Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

[quote name='mykevermin']Best advice you've never followed. I applaud those of you who've tried to instill that in you, though it's clearly failed miserably.[/QUOTE]

With very few exceptions, I don't generally resort to childish name calling and derogatory flaming because people post things that I don't like. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but my first instinct isn't to post "shut the **** up" either.
 
Gov Ed Rendell (D-PA) on the tea parties:

"If I organized a rally for a stronger law to protect puppies, I'd get 100,000 people at that rally," he said. "So I think the media has blown [the Tea Party] out of proportion."
 
[quote name='JolietJake']And they think their views reflect those of most Americans.:lol:[/QUOTE]

On some issues yes, on some issues no. But the most insane part of that poll was that 30% of tea partiers don't think Obama was born in the U.S. -- and even more insane, 20% of people overall think he wasn't born an American. Only 58% acknowledge the truth. That just blows me away. I thought the difference would be much bigger between the general populace and the tea partiers. Apparently 42% of us are too stupid to realize Obama was born in Hawaii, and rationalize our utterly unfounded doubts.
 
These teabaggers are the typical racist right wing retards trying to undermine our nation's first black President. This is a treasonous act and all of them need to be convicted and prosecuted as the traitors they are.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I don't see how you don't get tired of that rumblebear.[/QUOTE]

I wonder the same about some of the other posters around here that sound just like him.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I wonder the same about some of the other posters around here that sound just like him.[/QUOTE]

Exactly like him. I can't count how many times legit posters on here have talked about how the whole tea party is racist and should be arrested for treason.
 
So it just occured to me while watching Meet the Press that Tea Baggers and Californians are the freaking same and on a big issue I truly think is ruining the country.

The thing they are the exact same on is the issue of raising taxes and which programs should be cut. California got itself into a huge budget problem largely in part because they kept adding new program after new program but then voting down time and time to raise taxes or cut older programs. The tea baggers are the exact same, they call for cuts in funding to areas they think do not effect them, rally against taxes and the only things they are against are programs they feel do not immediately effect them. When you look at it we see time and time again them screaming about raising taxes and how certain programs should be cut or screaming about passing national health care....but then find that many of them collect medicaid and or social security and generally like the programs.

This is the problem with America right now. We only want the programs that effect us and feel we should cut programs that effect others and to boot we feel we should not have to pay the taxes needed to sustain even the basic programs we want in place. It does not matter if your a teabagger or a liberal, if you are against raising taxes(and chances are cutting programs)your a moron.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus'] It does not matter if your a teabagger or a liberal, if you are against raising taxes(and chances are cutting programs)your a moron.[/QUOTE]

This is your litmus for what makes a person a moron?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']This is your litmus for what makes a person a moron?[/QUOTE]

If you only think the programs that effect you are worth keeping, or you think every government program is good and at the same time refuse to pay for any of these programs yes that's moronic. This has just become the American way though! It does not matter if its buying things on credit, taking out loans we cant afford and then defaulting/filing bankruptcy or enjoying government programs but voting down tax raises...its all a good indicator of a stupid person.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']If you only think the programs that effect you are worth keeping, or you think every government program is good and at the same time refuse to pay for any of these programs yes that's moronic. This has just become the American way though! It does not matter if its buying things on credit, taking out loans we cant afford and then defaulting/filing bankruptcy or enjoying government programs but voting down tax raises...its all a good indicator of a stupid person.[/QUOTE]

I don't think we cut taxes more than we just shift the cost of them.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']its all a good indicator of a stupid person.[/QUOTE]

tee-hee.

Sorry, I'll stop now. I just cannot control myself sometimes.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I don't think we cut taxes more than we just shift the cost of them.[/QUOTE]

First problem with this is that not very many people are saying "shift the cost" they are chanting no new taxes, lower my taxes, taxes are too high etc etc. If they were reasonable enough to say shift the taxes I would then ask from where to where? Shifting of taxes is again another huge problem right now that shows just how ignorant and stupid people are, while they are screaming about their taxes going up(in a time where most peoples taxes are down)instead of politicians making the difficult but necessary choice to raise taxes we are indeed seeing them shifted....from places like schools and roads.

NASA and DOD are the only two that I can see receiving far more money then they need right now and no one anytime soon is going to take money away from those programs...which means if we shift funds its going to be from schools, Social Security, Medicare/caid, transportation, environmental issues, welfare etc etc...all places that are largely underfunded anyways.

Again thats all besides the point though because as I said most people are not reasonable or smart enough to have that kind of discussion and would rather keep as a conservative cutting programs that don't effect them immediately while lowering taxes to ensure even the programs they want in place are put in Jeopardy or as a liberal creating more and more programs but underfunding all of them(making them not very useful programs) because your either too scared to raise taxes as a politician or too stupid to realize its needed as a citizen.
 
MSI,

I appreciate your point of view but not everyone sees it that black and white.

I, for example, would very much prefer we cut most programs. On top of that, I can speak from second hand experience that nearly all government programs are EXTREMELY over funded. Ask anyone that's worked in government - they will tell you that they routinely inflate and lie in their budget forecasts to make sure they keep their jobs. The government has no problem buying $600 hammers and $10,000 toilets for it's projects.

I would even be happy if government programs were AT LEAST held to the same fiscal responsibility that a corporation has to. If they can't perform with X amount of money, then everyone gets fired and rehire - or something like that.

The problem isn't just that we have far far far more government than many of us want. It's that the programs that we do have that perhaps ARE necessary, are so poorly run with so much corruption - they are costing way more than they should.

You need to remember that many of us, including myself: 1) Do not believe the government can efficiently run or fix anything and 2) Believe that once government IS running something - no amount of money will ever make it run efficiently or do a good job.
Keeping that in mind, it should be easier for you to see why some believe what the government does and how it includes itself in our lives should be incredibly limited. That's not a "stupid" viewpoint. It may be one you don't share, but it's not stupid.

Most of your post, however, reminds me of 16th century man, Alexander Fraser Tytler, quote on democracy:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

The bolded part seems to be what you are arguing FOR. That's a valid viewpoint, but It's not everyone's viewpoint.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So much fail so little time...

Where to begin?

The admonishment not to see every thing in black and white leading to the "everyone knows" style assertion that basically "all" government programs are "extremely" over funded and corrupt?

The utter blindness involved in failing to see that if government was held to the same principles as corporations we would be living in a third world country right now?

The fake attribution designed to appeal old timey authority?

How about just this.

The "quote" thrust is so fond of applies to corporations and the upper class more so than to its intended target which is something any Libertarian I have ever talked to seems to not have grasped.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']MSI,

I appreciate your point of view but not everyone sees it that black and white.

I, for example, would very much prefer we cut most programs. On top of that, I can speak from second hand experience that nearly all government programs are EXTREMELY over funded. Ask anyone that's worked in government - they will tell you that they routinely inflate and lie in their budget forecasts to make sure they keep their jobs. The government has no problem buying $600 hammers and $10,000 toilets for it's projects.

I would even be happy if government programs were AT LEAST held to the same fiscal responsibility that a corporation has to. If they can't perform with X amount of money, then everyone gets fired and rehired - or something like that.

The problem isn't just that we have far far far more government than many of us want. It's that the programs that we do have that perhaps ARE necessary, are so poorly run with so much corruption - they are costing way more than they should.

You need to remember that many of us, including myself: 1) Do not believe the government can efficiently run or fix anything and 2) Believe that once government IS running something - no amount of money will ever make it run efficiently or do a good job.
Keeping that in mind, it should be easier for you to see why some believe what the government does and how it includes itself in our lives should be incredibly limited. That's not a "stupid" viewpoint. It may be one you don't share, but it's not stupid.

Most of your post, however, reminds me of 16th century man, Alexander Fraser Tytler, quote on democracy:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

The bolded part seems to be what you are arguing FOR. That's a valid viewpoint, but It's not everyone's viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

Ermmmm just because there is government waste does not mean those programs are not underfunded. For example my aunt works for la local school district directly under some major people....she has said that most of the major up ups are not only paid insane salaries but are overstaffed having multiple assistants and secretaries when really just one and in some cases two could do the job. She has also talked about parties they have thrown and other disgusting wastes of money. This is all while after school programs are being cut, gym has been cut, a few class rooms closed off and more students put in the existing classes etc etc etc. Even if the excesses were cut and the funds used on the students as it should be the school district would still be underfunded in need of more teachers, a new building and a lot more programs.

You can give example after example after example like this. Yes I am sure there are people in the department of transportation sitting on $10,000 toilets and eating $100 lunches paid for by the tax payer....but even busting down on stuff like that do you honestly think it would pay to fix the nations infrastructure? I seriously doubt it.

And yet again your type of message is not what I hear people chanting on the streets...its just not what the tea baggers are calling for man. This is the difference between the reasonable libertarian and the unreasonable tea bagger. One of you can look at things and give a fix to things I dont agree with, but is at least well thought out...the other is a moron.

Edit - Sorry if this is even worse both grammatically and at countering points then usual, wife called halfway through me typing. I will try and fix it up and respond more latter.
 
Most corporations are no more efficient or honest than the government, which leaves us with a bit of a problem. If not government, if not corporate America, then who?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Most corporations are no more efficient or honest than the government, which leaves us with a bit of a problem. If not government, if not corporate America, then who?[/QUOTE]

You can trust me.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']NASA and DOD are the only two that I can see receiving far more money then they need right now and no one anytime soon is going to take money away from those programs...which means if we shift funds its going to be from schools, Social Security, Medicare/caid, transportation, environmental issues, welfare etc etc...all places that are largely underfunded anyways.[/QUOTE]

All of the areas you listed are overfunded, some more than others. To take an easy cut-and-dry example, the federal government has no business spending money for education at all, as that is a state and local issue.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] To take an easy cut-and-dry example, the federal government has no business spending money for education at all, as that is a state and local issue.[/QUOTE]
And this is why in a few years Texans will love McCarthy.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Most corporations are no more efficient or honest than the government, which leaves us with a bit of a problem. If not government, if not corporate America, then who?[/QUOTE]

Really? Which corporations are running with a 12 Trillion Dollar Debt?
Now, I won't debate you on the "honest" part. Don't trust a corporation any further than I can throw their HQ.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You can trust me.[/QUOTE]
I don't know, i've seen what happens when people trust Mr. Burns.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']All of the areas you listed are overfunded, some more than others. To take an easy cut-and-dry example, the federal government has no business spending money for education at all, as that is a state and local issue.[/QUOTE]

Disagree with both that their over funded as well as that education should be left to a state issue.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really? Which corporations are running with a 12 Trillion Dollar Debt?
Now, I won't debate you on the "honest" part. Don't trust a corporation any further than I can throw their HQ.[/QUOTE]

General Motors and Chrysler are two examples. No one runs a trillion dollar debt but no one brings in as much money as the Government either.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']The civil rights movement was not about freeing slaves.



If you don't mind using Social Security money to cover deficits, then yes. If you do mind and realize that this is actually borrowing, then no.



The tea party did not exist during the Bush administration at all. Sure, it is partly a result of the idiotic economic policies followed by Bush in his last few months in office, but there was no movement until Rick Santelli of CNBC (who can be described pretty fairly as the founder of the tea party movement) came up with the idea on the air. Look it up.

Certainly none of the Republican people who are attempting to hijack the tea party movement (people like Dick Armey and Sarah Palin) were up in arms over the profligate performance of the Bush administration and the Republican (later Democratic, with little change in this regard) Congress. They supported Bush, of course, since they are Republicans and party people.[/QUOTE]

Ok Sorry about that, I went to Washington D.C. for a few days, but now I am back to defend myself.

Firstly I was talking about the civil rights movement as a whole ,http://www.ushistory.org/more/timeline.htm not just the 20th century movement. If you do not consider freeing black slaves a civil rights issue then I dont know what to tell you. Which brings me to the original point before it was twisted and turned which is that the lack of the prior existence of a movement is not a valid reason to discount said movement.

Secondly We werent talking about the politicians, the nearly leaderless tea party itself was formed as a result of BUSH enacting the tarp bank bailout. You can say that it would have been formed as a result Obamas spending anyway, but bottom line is that the TARP deal triggered it.

Thirdly I never said I was in favor of Clintons fiscal policy, the left always claim he balanced the budget, and I would say the majority of Americans believed that was the case, but someone argued that if the tea party was a valid movement why wouldn't it be formed then? And I simply stated that clinton supposedly balanced the budget.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='depascal22']General Motors and Chrysler are two examples. No one runs a trillion dollar debt but no one brings in as much money as the Government either.[/QUOTE]

Im not sure on this but if you use a ratio, is any companys income to debt ratio equivalent or greater to the governments income to debt ratio?

I have a feeling it isnt, the government is the worst run corporation, and us taxpayers are the ones who will have to bail it out unless we make some serious changes.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Civil rights movement freed the slaves.....damn dude. Really?




Really?[/QUOTE]

Triple post, yay!

Anyways, take a minute reread my post. Then read my response to elprincipe.

Stop being so short-sighted and critical, and this forum would be a lot more smoother.
 
Secondly We werent talking about the politicians, the nearly leaderless tea party itself was formed as a result of BUSH enacting the tarp bank bailout. You can say that it would have been formed as a result Obamas spending anyway, but bottom line is that the TARP deal triggered it.
Click to expand...

Oh, so I guess they were cool with Bush until the tarp? I guess you're arguing that the tarp was the tipping point, and that they were angry the whole time.

You're going to have to show me the tea partiers intense displeasure with Bush prior to the tarp bail out. I think I missed it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really? Which corporations are running with a 12 Trillion Dollar Debt?
Now, I won't debate you on the "honest" part. Don't trust a corporation any further than I can throw their HQ.[/QUOTE]
Let any given company get large enough and exist for long enough and i have no doubt they could manage it. IMO there is a thin line of difference between business and government. I'd even say it's possible that some small nation may have less debt than some US companies, and i'm trying to find information on the debt of smaller countries.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Let any given company get large enough and exist for long enough and i have know doubt they could manage it. IMO there is a thin line of difference between business and government. I'd even say it's possible that some small nation may have less debt than some US companies, and i'm trying to find information on the debt of smaller countries.[/QUOTE]

No successful US company has the ratio of debt the US government has. What does that tell you about the government?
 
[quote name='Knoell']No successful US company has the ratio of debt the US government has. What does that tell you about the government?[/QUOTE]

Can someone name a US company that successfully defeated the Nazi war machine?
 
[quote name='depascal22']General Motors and Chrysler are two examples. No one runs a trillion dollar debt but no one brings in as much money as the Government either.[/QUOTE]

You know, I bet if we armed corporations and made it legal for them force the general population to give them money, some corporations could manage to bring in as much money as the Federal Government does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top