Social Security is horribly underfunded to the tune of trillions. But again, you trust it more than I do, so you can have it-- why must I be kept in it?