Imported from another thread. I ask only that we keep the thread civil and calm, you know have a discussion/debate!
I am a Tea Party member and if you are willing to discuss this logically and debate reasonably I would be happy to explain my own feelings on this.
I was brought up and once considered myself a Conservative Democrat, however the Democratic party has sank into fiscal insanity. We currently have a national debt of $17 trillion. It is odd when the first President Bush ran on read my lips no new taxes and - taxed people he lost the election now we have politicians running on RAISING taxes to get elected to increase the number and amount of handouts the government gives away - we have serious problems.
I know many Tea Party members feel much the same way I do - I do not care what programs you wish to have - but you must PAY for them within a balanced budget. The Democrat party controlled Senate has NEVER had a budget (even though lawfully required) in 5 years. The President has had Zero (0) people vote for one of his attempts at a pork filled budget.
Now do the Republicans have clean hands? No - the one amendment added into the most recent CR (Continuing Resolution) and Debt Limit raise had $2.5 BILLION for Senate leader Mitch McConnell and his state. So what we have in Washington is a bunch of wolves inviting us the sheep they control - to dinner.
The Taxed Enough Already party says - we want you to stop passing debt to our grand children. We LIKE Constitutionally limited government. What we don't like and what threatens all these current idiots of both parties in Congress and the President, is the looting of the taxpayers. They expand daily the size and depth of government control. So what we (I) want is common sense and a reasonable thing - DO NOT SPEND MORE THAN YOU HAVE.
Dave Ramsey - NOT A TEA PARTY guy explains it all perfectly (note this is BEFORE the first election):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7uncSbRBwM&list=PLC5F3970584B707C4
Modify message
Although each party has it's points and it's dirt.
Although I think many of the tea party members are a bit too zealous they do make one simple common sense point. It's easy. Dont spend what ya don't have. That is the only way to get out of debt and don't spend more than the income.
The question is as much as people pay in taxes and stuff, where is all that money going? I have a feeling I already know. First, pork barrel spending should not only be illegal but should be outlawed.
At the same time though, with the handout thing is slippery slope. Majority of people receiving aid either actually do work, or have worked most of their lives. It don't make sense that a person working full time especially cant even get enough wages to feed themselves or family and have to depend on government assistance to make it. While the companies and businesses are bringing in record profits. Either way though handouts from since it began wasa one way road. Now that it's here, even if they stop it now, it will safe money for a few days, but then you have more hungry more homeless people which then end up in the hospital with more illnesses. And instead of a $100 check up the handout provides it end up needing major treatment to keep them alive that cost $200,000 and up and guess who have to pick up the tab? The tax payers anyways. Yes there are some that sit around and abuse the system much majority of recipents of these handouts been laid off because the company wanted to save a few bucks or they outsourced their job overseas, or got injured on the job and got tossed to the side and many more are actually working but get paid pennies for it. The government can only create so many jobs and when they do create jobs guess who pay for it? The tax payers. Overall, there should be the private sector, the ones that control the job market, create the jobs and stop outsourcing if they want the handouts to end and not be needed. Unfortunately they wont do that without incentive to keep their business within the states and supply jobs. Many of that level complain about their tax money being spent to help the same people they laid off so they could save a few bucks and buy a new yacht to show off.
But in tight times like these, I think most know they must do something to get out the hole but how to do it is the dividing factor. Some want to cut off government aid to the poor. Some do not want no more bailouts for major corporations or banks, some say stop foreign aid, some say stop wasteful spending by congress/senate on their travel expenses, some say stop spending money on NASA and the military. Some say cut out corporate tax breaks(one year recently GE made record profits but didn't pay a single penny in taxes.) and some say raise taxes for the low income people (as it stands many don't pay taxes because their income don't reach the set level, but receive lot of stuff off tax dollars others paid.)
In order to get out the hole, I think there will have to be some sort of semblance of agreement of what is important and what will cost more in the long run for short term placates, and what is simply perks some people can actually live without but don't want to give up.
Taxes taxes taxes TAXES, it all comes down to taxes.
Or rather, it comes down to the people who don't pay their taxes and the people who enable them to do that.
Does this country over-spend and spend badly? Yes it does. We all know of $500 toilet seats, $175 shovels, and the guy who is paid to sit in a break room because regulations say that he HAS to because of some insanity of red tape. And we also know that the social systems are badly broken, geared to allow in people who don't need them and to keep out the truly needy who can't afford a lawyer or a doctor who will fight for their rights.
and yet. what is the first thing you hear about whenever a company opens, or wants to open, a new office or make an expansion? "This expansion was made possible in part thanks to tax incentives and infrastructure improvements by the city, county, or state." These agreements are only supposed to last a year, five years at the most, and are supposed to be predicated on goals being met or jobs created, and yet, somehow they never end up that way. Waivers are always granted, extensions extended, etc...
We've literally created a system where we COMPETE to NOT make companies and wealthy individuals pay their fair share. John Deere, Wells Fargo, Microsoft, Google, Verizon, Lockheed Martin... the very first thing they do when they decide they want to put in a new piece of operation, be it a tower, a call center, a data center, or a plant, is to ask the prospective locations "what will you give us to do this thing?" It's worse than the mafia.
Don't even get me started on big oil... I could go on that topic longer than Ted Cruze on healthcare.
Yes we're fighting a battle of poor spending, but we're doing it with one hand plus three fingers on the other tied behind our backs. It's set up a vicious cycle where we as a nation don't have enough money coming in to pay our bills, like education and infrastructure, and that causes those things to deteriorate, then we lose our ability to see the big problem right in front of us because we're too busy looking at our own shoelaces to ensure we don't trip up with what we have left. And that in turn causes the big problem to get even bigger and the infrastructure to break down even more and make us concentrate even more on our shoelaces and not tripping, right up until we trip.
all because government at every level has made tacit agreements to not make wealthy industry and individuals pay their portion of the tax load.
To provide example and perspective... in the nineteen fifties and sixties when this country was at its economic apex, building the interstate highway system, building public hospitals, building schools and colleges, leading the entire world in scientific discovery through massive new atomic-age laboratories paid through with public funding, etc; the tax load on the wealthy and super-wealthy was as high as seventy-five percent of gross income. And yet, you' be hard pressed to find anyone who could say that, economically, America as a nation was hurting. In fact, we were so well off, that we were able to have both a social and a sexual revolution through the sixties and seventies.
But by the time the nineteen eighties rolled around, the entire system was being turned on its head... public schools, hospitals, and colleges were closing left and right; highways, bridges, and rails were being left to rot on the idea we'd pay to fix them later; all controls on private industry were being rolled back, and the tax rate on the top 10% of American earners was being slashed to the bone on the laughable misguided idea that they would be generous enough to share their wealth.
Fast forward thirty years with that system in place.. a system of not taxing the people who can afford it and over-taxing the people who can't (like those half of all McDonald's workers working a full week and still needing food stamps) and total deregulation over private industry to the point of government sanctioned monopolies and zero control over ensuring competition; that bridges are literally falling down and our kids can't even get an art class in school because art supplies are too expensive and art class can't be graded by a standardized test to fight over the dregs of funding that remain, and that people are dropping dead because they were afraid to go to a hospital for the bill it would bring.
And yet it's hyper-conservatives such as Tea Party who claim we're paying too MUCH in taxes and we need less government control over the way the economy runs and even more privatization. What we need is rightsized government, a government that protects the public and the environment from big business, not a government that protects big business from the public and the environment. And yes, that is the very definition of dirty socialism and the antithesis of conservatism like the Tea Party... but frankly, I think we could do with a bit more of it.
Chris Rock nailed it...
(https://i.imgur.com/j4IqYy7l.png)
I can see your point about people at the top not payig enough in taxes, especially after all the ridiculous tax breaks some abuse, but that's only part of the problem, and taxing them even 90% of what they make won't fix the problem.
The problem is two fold. First, you have people like me who work so few hours a week and make so little money as is per year that come tax return time, the government actually gives us money. My last tax return, it calculated out so that the government was actually giving me back more money than I actually paid in, and by quite a lot. So essentially, despite money being taken out of my pay checks every cycle for taxes, I always end up owing litterally no federal taxes at all, and instead get free money every spring.
The second part of the problem is you have congress spending and spending like a spoiled college student with daddy's credit card, and when ever the card maxes out, they just switch to another card with a higher limit. Eventually, daddy needs to cut off the spoiled kid and make him stop spending like Wilma and Betty in The Flinstones...
Don't spend more than you take in. It's not that difficult of a concept to figure out, but this is the main thing the Tea Party is trying to tell congress. Government expansion and taxes are issues too, but the big problem most Tea Party people have is with the out of control spending and congress being too dysfunctional and isolated in their own narrow minded perceptions of reality to actually know what's going on, let alone actually do the jobs we pay them to do. And that's not even mentioning the so called "wolves" who are always looking for a way to get a little extra for themselves via what basically equates to legalized theft of federal tax dollars.
As a Tea Party supporter this is MY issue with the government:
Crony Capitalism.
In Washington they all are in the back pocket of someone rich. Warren Buffet made $10 billion from his dealing with Obama's administration. I am not going to single out Obama because the ignorant idea that a Company like GE can make billions in profits and pay zero tax is just one of the problems and not limited to any party.
They tax the individuals to give the money to their rich friends.
They then force upon the regular citizens their personal little plans for Utopia. Don't eat this it is bad for you, don't let children run around going bang, bang with their fingers it's bad for them, don't wear a shirt with a gun on it - or one that says NRA. Basically they believe they are smarter than we are and so while they get a 75% exemption from the Healthcare law and get Gold packages - the average person is forced to take whatever the government says they must. Like men having to buy coverage for pregnancy!
The government keeps mandating more and more. Now they are using the IRS to bludgeon individuals while ignoring huge companies because they are the friends of a politician. Many Tea Party people have a wide gamut of ideas and like all groups some are bat-crap crazy - but most are rational and surprisingly knowledgeable:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/tea-party-science-98488.html
Here is the thing - this "scientist" made a value judgement on a group of people - he had never met. He decided they were ignorant, due strictly to stories in the media. Then once he tests them he finds they were actually quite intelligent. Then in spite of all of this he makes this statement:
While Kahan cautioned against thinking the results can be used to explain deep ideological fights over climate change and other politically relevant science, and he said the results wouldn't change his negative views of the tea party, he did say he will no longer make assumptions about the level of knowledge on his opponents' side.
So who has the open mind here? I am not a christian and I recall people saying right wingers want to jam religion down others throats and make them believe their way only. Which group of people now force you to submit to dozens of "zero" tolerance stands on issues?
Use an open mind and see what we are trying to say - it is NOT that we don't want government - we want RESPONSIBLE governing. I would love a flat tax. Make it 10% for EVERYONE. Including every company. But you see politicians don't want that because then they can't give their friends special deals. So they take our money and spread it where THEY want to.
I have zero problems with the social programs to help the poor, older folks and those who are handicapped. But that is NOT where the taxes are going, it is going on $2.5 billion on a new dam to buy a Senator all while families of fire fighters killed in a blaze get ZERO - http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/08/19917073-yarnell-hill-firefighters-kin-say-theyre-being-cheated-out-of-benefits?lite
This is what we are fighting for. This is what I stand for and while again some of us may have differing ideas - no one else in Washington is willing to make a stand. Did you know the FED is currently spending $85 BILLION a month and where is it going?
http://blog.jdaassociates.com/where-is-the-85-billion-per-month-the-fed-is-printing-going/
Wall Street.
So the next ignorant politician who tries to tell you they are for the middle class - remember they are bribing Wall Street with $85 BILLION a MONTH. All this while they want to increase taxes on the average Joe.
I don't have an issue with a lot of the stated platforms of the Tea Party or even some of the Republicans or Democrats. My biggest issue is that it almost universally ends up being "do as I say not as I do". They often stray wildly from their stated platforms. Claiming "fiscal responsibility" and then spending like a drunken sailor does not a fiscal conservative make IMO. Claiming to be for "small government" and then passing laws that restrict a woman's right to handle her personal medical business or passing laws that actively deny tax paying citizens the right to marry just because they are of the same gender is not making government smaller either.
I also have a problem when those who claim to be for "fiscal responsibility" want to cut everything that helps the poor and sick but want to spend without limit on things like military contracts and wars.
I could probably support the Tea Party if not for some of the issues they take up and the extremist members that often grab the spotlight. I'm a gay tax paying citizen. Any party that actively tries to deny me the same rights as everyone else or worse supports violence being done towards me can never have my support. I 'd like to think Ironwolf doesn't personally feel that way towards me but I have no way of knowing that and those extremists often get all the coverage.
"Anti-gay bullying is not bullying at all; in fact, it is peer pressure and is healthy." That's according to Rich Swier, an activist with the Tea Party Nation. How any decent human being could ever espouse such a thing... especially when bullying like that has resulted in the suicide of so many young people, is just anathema to me.
If the Tea Party were truly fiscally conservative but stayed out of social issues I would have more common ground with them. But NOTHING in their platform can convince me to support them when they actively see me as "less than" and less deserving of equal treatment under the law.
I don't expect to post much else in this topic because the last time I was involved in such a topic I did not come away from it feeling the community that I normally feel on these forums. In any case... if the Tea Party dropped the crazy, actually lived up to its claimed fiscal conservatism without throwing the poor under a bus, and got their nose out of social issues, it could be a party I might support.
I'm Canadian, so I honestly do not have the same political background and framework that would exist in the US, but I will say one thing that I've noticed about the tea party - it has some potentially chilling similarities to the Bloc Quebecois.
Saying that the Tea Party is just about Fiscal Conservatism is simply not the case.
It may be for you, Ironwolf. But your movement is tarred by association with radical elements. Can you tell us you disavow and would gladly throw out of the "Tea Party Movement" people who:
1. Are 'Birthers' and claim the president has no legal standing to be president because he's secretly foreign born.
2. Other conspiracy nutwings: People who claim the president is secretly Muslim; or that there is a cabal of congressional reps who are controlled by Muslim interests; or that there are serious attempts to enact Sharia law in the US; etc...
3. Are Flat Taxers. This movement would raise or start taxing those who are below the poverty line and drastically lower the taxes of the top 1-10%. A non-progressive tax rate is insane and only floated by those who are very wealthy and those who are middle to working class folk who duped to think they are actually rich or will likely to be rich (which is in fact very unlikely).
4. Are internationally paranoid. They believe that the agenda of the U.N. is to make the U.S. a puppet of the organization and *any* UN initiative is inherently bad for the US.
These are the folk that give the Tea Part a bad rep. Will you disown them?
(https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y38/eabrace/titan/moderator_hat.png)<--Moderator Hat
We all know where political discussions end up around here, so this is a pre-emptive warning to keep it civil in here.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1464902400/hE1ED2165/)
And you know I'll lock this in a heartbeat if I start getting moderator reports.
Play nice.
</Moderator Hat>
Quote from: Zombie_Man on October 19, 2013, 06:13:46 PM
Saying that the Tea Party is just about Fiscal Conservatism is simply not the case.
It may be for you, Ironwolf. But your movement is tarred by association with radical elements. Can you tell us you disavow and would gladly throw out of the "Tea Party Movement" people who:
1. Are 'Birthers' and claim the president has no legal standing to be president because he's secretly foreign born.
2. Other conspiracy nutwings: People who claim the president is secretly Muslim; or that there is a cabal of congressional reps who are controlled by Muslim interests; or that there are serious attempts to enact Sharia law in the US; etc...
3. Are Flat Taxers. This movement would raise or start taxing those who are below the poverty line and drastically lower the taxes of the top 1-10%. A non-progressive tax rate is insane and only floated by those who are very wealthy and those who are middle to working class folk who duped to think they are actually rich or will likely to be rich (which is in fact very unlikely).
4. Are internationally paranoid. They believe that the agenda of the U.N. is to make the U.S. a puppet of the organization and *any* UN initiative is inherently bad for the US.
These are the folk that give the Tea Part a bad rep. Will you disown them?
I will. It started as fiscal conservative, small government, sane taxation and sadly been hijacked by groups that may also believe in that but are much more vocal with other agendas and they now drown out our original voices.
The problem with a progressive tax is that the shear size of the tax code allows only the very rich to find the loop holes that allow them to only pay 10% income tax rather than 40% while families of two working professionals are stuck paying the 40%. Flat tax advocates aim for a much simpler tax code that should prevent those who can afford it from gaming the system.
And it's not like liberal groups don't have their own conspiracy nutjobs with their "truthers" or Bilderberg/Masonic/secret society controlling the world economy. Both sides have fringe elements.
I have zero problems with anyone's sexuality. Who and what you do in your own bed is your affair.
You see the Tea Party folks aren't anyone set of ideals - they are people - just people. They see what Washington is doing and by god as a veteran and a taxpayer closing down war memorials for spite - is ridiculous.
I agree with having same sex benefits that married couples get. The only issue I have is if you try and say a church MUST marry you. That is their choice and can believe as they will the same as me. I know on Indian lands same sex marriage has been legal for a very long time.
My main issue as stated - the demonize anyone that attacks the status quo. If you watched any of the ted Cruz filibuster that wasn't a filibuster, he was very clear and very open. I was impressed by him as he gave numerous alternative to a mandated healthcare run by a central government and open to abuse by tyranny.
The IRS - the same one that abused the Tea Party is running Obamacare! That frightens me beyond belief knowing what the spiteful politicians did on the shutdown. Using divisive rhetoric to not bring Americans closer but to drive wedges in so they may keep us from uniting and driving them out. That is their goal and they have a willing media jumping in to attack as well.
Did you know the final day of the shutdown it was in the media 41 to 0 ZERO that the Republicans were the ones to blame for the shutdown. Not once saying the other party refused to make any kind of deal at all - you know politicking? It just keeps coming back to me watching what is happening in Detroit on a national scale.
Detroit has Billions in unfunded debt - pensions, healthcare and other expenses. It didn't happen all at once, it was over time. We have now got a debt of over $17 TRILLION. It is up $7 trillion under Obama. I don't care why, I don't care who caused it. I just want to know WHO IS GOING TO START FIXING IT. It wasn't great under Bush as he was good at security and terrible at spending. Not as bad as Obama - but bad enough.
You see I work in Detroit and it is grim there. I can see how bad it may get for my generation as we turn to retire and no money is left. That is what Detroit is facing now kicking people off the pensions.
Quote from: Ironwolf on October 19, 2013, 11:46:06 AM
As a Tea Party supporter this is MY issue with the government:
Crony Capitalism.
I actually dislike this phrase, because it too easily has the "crony" part dropped by the very scumbags who are abusing the system in order to vilify capitalism (which is, in fact, the
enemy of "crony capitalists" and their politician bedfellows).
There's an old word for this that describes it perfectly: Mercantilism. So-called "private" enterprises that are, in fact, given preferential standing, treatment, and even funding by the government. The biggest farce perpetrated by this lot is a load of government regulations. Most are "vetted" by the top-dog companies that will be supposedly controlled by said regulations. This is used to "prove" that "even the private sector is behind this common-sense effort." The truth is, by designing them, these large and powerful companies create the regulations to be minimal expenses on their own part due to their size, but monumental barriers to entry into their fields by any competitor who isn't already in the ruling class (i.e. politicians and mercantilists who can afford to launder grants and loans from the government into campaign money and cushy post-career jobs for said politicians).
As a conservative, I actually think the Chris Rock meme linked above is foolish. No, it's NOT their job to "come together and form a consensus." Their job is to fight for policies that will achieve the ends their constituents elected them to pursue. That's why the Tea Party tends to be happy with gridlock: they elected people to STOP the run-away spending in Washington (and out of disgust over Obamacare), and the gridlock is almost exclusively over those two issues. "Compromising" to "keep the government working" is not in any way conducive to this. Not only is the government "not working" a misleading claim (witness the deliberate lengths the Executive branch went to to try to MAKE it sting: closing parks that are funded privately but happen to be on federal land; spending MORE money to post guards to keep veterans OUT of the WWII memorial; closing the National Mall to citizens but opening it to a pro-Amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants rally...but not, heaven forbid, the golf course at Camp David; deciding NIH funding for treating kids with cancer was not 'essential' and the Democrat-controlled Senate refusing to evne consider a bill to fund that specific thing), but the demonstration of just how well the nation as a whole continued to function without that federal spending was a good thing for the Tea Party position. That position being: we
do not need all this spending.
(On the subject of deliberately making the shutdown hurt as much as possible, just imagine what could have happened if the ACA were in full effect and Sebelius had the power to declare that no medical treatment for ANYBODY would be okayed by the review boards because of the shutdown!)
The Tea Party is about smaller government because big government spends too much and has too much power for far, far too little benefit.
Speaking as a CI expert, I know from scientific research (some of which is my own, done personally) that a decentralized optimization algorithm finds multiple local maxima and adapts to local environmental conditions far better than a top-down heuristic decision-maker. The only regulation we need from government is an enforcement of a few simple rules to ensure that the fitness function is not distorted by encouraging malfeasant behavior. And no, "things that hurt customers" are not what we need to worry about. Believe it or not, goods and service providers who kill off their customers don't last very long. What we need is regulation to protect against deceptive and coercive practices which engage in fraud or extortion to take what people are not willing to give, and to protect against theft. That's really about it.
For other services, we can leave it to States and even Municipalities. Decentralize the decision-making and the power to confiscate wealth, and you concentrate less wealth and power in one place, making it less attractive to mercantilists (a.k.a. "crony capitalists," just in case my preferred redefinition has not yet sunk in) and power-hungry politicians. You also make it harder to commit graft on a large scale, because there are more eyes on it at an active level.
Now, the Tea Party as a group doesn't generally believe all of this can be done overnight. But we do tend to support those who fight for it, and get frustrated at Republican so-called "leadership" and the Democrats as a whole for their blatant disregard for our concerns. It's not "compromise" that we want; it's victory. We don't view "anything to keep the government working" as a good thing; we view it as a PROBLEM. Are there things we would prefer over a government shutdown? Heavens yes. But the shutdown - even a debt ceiling not being extended - is preferable to allowing the Democrats to hold this nation hostage with the threats thereof.
Yes, I said it: it was Obama and Reid "holding the nation hostage." They were the ones predicting dire consequences, and they were the ones refusing to negotiate. Refusing to give an inch. The House bill funded everything except Obamacare. It funded way more than the Tea Party probably would have liked. But it was Reid and Obama who held everything hostage to it. (When asked about the NIH funding for kids with cancer, and if Reid would support something that would help even one kid live, his response was "Why would we want to do that?" He went on to compare that to the plight of air force base employees in his home state, who "have troubles of their own." I shudder to think if he could have held the entire nation's health care hostage, rather than just a few hundred innocent kids.)
Fortunately, it was found out that, no, the "hostage taking" wasn't real. We can live without government "non-essential" services. Heck, I read an article the other day that noted that the dollar was as strong as it's been in 5 years during the shutdown, and has fallen again in value since the Republicans caved.
Now, this isn't to say that the Tea Party is wholly unsatisfied. We know we can't win everything. We are pleased with most of how this went. We hope to see more of this at the next debt ceiling clash. We want actual leadership, not a kowtowing to the ruling class's mandates and dictates. It's not that we like "fighting," but that we don't see "give in and do what the Democrats want" as preferable to said fighting.
For those who are baffled by this attitude, let me attempt to construct a counter-scenario.
Let's say George W. Bush was still President, and Boehner was Speaker, and Reid controlled the Senate. Let's say W. wanted funding to expand the war in the middle east, and to start toppling Syria, Iran, and Egypt's regimes. There is a huge outcry from the Left-wing base in this nation (say Occupy Wall Street had become a movement akin to what the Tea Party is now).
The House will only pass CRs that have funding for W.'s war. Reid, leading the senate, is unsure whether to pass them or not. W. and Boehner and Cruz talk about how not passing these things will bankrupt the economy and hurt the US world-wide. They warn against Reid "holding the country hostage" to stop a necessary war. They don't want to negotiate with these "Democrat terrorists."
Would you be shouting for Reid to just pass it, to compromise, because the nation can't be held hostage to this? Or would you be cheering him for using every bit of power he has to block the funding of these wars? Imagine these wars to be every bit as unjust as you like; this is roughly how the Tea Party views Obamacare, so it's a fair comparison, I believe. (Note, I am not going to get into whether either side is RIGHT to view them this horribly; I am trying to paint a picture of the emotional and intellectual response to them. Even if you think the Tea Party is "nuts" or somehow horribly unfair to think of Obamacare the way the Left tends to think of "Bush's wars" in the middle east, we do. Now, realizing that, put yourself in our position, and ask if you really want Reid in this hypothetical to cave to Bush and Boehner, or if you want him to fight for what's right even if it's unpopular with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.)
As far as I am aware no advocacy group has asked for churches to be forced to perform ceremonies they disagree with and I wouldn't support such a thing regardless. It violates the constitution just as denying same sex couples the same rights and protections that the law affords to everyone else does. The thing I think many people have difficult doing is separating the concept of religious matrimony and legal marriage. They also tend to fail to realize that some religions DO perform weddings for same sex couples yet those weddings do not get the same legal recognition which discriminates against those churches that do perform such weddings. I would never support forcing a church to perform a ceremony it doesn't agree with but I also would never deny a church the same legal standing for its ceremonies that other churches get.
I am not going to discuss Ted Cruz... I have nothing good to say about the man. It's best if I simply remain silent there.
Republicans were to blame for the shutdown. Why? Because there was nothing to negotiate. No deal to be made. Republicans had nothing to offer. They wanted to repeal or delay key parts of the ACA but they didn't have the votes to do so through the proper legislative process. So instead they resorted to extortion by attempting to hold the nation hostage in the hopes Obama would cave like he did last time. He didn't and Republicans got NOTHING for their efforts and added 24 billion dollars to deficit for their troubles. So much for fiscal conservatism.
The debt ceiling turns out to be unexploded ordnance lying around the American form of government. Only custom or moral compunction stops the opposition party from using it to nullify the president's powers, or, for that matter, the president from using it to nullify Congress's. (Obama could, theoretically, threaten to veto a debt ceiling hike unless Congress attaches it to the creation of single-payer health insurance.)
To weaponize the debt ceiling, you must be willing to inflict harm on millions of innocent people. Republicans proved willing to push us to the very edge of that. It is a shockingly powerful self-destruct button built into our very system of government, but only useful for the most ideologically hardened or borderline sociopathic. But it turns out to be the perfect tool for the contemporary GOP: a party large enough to control a chamber of Congress yet too small to win the presidency, and infused with a dangerous, millenarian combination of overheated Randian paranoia and fully justified fear of adverse demographic trends. The only thing that limits the debt ceiling's potency at the moment is the widespread suspicion that Boehner is too old school, too lacking in the Leninist will to power that fires his newer co-partisans, to actually carry out his threat. (He has suggested as much to some colleagues in private.) Boehner himself is thus the one weak link in the House Republicans' ability to carry out a kind of rolling coup against the Obama administration. Unfortunately, Boehner's control of his chamber is tenuous enough that, like the ailing monarch of a crumbling regime, it's impossible to strike an agreement with him in full security it will be carried out.
We can't make extortion routine as part of our democracy. Think about it this way: The American people do not get to demand a ransom for doing their jobs. You don't get a chance to call your bank and say I'm not going to pay my mortgage this month unless you throw in a new car and an Xbox. Most Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- agree that health care should not have anything to do with keeping our government open or paying our bills on time.
Republicans ship our jobs to China shouting Free markets, while China has 45% import tariffs, 40% tax rates, takes a 51% interest in every business there, has unions now and government mandated wage increases of 23% per year to build a middleclass that buys its production as we once did, has an EPA now as the cost of not having one was destroying their country and is implementing a single payer healthcare system..
All of that has never stopped corporate America from sending our industry and jobs there.
I'd like conservatives to stop telling us that they want to drive women back to the back alley because they "care about their health." I want them to stop telling us they care about fiscal prudence when three decades of evidence makes abundantly clear that in a choice between responsible budgets and giveaways to the rich, they will choose the latter almost every time. I want conservatives to stop telling us that they want to pass laws to restrict minority voting because they claim to want to address the essentially non-existent problem of voter fraud. And, I'd dearly love for them to stop telling us that they take to heart the teachings of the Lord when, lacking remotely credible reasons, they reject health programs that could save thousands of lives a year, all because they just don't think the poor deserve anything but their suffering.
I don't say any of this assuming any person here feels exactly this way. This is just the mindset I am in after watching politics for the past 20 years. I'm not a spring chicken any more and I've seen enough to know who is going to treat me like a human being and who has an "every man for himself" mentality. Most conservatives I see today are toxic to me. And most of the ones who get the spotlight are the ones who'd put me in a concentration camp if they could get away with it. Until conservatives excise their extremist elements and learn to actually live as they say everyone else should live, they will continue to see their support shrink year after year.
Quote from: Kyriani on October 19, 2013, 01:46:04 PM
I could probably support the Tea Party if not for some of the issues they take up and the extremist members that often grab the spotlight. I'm a gay tax paying citizen. Any party that actively tries to deny me the same rights as everyone else or worse supports violence being done towards me can never have my support. I 'd like to think Ironwolf doesn't personally feel that way towards me but I have no way of knowing that and those extremists often get all the coverage.
"Anti-gay bullying is not bullying at all; in fact, it is peer pressure and is healthy." That's according to Rich Swier, an activist with the Tea Party Nation. How any decent human being could ever espouse such a thing... especially when bullying like that has resulted in the suicide of so many young people, is just anathema to me.
If the Tea Party were truly fiscally conservative but stayed out of social issues I would have more common ground with them. But NOTHING in their platform can convince me to support them when they actively see me as "less than" and less deserving of equal treatment under the law.
You just need to be patient now - recently, society has taken a huge step forwards, and while there'll still be some battles ahead as the crazies fight a doomed rearguard action, the actual war for marriage equality is already won - there's no going back now, and when the current generation of children who are now growing up in a fairer society become adults, to them the anti-equality brigade will be as influential and as relevant as their friends in the Klan were after segregation ended.
Hate groups always fail in the end, because hatred isn't a viable long term force.
Quote from: Golden Girl on October 19, 2013, 11:33:31 PM
You just need to be patient now - recently, society has taken a huge step forwards, and while there'll still be some battles ahead as the crazies fight a doomed rearguard action, the actual war for marriage equality is already won - there's no going back now, and when the current generation of children who are now growing up in a fairer society become adults, to them the anti-equality brigade will be as influential and as relevant as their friends in the Klan were after segregation ended.
Hate groups always fail in the end, because hatred isn't a viable long term force.
I can only hope I'll see it in my lifetime.
Quote from: Golden Girl on October 19, 2013, 11:33:31 PM
You just need to be patient now - recently, society has taken a huge step forwards, and while there'll still be some battles ahead as the crazies fight a doomed rearguard action, the actual war for marriage equality is already won - there's no going back now, and when the current generation of children who are now growing up in a fairer society become adults, to them the anti-equality brigade will be as influential and as relevant as their friends in the Klan were after segregation ended.
Hate groups always fail in the end, because hatred isn't a viable long term force.
Yup. Eventually history will look back like we do on segregation, slavery, interracial marriage and stuff (most people) and say "Geesh, there were some hateful people and laws back then. What were they thinking and so afraid of?" and (politicians) want to brush it under the rug and then have movies come out trying to make it look like they were all for it and pure and righteous but had to battle the evil force of anarchy hate groups' money that was for and behind the hate. But even then the truth comes out like anything, especially in recorded media era.
Well, the Republicans had the votes to not pass funding for it. The Democrats could have avoided the shutdown by passing the CR as the House - the body Constitutionally empowered to originate spending bills - passed it. They chose not to, holding the entire budget hostage to Obamacare.
We have the two houses of Congress for a REASON, and that's specifically to ensure that there is plenty of room for this kind of thing to happen. That no one group gets to monolithically walk all over everybody.
The reason it takes both houses passing something is precisely because it's intended that things so controversial that even a majority of only one of them are against it can be held up, delayed, or stopped. Claiming that "they don't have the votes" is an obvious canard: they clearly had the votes to hold it up.
Claiming that the Democrats had nothing to do with the shutdown is simple fanboyishness for them, on par with saying that the team that loses the superbowl had nothing to do with winning: it's all the fault of the other team for preventing them from getting touchdowns. Only a silly-blind fan of the losing team would make such a ludicrous claim.
Either side could have arranged for the CR to pass with no shutdown. It is Constitutionally stated that the House is the body which is meant to originate revenue bills. One could argue that the Senate, by refusing to pass a revenue bill that DID NOT include their pet program, was actually the one standing in the way of proper constitutional process of government. I won't make that claim; I think it's very much in the rights and duties of the Senate to oppose the House if there's disagreement. But if one is going to place blame, the fact that the Senate would not pass any funding that DID NOT include Obamacare means they were the ones responsible for the shutdown. They could have passed the funding as presented and the government would not have shut down. (Well, assuming Obama signed it, but that would again be the choice of the one obstructing the funding for everything else unless he gets his way.)
The Republicans did have something to negotiate.
They passed funding for everything except Obamacare.
Now, of course, this is moot; Boehner and the so-called "leadership" caved. But we're talking theory and what the Tea Party wants, so it still matters.
But the point of THIS post is simply to drive home that, if you are going to insist that it's ONLY the Republicans' fault there was a shut-down, then you're basically claiming that the will of the majority of this nation as represented by the ratios of elected officials in both houses of Congress only counts when it agrees with you. Because like it or not, the Republicans control the house, and many of those seats are held due to the Tea Party.
And insisting the republicans shoudl never have refused Reid and Obama's ultimatum is to say that the Republicans basically are in the wrong if they ever oppose the Democrats. Which...well. If you can't see why that's a silly notion in a Republic, then I'm really not sure how to proceed.
I suppose, on reflection, this is drifting off topic, however.
What the Tea Party wants is to see their side of things represented. Men and women have been elected to do so. The Tea Party's side of things is very much against Obamacare and a lot of other spending. The Tea Party wants to see those they've elected fight for these things. Fight for smaller government. Fight for less intrusion. Fight for lower taxes and less spending and NOT CONTINUING ON THIS PATH TO DOUBLING OUR NATIONAL DEBT IN 8 YEARS. (we've added 6 or 7 trillion in 5 years. 3 more years at this rate means we'll easily hit 10 trillion. We were at 10 or 11 trillion TOTAL 6 years ago.)
We don't want to see our side continuously give up in the name of "compromise." We are sick of seeing "compromise" mean "agree to whatever the other side wants, and maybe get some pork barrel spending (which the tea party is also against) for the RINOs to make them able to claim there was compromise." We are sick of being treated like an underclass who needs to shut up and let the ruling class decide what we can and can't keep and siphoning up money to enrich themselves.
Most of all, we want to see those we send into office FIGHT for what we believe in, and insist that ground be given if any "compromise" is going to be reached.
Passing ALL OF THE SPENDING except for 1 thing sounds a lot like a compromise to me, when the Tea Party is not happy about far, far more spending than just that one thing. But that one thing was and is particularly odious to the Tea PArty, so in a gesture of compromise, it was offered to fund everything else in exchange for that.
That wasn't enough for Reid and Obama. They wanted Obamacare more than they wanted everythign else, it seems, since they were willing to chuck everything if they couldn't have Obamacare.
This is fine with the Tea Party; it gave us MORE of what we wanted. (Negotiating tip: If somebody is willing to let you have nearly everything, it isn't helping you to refuse to take ANY of it if you can't have it all. ...well, unless the supposed leadership of that 'other side' secretly wants you to have everything, too, and is terrified that they'll be called names for daring to oppose you in any little way.)
By the by: the biggest thing the Tea Party wants from its political representatives? Men and women who aren't afraid of being called names for daring to oppose the Leftist agenda in any way, shape, manner, or form. (Seriously: name a way in which the Leftist agenda can be opposed without the opposition being called names. "Bigot" being a favorite. I mean, I've seen it thrown around in here: daring to oppose the views of the Left, daring to think their causes are NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread and daring to think there might be anything other than exactly the full implementation of whatever they demand has already been called "hate." This kind of rhetoric - especially when believed by those spewing it - means there can be no discussion. You're either with them or you're not human enough to be worthy of consideration. Honestly, sounds like the justification for a religious war wherein heresy is to be punished more than a reasoned debate between human beings who care about each other as human beings.)
Quote from: Segev on October 20, 2013, 01:51:14 AM
Well, the Republicans had the votes to not pass funding for it. The Democrats could have avoided the shutdown by passing the CR as the House - the body Constitutionally empowered to originate spending bills - passed it. They chose not to, holding the entire budget hostage to Obamacare.
We have the two houses of Congress for a REASON, and that's specifically to ensure that there is plenty of room for this kind of thing to happen. That no one group gets to monolithically walk all over everybody.
The reason it takes both houses passing something is precisely because it's intended that things so controversial that even a majority of only one of them are against it can be held up, delayed, or stopped. Claiming that "they don't have the votes" is an obvious canard: they clearly had the votes to hold it up.
Claiming that the Democrats had nothing to do with the shutdown is simple fanboyishness for them, on par with saying that the team that loses the superbowl had nothing to do with winning: it's all the fault of the other team for preventing them from getting touchdowns. Only a silly-blind fan of the losing team would make such a ludicrous claim.
Either side could have arranged for the CR to pass with no shutdown. It is Constitutionally stated that the House is the body which is meant to originate revenue bills. One could argue that the Senate, by refusing to pass a revenue bill that DID NOT include their pet program, was actually the one standing in the way of proper constitutional process of government. I won't make that claim; I think it's very much in the rights and duties of the Senate to oppose the House if there's disagreement. But if one is going to place blame, the fact that the Senate would not pass any funding that DID NOT include Obamacare means they were the ones responsible for the shutdown. They could have passed the funding as presented and the government would not have shut down. (Well, assuming Obama signed it, but that would again be the choice of the one obstructing the funding for everything else unless he gets his way.)
The Republicans did have something to negotiate.
They passed funding for everything except Obamacare.
Now, of course, this is moot; Boehner and the so-called "leadership" caved. But we're talking theory and what the Tea Party wants, so it still matters.
But the point of THIS post is simply to drive home that, if you are going to insist that it's ONLY the Republicans' fault there was a shut-down, then you're basically claiming that the will of the majority of this nation as represented by the ratios of elected officials in both houses of Congress only counts when it agrees with you. Because like it or not, the Republicans control the house, and many of those seats are held due to the Tea Party.
And insisting the republicans shoudl never have refused Reid and Obama's ultimatum is to say that the Republicans basically are in the wrong if they ever oppose the Democrats. Which...well. If you can't see why that's a silly notion in a Republic, then I'm really not sure how to proceed.
Truth.
Although when things like this happen the people and citizens are the ones that are affected. Whether a person is democrat or republican neither or Green Tree party, when the lay offs and furloughs come, they get it regardless of party affiliation. Thus for those that are laid off especially end up having to apply for gov. assistance and many start to realize that not everyone is taking advantage of of the system as they previously thought once they have to do it themselves.
The only ones who's life in a financial manner is not affected either way it goes are congress members, the senate, the white house. They get paid either way even if they shutdown for 3 years.
The average citizen probably have no idea what the fuss is about in the wording of what was trying to be passed and held up the process. It might have been some nonsense or it might have been a very good idea. WHat many people know is that the gov. shutdown affected their lives and the American way is that it means someone is right, someone is wrong, it's someone's fault and someone is faultless. This means usually that the opposite party is at fault and their own party they believe in are angels trying to do what is right. When in reality it's usually not so cut and dry. But unfortunately the way some people view stuff regardless the lack of information they know or don't know, what they perceive is proper and that is their reality of the situation, and their reality is right.
Oh, they happen. The Sequester has hit my own place of employment. But it still is overall better governance.
But the nation ran just fine through the shutdown. Some people were furloughed. Those same people got raises in the funding bill that ended the shutdown, and will be compensated for the time they didn't get to work with pay ANYWAY. It always happens. It may sting temporarily, but it's not the end of the world.
This is evidenced by the lengths to which the Administration had to go to in order to force the citizenry to feel pain in hopes of making them blame the Republicans and actually NOTICE that it was shut down. (Again: closing things that are fully privately funded but rent federal land, and SPENDING money to arm guards and put them in place to keep people out when the places are normally run more cheaply when open for business, and refusing to fund treatment for children with cancer even when special funding was passed for it by the Republican-controlled House.)
It may sting, but it's not nearly the disaster it's painted as. And the Tea Party is okay with putting up with it because it's better than destroying our economy and taxing ourselves into oblivion while spending trillions of dollars we don't have.
Quote from: Segev on October 20, 2013, 02:02:19 AM
I suppose, on reflection, this is drifting off topic, however.
What the Tea Party wants is to see their side of things represented. Men and women have been elected to do so. The Tea Party's side of things is very much against Obamacare and a lot of other spending. The Tea Party wants to see those they've elected fight for these things. Fight for smaller government. Fight for less intrusion. Fight for lower taxes and less spending and NOT CONTINUING ON THIS PATH TO DOUBLING OUR NATIONAL DEBT IN 8 YEARS. (we've added 6 or 7 trillion in 5 years. 3 more years at this rate means we'll easily hit 10 trillion. We were at 10 or 11 trillion TOTAL 6 years ago.)
We don't want to see our side continuously give up in the name of "compromise." We are sick of seeing "compromise" mean "agree to whatever the other side wants, and maybe get some pork barrel spending (which the tea party is also against) for the RINOs to make them able to claim there was compromise." We are sick of being treated like an underclass who needs to shut up and let the ruling class decide what we can and can't keep and siphoning up money to enrich themselves.
Most of all, we want to see those we send into office FIGHT for what we believe in, and insist that ground be given if any "compromise" is going to be reached.
Passing ALL OF THE SPENDING except for 1 thing sounds a lot like a compromise to me, when the Tea Party is not happy about far, far more spending than just that one thing. But that one thing was and is particularly odious to the Tea PArty, so in a gesture of compromise, it was offered to fund everything else in exchange for that.
That wasn't enough for Reid and Obama. They wanted Obamacare more than they wanted everythign else, it seems, since they were willing to chuck everything if they couldn't have Obamacare.
This is fine with the Tea Party; it gave us MORE of what we wanted. (Negotiating tip: If somebody is willing to let you have nearly everything, it isn't helping you to refuse to take ANY of it if you can't have it all. ...well, unless the supposed leadership of that 'other side' secretly wants you to have everything, too, and is terrified that they'll be called names for daring to oppose you in any little way.)
By the by: the biggest thing the Tea Party wants from its political representatives? Men and women who aren't afraid of being called names for daring to oppose the Leftist agenda in any way, shape, manner, or form. (Seriously: name a way in which the Leftist agenda can be opposed without the opposition being called names. "Bigot" being a favorite. I mean, I've seen it thrown around in here: daring to oppose the views of the Left, daring to think their causes are NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread and daring to think there might be anything other than exactly the full implementation of whatever they demand has already been called "hate." This kind of rhetoric - especially when believed by those spewing it - means there can be no discussion. You're either with them or you're not human enough to be worthy of consideration. Honestly, sounds like the justification for a religious war wherein heresy is to be punished more than a reasoned debate between human beings who care about each other as human beings.)
The only time the word "bigot" should be thrown at "you" (you as in a general you not you specifically Segev) is when your platform involves discrimination of some sort. Unfortunately many Tea Partiers live up to the bigot label. If you don't like it... THEN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Stop letting the wingnuts speak for you. Stop letting them make you look bad. And finally stop blaming the left for the bad press your own crazies earn for you. Once you get the nuts out of your party then people might take you seriously. Until then you ARE a party of bigots... even if its not all of you, its the loudest and most visible among you.
These are YOUR party members earning headlines like:
QuoteRick Scarborough, Tea Party Leader, Suggests Class Action Lawsuit Against Homosexuality
QuoteTea Party leader says anti-gay bullying is 'healthy peer pressure'
QuoteTea Party Push - Conservative movement's anti-gay candidates hope to secure Senate majority
QuoteAnti-gay Tea Party Unity activists discuss suing homosexuality for HIV spread
QuoteTea Party Republicans favor spending taxpayer money on anti-gay discrimination
This is not leftist media picking on you. This is your party's bigotry in full view of the world. They've earned the label of bigot and thus so have you by association. Is that unfair? Of course it is. Maybe you aren't a bigot. Your posts indicate you're not but you are judged by the company you keep and those quotes I posted? Yea that's the company you're keeping. So until you clean your house you'll be judged by the filth within it. You may not personally be a bigot but the loudest and most visible among you pretty much are and they are who is speaking for you.
I also believe that Tea Partiers don't just want someone who's "not afraid of being called names". They want representatives that will take actions that have destructive results for people all over the nation just to push their own agenda. And that scares the bejeesus out of me. They WANT to shutdown the government under some misguided notion that this will "fix" something and somehow "save money". All I can do is /facepalm. I see the Tea Party as pseudo-anarchists. Maybe that's not what they are but that's what they seem to be as far as I have seen by their words and deeds. You thought the shutdown was fine and it only "stung a little" and the nation kept going. Well ya know what? It wouldn't keep going if you got your way. People who fought against you tooth and nail kept things going during the shutdown. I honestly find it difficult to understand how you can be completely oblivious to the negative impact that your party's actions have had on the country. Plain and simple you cost us 24 billion dollars because of that 16 days of shutdown. YOUR PARTY added 24 BILLION to the deficit and you're HAPPY about it.
And now tis time for me to bow out cause I can already tell this topic is on its way south like the last time Segev and Ironwolf tried to extol the virtues of the Tea Party -_-
Quote from: Segev on October 20, 2013, 02:26:58 AM
Oh, they happen. The Sequester has hit my own place of employment. But it still is overall better governance.
But the nation ran just fine through the shutdown. Some people were furloughed. Those same people got raises in the funding bill that ended the shutdown, and will be compensated for the time they didn't get to work with pay ANYWAY. It always happens. It may sting temporarily, but it's not the end of the world.
This is evidenced by the lengths to which the Administration had to go to in order to force the citizenry to feel pain in hopes of making them blame the Republicans and actually NOTICE that it was shut down. (Again: closing things that are fully privately funded but rent federal land, and SPENDING money to arm guards and put them in place to keep people out when the places are normally run more cheaply when open for business, and refusing to fund treatment for children with cancer even when special funding was passed for it by the Republican-controlled House.)
It may sting, but it's not nearly the disaster it's painted as. And the Tea Party is okay with putting up with it because it's better than destroying our economy and taxing ourselves into oblivion while spending trillions of dollars we don't have.
Indeed.
Don't think many people noticed the first furlough that happened from spring to august. And the people that got furloughed during that that time didn't get paid back.
Neither side is completely innocent. Democrats nor republicans/tea party. It takes in this case two to negotiate. Neither side was willing to back down or switch stance and thus the shutdown. At any moment prior to the shutdown, either side could have said alright we give up. But what would have been the costs? Some believe the issue they shutdown over is something that should have passed and many of those blame the republicans. Other thing what was trying to pass was nonsense and blame the democrats for it. And really are the people doing the voting going and voting according to wishes that the people they are supposed to be representing wishes? Or are they voting on it according to their own personal wishes? Have they even bothered to ask the people in a way that is not skewered to one way or another?
In the end though ,really, how important is it to find blame? To some pointing fingers is the most important thing in the world even above the actual issue at hand.
Sad part about it is that it wont affect Obama's career come election time. This is his second term anyways. The ones that have the most to lose is Republicans (whether or not it's their fault is moot.) And now that people lived through extended shutdown (compared to the one or two days in Clinton era) many don't care about the issue or that it's over or Obama care. They are looking for someone to place the blame on, deserved or not.
And the sad thing is that a lot of people don't care about politics or even bother to vote until something affects them personally. Many web sites cant even get a decent serious calm mature discussion about politics going because it ends up instead up in "it's the democrats fault." "NO it's the republicans fault." instead of the actual issue at hand that could affect both republican democrat independent Ralph Nader supporter equally.
And of course Republicans are not all clean either especially when it comes down to the homosexual thing which do antagonize many people. And of course people being people is not going to say much in the lines of "Tea party is ok overall even though they seem to want to wipe homosexuals off the face of the earth." Usually it's viewed as all or nothing. And that method is even viewed within people on something more mundane such as game forums. People don't like another person simply because they disagree over one issue regardless of everything else they said. But over that one issue, "That person is a troll who shouldn't be aloud to speak at all here."
I will chime in with my opinion on how the government should function, in a a broad sense...and other thoughts.
Personally, I think the federal government should only be involved with issues that the individual states cannot deal with themselves. And continuing that line of thought, I also think that the state governments should only deal with things that the individual municipalities cannot deal with themselves. Of course, that pretty much will negate about 50% of the government's current function. You see, the individual municipalities should be the ones dealing with things like feeding and sheltering the homeless, educating the poor, basically, dealing with the individuals that have problems providing for themselves. The individual municipalities have a much better idea of who needs help and who doesn't, than any overarching federally controlled program. The best social assistance (not social security) comes from the people willing to help others because they want to help others. Not because they're forced to help others, via government taxes, or government mandates.
I do understand that the democrats want to help the "down-trodden" (or at least to be seen as doing so), But to truly help the down-trodden, you need to help them to help themselves. Not just give them free stuff because they're down-trodden. That is the problem I see with most of the government programs now. There is a lot of wasted money in programs that are designed, not to help the unfortunate to become self-providers, but to enable the unfortunate to continue to be unfortunate. Label me what you will, but that is one reason I will not give to charities. I refuse to willingly be a part of an organization that enables others to be less than self-sustaining. When I find a good charity that actually helps others without enabling them, I donate. Of course, if the unfortunate were to ever become self-providers, they wouldn't need the governments handouts, and some government employees would be out of a job.
As you can probably guess, I am not a democrat. I have been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote. That doesn't mean that I agree with all Republican ideas. And yeah, I lean towards the TEA party's basic principles. lower taxes, smaller government, balanced budget. Unfortunately, to accomplish any one of those goals, and especially the balanced budget, the average citizen of the country is going to take a hit somewhere. And, as we've seen in the last couple of elections, most people will vote for whomever will promise them free stuff, not the promise of a hard road to recovery.
As we all know, a free cupcake today beats a gourmet meal after a hard day's work. <----sarcasm...mostly.
Quote from: Twisted Toon on October 20, 2013, 06:49:21 PM
I will chime in with my opinion on how the government should function, in a a broad sense...and other thoughts.
Personally, I think the federal government should only be involved with issues that the individual states cannot deal with themselves. And continuing that line of thought, I also think that the state governments should only deal with things that the individual municipalities cannot deal with themselves. Of course, that pretty much will negate about 50% of the government's current function. You see, the individual municipalities should be the ones dealing with things like feeding and sheltering the homeless, educating the poor, basically, dealing with the individuals that have problems providing for themselves. The individual municipalities have a much better idea of who needs help and who doesn't, than any overarching federally controlled program. The best social assistance (not social security) comes from the people willing to help others because they want to help others. Not because they're forced to help others, via government taxes, or government mandates.
I do understand that the democrats want to help the "down-trodden" (or at least to be seen as doing so), But to truly help the down-trodden, you need to help them to help themselves. Not just give them free stuff because they're down-trodden. That is the problem I see with most of the government programs now. There is a lot of wasted money in programs that are designed, not to help the unfortunate to become self-providers, but to enable the unfortunate to continue to be unfortunate. Label me what you will, but that is one reason I will not give to charities. I refuse to willingly be a part of an organization that enables others to be less than self-sustaining. When I find a good charity that actually helps others without enabling them, I donate. Of course, if the unfortunate were to ever become self-providers, they wouldn't need the governments handouts, and some government employees would be out of a job.
As you can probably guess, I am not a democrat. I have been a registered Republican since I first registered to vote. That doesn't mean that I agree with all Republican ideas. And yeah, I lean towards the TEA party's basic principles. lower taxes, smaller government, balanced budget. Unfortunately, to accomplish any one of those goals, and especially the balanced budget, the average citizen of the country is going to take a hit somewhere. And, as we've seen in the last couple of elections, most people will vote for whomever will promise them free stuff, not the promise of a hard road to recovery.
As we all know, a free cupcake today beats a gourmet meal after a hard day's work. <----sarcasm...mostly.
yeah, you make a good point, but that is also why simply leaving the less unfortunate to the mercy of givings of others will not work. Many people, especially those that never been in that position themselves, view the less unfortunate as overall a bunch of people that are just lazy and don't want to work and simply looking for a handout. Thus, they don't give to the homeless nor charity. Basically they wouldn't get hardly any assistance at all if left to the premise of people giving to people. Thus the point of the federal programs. Yeah there are some that fit the common descriptions but many simple came across hard times that they couldn't control i.e company needs to downsize and decide to operate in China. Thousands more now no job and cant feed their families but to those outside looking in, they are simple people who are looking for hand outs and don't want to work.
And of course everyone could simply open their own business and make their own millions, easier said then done. It's a reason why everyone cant do that. Because even with successful businesses, you need workers. Two unfortunately not everyone have the opportunity in the way of the required education and or the skill or talent to be successful in that route. School cost money and with no job hard to pay for school.
And people like to sit around and say, "They should go get a job." One that is assuming they haven't been trying and two most people on government assistance actually have full time jobs some used ot have full time jobs but due to cuts, got relegated to part time (lot of Walmart employees had this happen to them.). Only a small percentage of people actually abuse the system but that small percentage have painted the entire group. Just like one of the reasons why many fear the going away of those programs and leaving it in the hands of local and or citizens. The common view is that the ones that have re a greedy heartless bunch that rather pay very low wages to fill their own pockets and weork their employees until they starve to death and wont losea single bit of sleep. Sure there are some like that but majority are probably in between. But as long as the view that majority of people on assistance or need assistance are just a bunch of lazy drug addicts, then leaving it up to the charity of the citizens would be a very bad idea. We even had a person here among our boards hit hard times. I'm sure many people outside looking in on his situation think the same way about him as you think about the money used to help people. A total waste that should be banned. And if that was the way it worked he would have been up the creek without a paddle. Over something he had no control over.
Although there should be a more stringent process to where no one can just live generation after generation with no job on gov. assistance. And the people that actually need it can get it. AKA, better fraud control for sure. That is where the programs are really lacking.
On the flip side though, taxes if you think about it, lot of people pay for stuff that they never use or cant use. People without kids still have to pay for the tax part that covers schools. People who never been to jail still have to pay the money to feed and house the prisoners. People that don't even enjoy baseball still have to pay the taxes (in some cities like here) to cover the cost of the new stadium minor league team even though there is already a stadium and minor league team. And even have to pay for the roads in the area that many people never drive on. Even people that have to walk everywhere or choose to walk still must pay for the road tax while there is never no money for sidewalks to make walking less dangerous.
I think the municipal and local governments do or should know who needs the help better than the federal, but most don't have money themselves and are on *gasp* government handouts themselves. My god! If government assistance is banned, then what about the cities that take it, what about those corporations that take it, what about the banks and stuff? Wouldn't the economy crash? Or should rich people be entitled to handouts but people who are hungry should not be?
Honestly? I don't think that we should HAVE money flowing from the Fed down to States and Cities. I can see an argument for emergency support, e.g. FEMA (though that itself is almost laugable due to poor implementation and political graft at the federal level combined with all the pork-barrel earmarks tied to every emergency relief bill), but if you have a systemic, long-term situation wherein States and Municipalities are taking IN money from the Fed., it's a serious problem that needs to be redressed. It means we're spending too much. It means we can't afford it. The Fed. is just big enough to fake it for longer and put us into deeper trouble when the reckoning comes due.
As for the "bigot" label, you'll note that any opposition to (as in GG's most recent example) the Gay Marriage agenda going exactly how that movement wants it to go is "bigotry." There's no room for discussion about it to their minds. If you're not 100% on board, you're a bigot, you're hateful, and any possible objections you might raise cannot possibly have root in anything other than hatred of gay people, and so not only can but must be ignored, impugned, and those speaking them belittled and marginalized as heretical hate-mongers.
So, no, the "you'll only get called a 'bigot' if you're advocating bigotry" argument doesn't hold water. The definition of "bigot" becomes "one who doesn't agree with my position on this issue," rather than "one who hates people for superficial reasons." Only a bigot would disagree, therefore if you disagree it means you're hateful. You can't possibly have any other reason, because you ARE a bigot for disagreeing, and bigots are hateful.
"I wouldn't call you a witch if you weren't acting like one," says a man to a woman. "Hey! I'm not being witchy!" she replies. "I'm just saying that you're wrong about--" "See? There you go, being a witch about this whole thing. Geeze, woman, can't you see that you're the problem here?"
It doesn't matter what she says or does; unless she agrees with the hypothetical man in the above example, the woman is being a "witch." And, since she's being an unreasonable witch about the whole thing, the man need not consider anything she says.
That's how the "bigot" label has become used in politics.
...I will stop now, lest I go into a longer tirade about how the Left is actually perpetuating bigotry while projecting it on the Right in order to sustain their power and create a perpetual underclass dependent on the Left.
As a Mexican-American, an atheist, a Socialist, and a member of the LGBT community, I'm everything the Tea Party fears. They wish I was dead.
The feeling is very mutual. I've had to deal with TeaBaggers personally. I won't do that anymore. I would invite any right-wing nutters on this board to put me on ignore right now. Thanks!
;D
Quote from: Segev on October 20, 2013, 08:04:53 PM
Honestly? I don't think that we should HAVE money flowing from the Fed down to States and Cities. I can see an argument for emergency support, e.g. FEMA (though that itself is almost laugable due to poor implementation and political graft at the federal level combined with all the pork-barrel earmarks tied to every emergency relief bill), but if you have a systemic, long-term situation wherein States and Municipalities are taking IN money from the Fed., it's a serious problem that needs to be redressed. It means we're spending too much. It means we can't afford it. The Fed. is just big enough to fake it for longer and put us into deeper trouble when the reckoning comes due.
As for the "bigot" label, you'll note that any opposition to (as in GG's most recent example) the Gay Marriage agenda going exactly how that movement wants it to go is "bigotry." There's no room for discussion about it to their minds. If you're not 100% on board, you're a bigot, you're hateful, and any possible objections you might raise cannot possibly have root in anything other than hatred of gay people, and so not only can but must be ignored, impugned, and those speaking them belittled and marginalized as heretical hate-mongers.
So, no, the "you'll only get called a 'bigot' if you're advocating bigotry" argument doesn't hold water. The definition of "bigot" becomes "one who doesn't agree with my position on this issue," rather than "one who hates people for superficial reasons." Only a bigot would disagree, therefore if you disagree it means you're hateful. You can't possibly have any other reason, because you ARE a bigot for disagreeing, and bigots are hateful.
. "I wouldn't call you a witch if you weren't acting like one," says a man to a woman. "Hey! I'm not being witchy!" she replies. "I'm just saying that you're wrong about--" "See? There you go, being a witch about this whole thing. Geeze, woman, can't you see that you're the problem here?"
It doesn't matter what she says or does; unless she agrees with the hypothetical man in the above example, the woman is being a "witch." And, since she's being an unreasonable witch about the whole thing, the man need not consider anything she says.
That's how the "bigot" label has become used in politics.
...I will stop now, lest I go into a longer tirade about how the Left is actually perpetuating bigotry while projecting it on the Right in order to sustain their power and create a perpetual underclass dependent on the Left.
Ah yes that position. I seen that happen outside of politics recently. Of course the word isn't usually bigot but troll is substituted for the word bigot. And they say the same thing when dealing with trolls or those they perceive as trolls. "I wouldn't call you a trollif you weren't acting like one," says a man to a woman. "Hey! I'm not being a troll!" she replies. "I'm just saying that you're wrong about--" "See? There you go, being a troll about this whole thing. Geeze, woman, can't you see that you're the problem here?"
I think they should be allowed to get married just like any other citizen of course some see it as absolutely wrong for that to happen. Not that I am part of the gay community or partake, or quite frankly even care about the label of gay or straight or what not. They all are citizens to me. Who they choose to sleep with or are in love with, I don't give crap. But there simply haven't been many good reasons if any at all beyond the usual bible quotes and personal morals reasons I seen much. Most are simply recycled from the days of when slavery, women voting, interracial marriage issue, segregation days. When the question should be why discriminate and prevent a certain group of people from getting married if they are two consenting adults that can legally enter into a contract agreement?
I think in the future this issue will be looked at how most view the deal of inter racial marriage was back in the day. The same arguments used against and for are being used. "It will destroy marriage." "it will destroy the American family values." and etc. Yet today, inter racial marriage is allowed yet, don't seem like the world ended. It will happen eventually anyways and our children's children will look at this generation like we look at our grand parents and for some parents era and wonder "Was it really that big of a deal?" Today in the now, of course it is. And while not opposition isn't bigotry, there have been some opposition that have been pure plain textbook bigotry. And then there have been some that over use the term bigotry just as some over use the term to describe any group or person that don't agree with their view.
Not to mention I think the federal government have bigger issues than spending so much time worried about what adult, consenting sleeps with who or what consenting adult. Let them be free and marry like any other citizen. How about this spending budget that is a big issue that can have a much more damaging effect on the citizens lives than who Bob next door sleeps with at night.
Quote from: Segev on October 20, 2013, 08:04:53 PM
So, no, the "you'll only get called a 'bigot' if you're advocating bigotry" argument doesn't hold water. The definition of "bigot" becomes "one who doesn't agree with my position on this issue," rather than "one who hates people for superficial reasons." Only a bigot would disagree, therefore if you disagree it means you're hateful. You can't possibly have any other reason, because you ARE a bigot for disagreeing, and bigots are hateful.
"I wouldn't call you a witch if you weren't acting like one," says a man to a woman. "Hey! I'm not being witchy!" she replies. "I'm just saying that you're wrong about--" "See? There you go, being a witch about this whole thing. Geeze, woman, can't you see that you're the problem here?"
Quote...I will stop now, lest I go into a longer tirade about how the Left is actually perpetuating bigotry while projecting it on the Right in order to sustain their power and create a perpetual underclass dependent on the Left.
Too late.
You can't even see how much of a hypocrite you're being, there? You're essentially doing the thing that you're blaming a group of people for... on those exact same people. It's astounding.
I hadn't read everything here, but I hope the far right here don't call me a liberal and I hope the far left don't go caling me a right winger, I prefer to be viewed as neither.
In economics, neither a "lessaze affair"(pure capitalism) nore a "command and control"(pure socialism) works. On one end, people begin to take advantage of others in atrocious and stupid ways that only do damage to the economy on the whole as money ends up centralizing in fewer and fewer people, if they get to use that money to control the government in any way, you end up with a plutocracy, even if it's not publicly recognized as such.
On the other end, people get lazy, that much is clear if everyones paychecks are determined regardless of how well they really do, and ironically money ends up over-centralizing anyways, in this case it's who's running the economy who is doing that. So pure socialism doesn't work either.
The funny thing is, this goes hand in hand with government, simply because it's almost no different than anarchy vs oligarchies. Both paths lead to the same societies incapable of prospering whatsoever as money just ends up over-centralized. The arguement of "trickle down economics" doesn't hold much water because of factors such as supply, demand and whatnot, and greed takes over to an extreme for people who have lots of money and power. They won't hire people if they see no reason to when they are making profits as it is, heck, a monopoly doesn't hire beyond a point because they do NOT want to produce when they are already at a solid economic equilibrium of supply/demand.
Now I know people are wondering why I say anarchies and oligarchies lead to the same thing, the problem is that in anarchy, no government, the lack of any law and order or rules to go by leads people to do even stupider things than in a pure oligarchy, they'll steal from others, everyone ends up having to guard their assets 24/7, nothing can get done, so people beg someone to take charge. Just the same in a pure oligarchy(which anarchies can lead to), the people controlling everything so much, the excessive micromanagement leads to squandering of everything, while at the same time no one has any real rights.
So the problem with the tea party? 90% of them are zealots, who cannot understand any of that. In going to extremes, they cannot moderate themselves well enough, instead they get hostile at even people in the middle, such as myself, who'd rather a republic and an economy closer to the center, in the middle of pure capitalism or pure socialism. Some things cannot self-regulate, honestly I don't think anything can, but the "fine touching" needed varies. Many parts of an economy can be "let be", as lessaze affair in greek means, other things need to be watched a little more tightly, like health care for instance, because if it becomes about money, then sadly you end up with alot of cases where it's more profitable to NOT cure anything, but just treat it for 20-30 years and let it remain and cause more problems, which can impact other parts of an economy due to money being lost on it.
Still other silly problems such as "lets not hire anyone because they have debt and a poor credit rating even though they have no criminal record" occur to without a law keeping such a stupid catch-22 policy from being followed.(not joking, that happens to me alot, even though i've a clean record some companies instantly assume that my college loans make me a desparate criminal, even though I am trying to get a job good enough to pay that debt off everyone just looks at that credit rating).
Regulations prevent things like that.
But some things still have to be banned outright due to actually having a negative impact on an economy or just being plain unethical and disturbing. I could mention dozens of examples that are especially heinous but I won't here simply because it's common sense. A minor example though, slavery is actually reported throughout history as having a negative impact on an economy, due to it's often hand-in-hand relation to an especially poor form of economics called plunder economics, also called Raubwirtschaft in german(or rapine), in which there is no real internal economy, but everything in it is stolen from somewhere else in some form or another(such as the backs of the slaves). Such an economy was part of the path of excesses that lead to the destruction of the roman empire.
Regulations also guard against such atrocities.
I could even mention a pure lesaze affair(let it be) economy leading CEO's and corporations to adopt anti-competition practices and feudal practices such as preventing anyone from advancing the social ladder, just as much a command and control in excess may hire someone inept at someone for a higher position just cause he has seniority even though he hardly learned the job. Again, going either way to far just defeats itself. The case of credit rating in fact is a perfect case of feudalism; in order to get good jobs you need an education but no job really provides enough money to get it, so you go to college on loans, but then not having a perfect credit rating prevents you from getting the very jobs you went to college for, so your stuck with the bill and no way to pay it off simply because all the jobs that would pay it off are unavailable due to the credit rating.
Regulations in an economy designed to prevent unethical decisions or just stupid decisions are a good thing. It's just extremists on both ends tend to, well, tear the efforts to get that middle ground where everyone can prosper down(watch law and order SVU if your somehow not sure what i'm talking about). Thats why we got a republic and thats also why we had a number of regulations put in place in the 1940s by Rosevelt that shouldn't have been removed. Republics work, as do economies in the middle, simply because it's fair for everyone in things such as opportunity to move and in terms of flexibility while also preventing unethical practices from being followed.
(a note, I know I am spelling lesaze incorrectly, but my spell checker doesn't seem to be helping me.)
Alot of what I mentioned here is basic but for the plunder economy reference;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raubwirtschaft
I know, it's on wikipedia but thats a form of economy that is a very lethal form of economy in so many ways it's actually kind of disturbing. The roman empire was destroyed by that kind of economy.
Quote from: JaguarX on October 20, 2013, 08:35:40 PM
I think they should be allowed to get married just like any other citizen of course some see it as absolutely wrong for that to happen. Not that I am part of the gay community or partake, or quite frankly even care about the label of gay or straight or what not. They all are citizens to me. Who they choose to sleep with or are in love with, I don't give crap. But there simply haven't been many good reasons if any at all beyond the usual bible quotes and personal morals reasons I seen much. Most are simply recycled from the days of when slavery, women voting, interracial marriage issue, segregation days. When the question should be why discriminate and prevent a certain group of people from getting married if they are two consenting adults that can legally enter into a contract agreement?
I think in the future this issue will be looked at how most view the deal of inter racial marriage was back in the day. The same arguments used against and for are being used. "It will destroy marriage." "it will destroy the American family values." and etc. Yet today, inter racial marriage is allowed yet, don't seem like the world ended. It will happen eventually anyways and our children's children will look at this generation like we look at our grand parents and for some parents era and wonder "Was it really that big of a deal?" Today in the now, of course it is. And while not opposition isn't bigotry, there have been some opposition that have been pure plain textbook bigotry. And then there have been some that over use the term bigotry just as some over use the term to describe any group or person that don't agree with their view.
Not to mention I think the federal government have bigger issues than spending so much time worried about what adult, consenting sleeps with who or what consenting adult. Let them be free and marry like any other citizen. How about this spending budget that is a big issue that can have a much more damaging effect on the citizens lives than who Bob next door sleeps with at night.
The's the problem that all hate groups face - because, with hilarious irony, they're always in a minority themselves - hate is too extreme and requires way to much effort to appeal to normal people, so the all hate groups have to persuade enough normal people to agree with them to be able to sustain their influence - and the one thing that all these hate groups are terrified of the most is for those normal people to come into contact with the target that they want them to hate. As in the example you mentioned of inter-racial marriage, once normal people came into contact with it, the hate groups opposed to it were left as an extremist minority - which is currently what we're seeing now with the issue of gay marriage - more and more Americans are coming into contact with gay couples, and realizing that they're also just normal people like them, so support for the anti-gay hate groups is beginning to shrink - we're past the tipping point now, and the only way is up from here for society, while for the hate groups the only way is down.
The biggest enemy for social conservatives is democracy, because it's based on the mechanic of change - which is why, for example, social conservatives in Iran have been much more successful in maintaining their influence than their fellow extremists in America - they don't have to deal with a democratic system. And that of course means that they're got a lot more options as a dictatorship when it comes to stopping normal Iranians coming into contact with the extremists' chosen target of "decadent" Western culture - they can ban and restrict and censor things in a way that's simply impossible to do in a democracy.
Quote from: Golden Girl on October 20, 2013, 09:51:00 PM
The's the problem that all hate groups face - because, with hilarious irony, they're always in a minority themselves - hate is too extreme and requires way to much effort to appeal to normal people, so the all hate groups have to persuade enough normal people to agree with them to be able to sustain their influence - and the one thing that all these hate groups are terrified of the most is for those normal people to come into contact with the target that they want them to hate. As in the example you mentioned of inter-racial marriage, once normal people came into contact with it, the hate groups opposed to it were left as an extremist minority - which is currently what we're seeing now with the issue of gay marriage - more and more Americans are coming into contact with gay couples, and realizing that they're also just normal people like them, so support for the anti-gay hate groups is beginning to shrink - we're past the tipping point now, and the only way is up from here for society, while for the hate groups the only way is down.
The biggest enemy for social conservatives is democracy, because it's based on the mechanic of change - which is why, for example, social conservatives in Iran have been much more successful in maintaining their influence than their fellow extremists in America - they don't have to deal with a democratic system. And that of course means that they're got a lot more options as a dictatorship when it comes to stopping normal Iranians coming into contact with the extremists' chosen target of "decadent" Western culture - they can ban and restrict and censor things in a way that's simply impossible to do in a democracy.
You certainly speak alot of truth about that. Extremists often rely on a very tight control, ironically as a result of the shoe-horn effect you see it from both sides. Simply put most people when exposed to anything that isn't actually harmful such as inter-racial marriage or gay marriage and find the people involved are just normal people, actually people different in general tends to slowly wash away any amount of biggotry they person may have had. Most studies show that to be the case, it's just extreme individuals are usually locked that way somehow such as a mental disorder causing it(often one that results in general xenophobia) or brainwashing.
The problem with the label "Hate Group" is the etymology of the word "Hate."
Be very careful throwing around inaccurate terms.
Hate is derived form a word that effectively means "To treat as an enemy."
Down that path lies destruction.
Quote from: Terwyn on October 20, 2013, 10:03:49 PM
The problem with the label "Hate Group" is the etymology of the word "Hate."
Be very careful throwing around inaccurate terms.
Hate is derived form a word that effectively means "To treat as an enemy."
Down that path lies destruction.
Honestly one doesn't have to call extremist groups hate groups or even extremist groups, they often end up showing themselves to be that way on there own through some extreme action everyone not only dislikes or hates but causes alot of damage to everyone else and to themselves.
Quote from: LaughingAlex on October 20, 2013, 10:12:33 PM
Honestly one doesn't have to call extremist groups hate groups or even extremist groups, they often end up showing themselves to be that way on there own through some extreme action everyone not only dislikes or hates but causes alot of damage to everyone else and to themselves.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing that extremism is a problem regardless of the cause it originated from, I'm simply cautioning that if one starts viewing groups who disagree with one's position as the enemy simply because they disagree, and not on account of their specific actions, there is little likelihood that the brakes can be safely applied to the situation. There's a reason why, to my Canadian perspective, the recent events in the US were nothing short of Cold-war style brinkmanship.
The problem is, that the designation of extremism is quite subjective. I am a moderate Conservative (though I have a great appreciation for the NDP) by Canadian reckoning, which would place me generally as a democrat in the United States. However, by American reckoning, I am an extremist simply because my political values are incredibly alien to the circumstances one would find in the US.
The first duty of a civilization that hopes for longevity is to its descendants, and it strikes me that almost too many have forgotten that detail.
Quote from: Terwyn on October 20, 2013, 10:45:06 PM
Oh, I'm not disagreeing that extremism is a problem regardless of the cause it originated from, I'm simply cautioning that if one starts viewing groups who disagree with one's position as the enemy simply because they disagree, and not on account of their specific actions, there is little likelihood that the brakes can be safely applied to the situation. There's a reason why, to my Canadian perspective, the recent events in the US were nothing short of Cold-war style brinkmanship.
The problem is, that the designation of extremism is quite subjective. I am a moderate Conservative (though I have a great appreciation for the NDP) by Canadian reckoning, which would place me generally as a democrat in the United States. However, by American reckoning, I am an extremist simply because my political values are incredibly alien to the circumstances one would find in the US.
The first duty of a civilization that hopes for longevity is to its descendants, and it strikes me that almost too many have forgotten that detail.
Totally, the first point you make is one of the core aspects of extremism and how it tends to take root, the "black and white" view that ultimately endangers everyone in the end due to an uncompromising nature of such a view. And given my first post here even mentions how both sides on the extremes may just label me as such even though I'm usually very neutral on most matters.
Quote from: LaughingAlex on October 20, 2013, 11:06:57 PM
Totally, the first point you make is one of the core aspects of extremism and how it tends to take root, the "black and white" view that ultimately endangers everyone in the end due to an uncompromising nature of such a view. And given my first post here even mentions how both sides on the extremes may just label me as such even though I'm usually very neutral on most matters.
Honestly, even though you and I appear to be on the same wavelength, I suspect there are several areas in which we'd be on opposite ends of the spectrum. For example, I have an exceptionally pragmatic perspective when it comes to politics, so nearly any argument that works on the basis of emotionalism or "fairness" just won't hold water with me if it isn't paired with sufficient amounts of empirical evidence.
Quote from: Terwyn on October 20, 2013, 11:09:36 PM
Honestly, even though you and I appear to be on the same wavelength, I suspect there are several areas in which we'd be on opposite ends of the spectrum. For example, I have an exceptionally pragmatic perspective when it comes to politics, so nearly any argument that works on the basis of emotionalism or "fairness" just won't hold water with me if it isn't paired with sufficient amounts of empirical evidence.
In my case actually i'm fairly in the middle on that, in general I believe a middle-ground approach has to be used regarding a governmant or an economy simply because in the case of government, going to small in government ironically leads to much more controls that people may not want just as much as going to large, in the case of no government at all in fact I believe it'd actually end up with someone taking control anyways. The same goes for the economy as I'd said in an earlier post, to little regulation can lead to the economy overcentralizing and everything just degrading for the non-wealthy just as much as an economy that's over controlled in which those controlling it just over-centralize it on themselves. Much of the evidence is really just in the things that happened recently with my countries economy for the "to little control" just as much as what happened to the soviet union in the case of "to much control".
Quote from: LaughingAlex on October 20, 2013, 11:17:17 PM
In my case actually i'm fairly in the middle on that, in general I believe a middle-ground approach has to be used regarding a governmant or an economy simply because in the case of government, going to small in government ironically leads to much more controls that people may not want just as much as going to large, in the case of no government at all in fact I believe it'd actually end up with someone taking control anyways. The same goes for the economy as I'd said in an earlier post, to little regulation can lead to the economy overcentralizing and everything just degrading for the non-wealthy just as much as an economy that's over controlled in which those controlling it just over-centralize it on themselves. Much of the evidence is really just in the things that happened recently with my countries economy for the "to little control" just as much as what happened to the soviet union in the case of "to much control".
Yay Constitutional Monarchies, then.
We've got a decent blend of both, unfortunately in the wrong places as frequently as the right ones. However, I think I'd rather take the flaws of the Canadian system over the flaws in the United States, simply because we started out far more aggressively decentralized, and as such most of the current problems that exist in the US never had ground to start in up here. We do have some problems that can be considered much more disastrous than what is currently going on in the US, however. A good example of that would be the over-reliance on the economy of the United States as complicated by the fact that we have more barriers to trade *within* our borders, than we have with entire countries. It's easier to ship things out of one province through the United States to another than it is to simply fly it across the country for many different products.
There's a reason why the Canadian equivalent of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is "Peace, Order, and Good Government." You have no idea how difficult it is to explain what that last one means to some people. It really is nothing more complicated than what we consider effective governance in the corporate world, or in other words, running a business effectively and running a government effectively really ought not require a different set of skills.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Read these through and understand that this is what our President and his administration DO from Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals.
Rule 5 examples - calling elected officials from the other side terrorists with bombs strapped on and the earlier example of the professor that even when he found out he was wrong - still refused to change his opinion. Telling people that conservatives want the deaths of children, women and old people. Telling people the Tea party wants all social programs cut off. Understand something the money dumped on Mercantilism FAR out-strips that of the social programs.
Rule 6 examples - Well those park rangers ENJOYED putting up barriers and being rude and hateful to visitors. They could fall back on the "rules" and don't blame me I am following orders. Union members from the SEIU beat up a handicapped BLACK conservative and the media IGNORED IT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFeUhSlHiUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUK8M2HTkc
Hate, this is what they WANT. Division and tearing apart America into smaller more easily handled groups. They pit man vs. woman, young vs old, white vs everyone, poor vs rich and any other way they can spread hate and fear. IBM coined a phrase back in the day called FUD Fear Uncertainty and Doubt.
FUD was first defined with its specific current meaning by Gene Amdahl the same year, 1975, after he left IBM to found his own company, Amdahl Corp.: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products."[8] The term has also been attributed to veteran Morgan Stanley computer analyst Ulrich Weil. As Eric S. Raymond writes:[9]
" The idea, of course, was to persuade buyers to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors' equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the future of competitors' equipment or software. After 1991 the term has become generalized to refer to any kind of disinformation used as a competitive weapon."
Rule 12 examples - Ted Cruz, GW Bush, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, the Catholic Church and anyone and everyone who tries to stop this administration from doing whatever they want to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjhXPpQQXPY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ANINZ8psz4
What side is the press on?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi3xcoo8LBE
It is not hard at all to see how the government in charge currently tries to use these rules to weaken any opposition.
I'm only popping in to say that the term "laissez-faire" is of French origin.