Of Tea Party folks and Racial Slurs...

Like I have said a million times before, I don't buy it.

You started to hear some grumbling from the right wing proto-Teahadists at least after the Democrats took over Congress and they could try the "both parties are to blame" song and dance but it was mostly a whimper and basically nada before even that.
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']Historically, the Tea Parties were created in response to the actions of George W. Bush and they gained more support and got bigger under Obama.[/QUOTE]

So, you're saying that historically, everything Bush did was a catalyst for the teaparty movement. I guess they didn't protest Bush at all because...they were lazy?

FatAss.jpg

I'm not sure why they suddenly appeared during Obama.
 
I remember maybe three months or so after the Democrats took control of Congress Bush asked them to "work with him" to get spending and the deficit under control, something he never asked of Republicans for the half decade or so they were in control.

The Tea Tantrum crowd isn't interested in any real deficit controls, any actual fix is anathema to them.

In my opinion the deficit and controlling spending is something cons only care about as a club to use against those they consider their political enemies, a tool to get the hamster brains that follow them riled up.
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']You're right. There were no protests in response to the Bush's bailouts in 2008. :roll: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/25/news...ion=2008092517[/QUOTE]

Cute. But it wasn't just today's teabaggers at those protests in 2008 ;)

Several other grassroots organizations were involved in the protests, including Democracy for America, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) and labor unions.
I was opposed to that bullshit bailout too. Little to no accountability.

What I'm confused about is that TODAYS teabaggers, the old white conservatives that follow Glenn Beck in droves, were nowhere to be seen protesting Bush's actions. Like I said before (and you poo-poo'd it), to claim the TARP bill was the only 'big gummint' thing that Bush did is just disingenuous.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Cute. But it wasn't just today's teabaggers at those protests in 2008 ;)

I was opposed to that bullshit bailout too. Little to no accountability.

What I'm confused about is that TODAYS teabaggers, the old white conservatives that follow Glenn Beck in droves, were nowhere to be seen protesting Bush's actions. Like I said before (and you poo-poo'd it), to claim the TARP bill was the only 'big gummint' thing that Bush did is just disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

The group quoted in the article is USAction, a pretty liberal group with what looks like legitimate grievances and ideas.

As opposed to the Teatards who as near as I can tell are nothing but a sorry ass right wing attempt to co-opt populist anger to push the same old retreads of discredited ideas.
 
Under the Bush Administration:
Creation of DHS
Two wars that are still going on today
FISA abuse
Military Commissions Act
Destruction of habea corpus
TIPS program
PATRIOT Act
...that's just off the top of my head.

Tea partiers couldn't give a fuck about a weak decentralized federal government. What a farce, what a charade.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Cute. But it wasn't just today's teabaggers at those protests in 2008 ;)

I was opposed to that bullshit bailout too. Little to no accountability.

What I'm confused about is that TODAYS teabaggers, the old white conservatives that follow Glenn Beck in droves, were nowhere to be seen protesting Bush's actions. Like I said before (and you poo-poo'd it), to claim the TARP bill was the only 'big gummint' thing that Bush did is just disingenuous.[/QUOTE]

I never said that... It just seems to have been the catalyst or at least according to them. If you simply believe they're being disingenuous, then I guess there's no reason to discuss that point further.
 
Well, the only 'teapartiers protesting Bush' event you can come up with is at the ass-end of his presidency, and JUST against TARP. So unless you've got more I think I'm right. I'll agree you never said that, but that's the only piece of evidence you can come up with, and even that protest wasn't just conservatives, ACORN thought it was bullshit too.

I'm not saying that they're being disingenuous, I'm saying that the TARP isn't the only big Gov't thing Bush did that they should be pissed at. And I don't see any evidence that they're angry about anything else he did. If they were angry, they certainly didn't express it at any point during his presidency.

I (and many others) are still confused about the tea party movement itself though. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over (since no one is able to provide me with an answer.) If they hate Obama's big gov't agenda, where were they during Bush? Obama is simply continuing a lot of Bush era policies (like the Patriot Act, bailouts, DHS, 2 wars.) Yet they appeared during Obama and were MIA during Bush.
 
IRHari, just comparing Obama's spending to W's in that manner shows how disingenuous they really are.

For example:

The Prescription Drug Plan passed under W cost much more in a similar time frame than the recent healthcare system overhaul, the plan was designed to be nothing more than a pharma giveaway and had no offsets or revenue source.

The poutrage now is fucking galling.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Well, the only 'teapartiers protesting Bush' event you can come up with is at the ass-end of his presidency, and JUST against TARP. So unless you've got more I think I'm right. I'll agree you never said that, but that's the only piece of evidence you can come up with, and even that protest wasn't just conservatives, ACORN thought it was bullshit too.

I'm not saying that they're being disingenuous, I'm saying that the TARP isn't the only big Gov't thing Bush did that they should be pissed at. And I don't see any evidence that they're angry about anything else he did. If they were angry, they certainly didn't express it at any point during his presidency.

I (and many others) are still confused about the tea party movement itself though. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over (since no one is able to provide me with an answer.) If they hate Obama's big gov't agenda, where were they during Bush? Obama is simply continuing a lot of Bush era policies (like the Patriot Act, bailouts, DHS, 2 wars.) Yet they appeared during Obama and were MIA during Bush.[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for them, nor can I expound further. I am not a member of the movement, I am an independent and I generally dislike both parties. I disliked Bush 2 for all of the reasons you outlined. I joined Obama's campaign in 2007 because he was the only Democrat that talked about fiscal responsibility, reducing deficit spending and medical tort reform. Personally, I do not feel he has lived up to the promises he outlined in "Change We Can Believe In."

If you would wish to ask someone, it might be better to ask someone who is actually associated with the movement. bill.hennessy-at-stlouisteaparty.com [He's one of the co-founders of the tea party movement in St Louis and I'm sure he would be more than willing to talk to you about it.]
 
This is going to be fairly long, and possibly insightful:

Late 2006/early 2007:

Person A: Bush is a joke. Total disaster in foreign policy and civil liberties. PATRIOT Act is very possibly the worst piece of legislation since Adams and the Sedition Act.

Person B: You know, I'm tired of you liberals talking about Bush like you know what he's doing. Clinton didn't protect us from terrorists, and Bush is.

Person A: Well, I'd kind of agree with you that Clinton wasn't very good in "keeping us safe," but not for the same reasons you may feel he failed us. Bush has largely continued a long pattern of foreign policy that has been perpetrated by America for several decades.

Person B: I'm tired of you disrespecting the president and not loving my country.

Mid 2007:

Person A: Hey, Ron Paul's pretty cool, yeah? Wants to drastically cut spending, especially our military budget. It'd help stem the growing number of terrorists created because of our oppressive foreign policy. He'd even cut income taxes to nothing if he could cut enough spending.

Person B: Hell no, he's a liberal. He doesn't love our country or Israel. You liberals and democrats don't know how to keep us safe. Stop listening to your friend Keith Olbermann.

Person A: Well, actually, we give more aid and weapons to Israel's enemies than we do Israel, so if we cut off funding to both Israel and Israel's enemies it would likely reduce the already slim possibility of Israel facing a large scale military threat from a middle eastern country. Also, Israel can't do anything without our approval, so they appear to be carrying out our policy in the middle east; anything bad that happens in their name is attributed by proxy to us.

Late 2007:

Person B: Obama is best friends with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright! He wasn't even born in this country, he was born in Kenya. I'm not voting for a $$$$er to be my president.

Person A: While Bill Ayers isn't really a great choice as an acquaintance for a politician aspiring to be president, there isn't much that Wright said in his "God Damn America" speech that wasn't true. It was over the top, sure, but MLK Jr, Ron Paul, Chalmers Johnson, and Michael Scheuer have said and say many of the same things about our foreign policy. McCain supports many of the policies that are creating terrorists around the world, and in speaking of our deficit nothing in his track record of the last 15 years suggests any possibility of him reducing the size and costs of our foreign adventures, which is really causing our deficit to explode. So really, it's not like McCain is any less of a terrorist than Obama.

Person B: You watch your fucking mouth, boy. Don't you ever disrespect my country. You need to face reality. You're in some fantasy land where everyone in the world hates America because we're some bad country. It's you and your little Ron Paul supporter friends who are the problem, not America.

2009:

Person B: The Tea Party and people like Glenn Beck are going to rise up and take down your little friend Obama and MSNBC. We're rising up, and Fox News is the only one telling the truth.

Person A: Uh... I... uh... what? Do you even know what the Tea Party is?

Person B: You're damn right I know what it is. Us Republicans are coming back.

Person A: Uh, well, the Tea Party thing actually kind of started with me and the terrorist-loving Ron Paul supporters in 2007; you know, we were talking about foreign policy, monetary policy, exploding deficits, civil liberties violations... you know, the crowd Fox News regularly derided...

Person B: Ron Paul isn't part of the Tea Party. The Tea Party is for people who love America, not for liberals like you.

Person A: o..k...

2010, a few months ago:

Person B: I'm tired of them not paying taxes next door. I didn't pay taxes my whole life for them to live here illegally and not pay taxes.

Person A: Actually, I'm pretty sure the neighbors aren't illegal. They speak English and they have jobs, and they pay taxes since they have those jobs. Anyway, you're on disability and SSI, what gives you the right to be a drain on working people like me and the people next door?

Person B: I paid taxes for over 20 years of working, I already paid for my benefits.

Person A: Okay, that's not how it works. How much did you pay each week in both SSI and disability benefits? I'm willing to bet that you didn't pay more than $40,000 in SSI taxes or more than $5,000 in state disability. You're going to end up collecting wayyyy over those numbers by the time you're dead. Also, instead of wanting the neighbors to pay more than zero in taxes - when I'm pretty sure they already are paying taxes - why wouldn't you want your tax burden to be lowered to something resembling their hypothetical tax rate? You're always talking about being overburdened, here's your opportunity to support lowering your tax rate.

Person B: How the hell would you pay for roads and schools?

Person A: Roads are maintained through gasoline taxes and public schools are paid for through local property taxes. And really, the bottom 60% don't really pay a huge assload in taxes as it is, so eliminating the income tax entirely for them wouldn't cut government income much. Cutting wasteful and disastrous foreign policy spending would more than make up for that.

Person B: No, no, you're too liberal.

----------------------------------

Person A is me, person B is my dad. There you have it, a personal experience with a libertarian watching a Republican turn into a Tea Partier turn into a Republican. It's a microcosm of what has been happening with the tea party on a larger scale, as most of you have noticed.

Just for giggles, I'm in my mid 20s, my dad's in his mid 40s. Giggles abound at his leeching off the government already, please. Kind of wish I was more into politics and less into metal before 2006, as I would have been needling him earlier, too.
 
Small l libertarianism is a bit broader than capital L Libertarianism. Believing in 2/3 of the civil liberties, free market (not crony capitalism), and restrained foreign policy dealio nets you libertarian status, I'd say. Many progressives could at the very least be described as civil libertarians as an example, and it's not really strange to see groups like the ACLU, Code Pink, and libertarians protesting something together.

I don't know exactly how large this coalition would be, but if progressives and libertarians formed a party, there'd be an outside shot that it could become a slightly less than fringe third party.
 
[quote name='IRHari']So, you're saying that historically, everything Bush did was a catalyst for the teaparty movement. I guess they didn't protest Bush at all because...they were lazy?

FatAss.jpg

I'm not sure why they suddenly appeared during Obama.[/QUOTE]

Is that a gut or a world record cameltoe?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I said they were good and I wanted to see if you would expand upon them. You didn't want to. I choose not to play the game if you don't want to keep score. Yeah, I don't understand Calvinball.



Do you want to argue about post #558 more in depth or did you want to take exception with something in post #557 or #559?[/QUOTE]

Because taking one situation that proves your point, and expanding it to become the rule is not the way this should be going. Not all cases of private contracts are fraud, and not all of them are entirely waste free.

It would be like me saying "hey did you see that amazing pass brett favre threw last week? He is the best quarterback ever! "

Then you would counter by saying "no way man, he is the worst quarterback ever, didnt you see that pick he threw?"

Neither arguement is completely true, unless you factor in every pass he has thrown otherwise it is useless to debate in that way. If you can provide sufficient data or strong evidence that says the majority of private contracts are fraudulant and wasteful, I will side with you.

Pick one item from your post at #557 and we will discuss it. I will not speed through 50 points, just to touch on whether I agree or disagree on them.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I don't know exactly how large this coalition would be, but if progressives and libertarians formed a party, there'd be an outside shot that it could become a slightly less than fringe third party.[/QUOTE]

That's the coalition that won the White House and Congress for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It's unraveled now because Obama has continued Bush's assault on civil liberties, and expanded government in ways libertarians have always dreaded. And he's continuing down that path of driving left-leaning libertarians into the hands of the Republicans. If the Republicans can lay off the social issues, my prediction is they'll sweep the elections in November.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']They were "staying the course" until they got a negro Democrat expanding federal government.[/QUOTE]

no kidding, he's uppity to boot.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That's the coalition that won the White House and Congress for the Democrats in 2006 and 2008. It's unraveled now because Obama has continued Bush's assault on civil liberties, and expanded government in ways libertarians have always dreaded. And he's continuing down that path of driving left-leaning libertarians into the hands of the Republicans. If the Republicans can lay off the social issues, my prediction is they'll sweep the elections in November.[/QUOTE]

I think that's bullshit. I see nothing the Republicans have done or will do which can possibly appeal to civil (left-leaning) libertarians.
 
[quote name='IRHari']If they hate Obama's big gov't agenda, where were they during Bush? Obama is simply continuing a lot of Bush era policies (like the Patriot Act, bailouts, DHS, 2 wars.) Yet they appeared during Obama and were MIA during Bush.[/QUOTE]

If Liberals hated Bush's big spending, big government agenda and warmongering, where are they now during Obama's reign?
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']I joined Obama's campaign in 2007 because he was the only Democrat that talked about fiscal responsibility, reducing deficit spending and medical tort reform. Personally, I do not feel he has lived up to the promises he outlined in "Change We Can Believe In."[/quote]

Ok, first off he is only been in a bit over a year.

Sorry he hasn't waved his magic deficit reduction wand amidst the worst economic times in generations and a toxic congress.

Like Wanda Sykes said "The man went to Harvard not Hogwarts".

Also, I don't remember "medical tort reform" being a plank of his election campaign (especially considering the fact it is more myth than fix) if anyone has a right to be pissed about what actually passed it is liberals.

You have the right to be as pissed as you wish to be, but you should recognize the fact being disappointed for your stated reasons isn't rational.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Ok, first off he is only been in a bit over a year.

Sorry he hasn't waved his magic deficit reduction wand amidst the worst economic times in generations and a toxic congress.

Like Wanda Sykes said "The man went to Harvard not Hogwarts".

Also, I don't remember "medical tort reform" being a plank of his election campaign (especially considering the fact it is more myth than fix) if anyone has a right to be upset about what actually passed it is liberals.[/QUOTE]

It's on page 45. Personally, I don't like that I knocked on doors for over a year telling people stuff that turned out to be a bunch of crap.
 
It isn't impossible I am wrong but page 45 of what exactly, my curiosity is piqued.

Even if that was the case the efficacy of tort reform is about as fantastical as believing someone could put a substantial dent in the debt or deficit in a year or any time soon.
 
"Reforming medical malpractice" is not the same thing as tort reform.

Especially since it is coupled with "while preserving patient rights" which in this context can mean not having your right to sue taken away.

IIRC what was discussed was lowering the amount of actual malpractice lawsuits, a far cry from merely capping damages.

The bill actually contains some of those ideas, largely leaving it up to states.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I think that's bullshit. I see nothing the Republicans have done or will do which can possibly appeal to civil (left-leaning) libertarians.[/QUOTE]

You are noticing only that which the Republicans would like to control and ignoring that which the Democrats would like to control.

You note that Republicans have supported things like warrantless wiretaps and the TIPS program, obviously things which are an anathema to civil libertarians. But you ignore Democrats' tendencies with regards to social nannyism, such as banning trans fats, speech codes on college campuses and taxes on soda, to name a few. Surely even left-leaning libertarians aren't pleased with the government telling them they can't have a twinkie or cut down a tree on their own land.
 
I don't know how taxes on soda impede freedom. I didn't have any speech codes on my campus, and I don't think there should be any. College should foster all different viewpoints.

Trans fats were banned. So was lead in gasoline. Cool with both. I heart the environment and my heart.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Show of hands, which is worse, warrantless wiretapping or banning transfats?[/QUOTE]

Banning transfats. I don't *like* warrantless wiretapping, but I have nothing to fear if, for whatever reason, Bush did tap my phone. On the other hand, transfats are tasty.
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Show of hands, which is worse, warrantless wiretapping or banning transfats?[/QUOTE]

Banning transfats. Then again, I *definitely* wouldn't want one of King Bush's evil drones listening to my private conversations about what happened on the last episode of "How I Met Your Mother."
 
[quote name='speedracer']America, I love you, but you're pissing me off.[/QUOTE]

Pardon me for playing the role of "when life gives you lemons..." this morning. I just saw Michael Motherfucking Brown criticizing President Obama's response to the Gulf oil spill, so I'm surprised I found the energy to be optimistic after picking my jaw up off the floor.

But the fear of gov't involvement in transfats and salts and sodas (and I bet these same folks are upset that candy companies can't legally convince the gov't to let them redefine "chocolate" to be whatever combination of engineered-and-devoid-of-actual-cacao fat solids they want it to be, damned bureaucrats) teaches us an important lesson:

These people really don't understand a world that doesn't slap them right in the goddamned face. The thread on externalizing costs? There's not a tinge of empathy there - not out of anything except for genuine inability to empathize. They understand when *they* suffer directly, and naturally presume the world suffers with them. They don't believe what they can't see in front of their face. That's why there is some schadenfreude satisfaction stemming from BP's magnificently horrendous oil spill in the Gulf. The public doesn't recognize global warming because it doesn't take the face of dead animals, or cute baby duckies, covered in oil, being lovingly scrubbed by volunteers using Dawn dishsoap donated by the fine folks at Proctor and Gamble™. But they see the visual, physical damage in front of them.

The good news is that we have limited empiricists in our midst. I would have never believed it - and it's only half true. They believe in absurd mystical shit like God and little baby Jebus - but they also believe that which hits at them. It has to actually directly effect them, though. Global warming is not a problem until their skin is burning and they're dying, so that's going to be somewhat of a "problem."

But of course these people are only half in jest saying that coca-cola taxes are worse than listening in on our phone calls; they think it's worse because they don't do anything important in their life, let alone their phone calls. They talk about the nuances of the last episode of "Lost" or some shit. But they *FEEL* their butter being taxes because it has HFCS in it.
 
I have a strange feeling that the people who fear government involvement in transfats and salts and sodas are the people who - get this - consume transfats and/or salts and/or sodas. I know, that's probably really out there, but it's just a hunch. Global warming is totally real, and I think it's affecting the world in a really negative way! It's not like the earth naturally has temperature/climate cycles. I mean, it doesn't.

By "they don't do anything important in their life", I think you mean we don't talk about our plans to commit terrorism on the phone. I personally talk about my terrorism plots through e-mail so they can't wire tap me. I was embarrassed a few years ago when I heard George Bush listening in on my telephone call with my grandma, though.
 
If your first thesis upon arriving in the vs forums is suggesting that people who support a tax are more likely than not the people who would be affected by/pay the tax, the only conclusion I can come to is this:

you're going to be a lot of fun.
 
Right now they tax soda in PA at the general sales tax rate (6%) while they don't tax food. It's devastating. I would rather have the police visit me daily.

I kind of agree they shouldn't start taxing HFCS stuff though, just remove the subsidies that make it cheaper already, which would have the same general effect anyway.
 
They tax everything here in new york at 8 and three quarters percent, (at least in the county I live in). Now they want to charge a "sugary drinks" tax of 18%. The coca cola plant near where I live actually told their merchandisers that they would be letting them go if the tax passes. Not because people will stop buying the "evil" sugary drinks that are making our children obese, but because people will just purchase the store brand instead.

Heres an idea, lets get back to good parenting in which a kid isnt inhaling a twelve pack a day because the parents wont let them, not because of the god damn government.


(Im seeing a trend in the demonizing aspect of the liberal agenda)
 
Before anyone gets their underoos in a bigger wad, I'd like to point out that my above response was a joke. I don't agree with the government using taxes to push a group morality, but warrantless wiretapping is, IMHO, worse.
 
[quote name='KillerRamen']It's on page 45. Personally, I don't like that I knocked on doors for over a year telling people stuff that turned out to be a bunch of crap.[/QUOTE]

Your bad that you got so wrapped up in politics you forgot that it was politics.
 
[quote name='Knoell']They tax everything here in new york at 8 and three quarters percent, (at least in the county I live in). Now they want to charge a "sugary drinks" tax of 18%. The coca cola plant near where I live actually told their merchandisers that they would be letting them go if the tax passes. Not because people will stop buying the "evil" sugary drinks that are making our children obese, but because people will just purchase the store brand instead.

Heres an idea, lets get back to good parenting in which a kid isnt inhaling a twelve pack a day because the parents wont let them, not because of the god damn government.


(Im seeing a trend in the demonizing aspect of the liberal agenda)[/QUOTE]

And the subsidies for High Fructose Corn Syrup?
 
[quote name='JolietJake']Show of hands, which is worse, warrantless wiretapping or banning transfats?[/QUOTE]

Where did I say they were equivalent? I just threw out some examples of policies advocated by Democrats/leftists that would surely offend libertarian sensibilities. Maybe I should come up with more? A national ID card? Gun registration?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Where did I say they were equivalent? I just threw out some examples of policies advocated by Democrats/leftists that would surely offend libertarian sensibilities. Maybe I should come up with more? A national ID card? Gun registration?[/QUOTE]

Many Republicans favor a national ID card, too, though.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']And the subsidies for High Fructose Corn Syrup?[/QUOTE]


you mean corn?

Do you really think they won't switch back to sugar if it is cheaper after the tax? Is sugar going to solve the obesity problem? Why don't we educate rather than ban things or heavily tax things. If Im a healthy person and I want to drink a mountain dew one day, or even a juice, why should I have to pay through the nose for it? because some other sap made the decision to drink a twelve pack a day?

Doesn't seem fair to the company or me who will get the cost passed down to, but hey if its "good for the whole of the country", why the heck not? Ive got a better idea, why doesn't the government make ration packs for us to eat, it would be alot cheaper than those evil corporations are making us pay, and we will save a lot of money in the process! Not to mention it would be so much healthier for us.
 
if you drink one can of soda a day, you're not 'paying through the nose' for shit - even if it is taxed at a higher rate.

If you drink 365 cans of soda a year, you as an individual buy 30.4 12-packs per year. At a price of $4.50 per 12-pack, if the tax is 18%, you're paying an extra $24.64 per year in taxes on sodas.

You'd be paying out $2.05 more in taxes per month.

"through the nose." lol.
 
bread's done
Back
Top