The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[Galteeth]

I wanted to address this very specifically. I fully support the right of any private business owner to turn away any customer's money for any reason. It's true that our country needed some legislative help to get over the whole desegregation thing, but that time has passed.

Think rationally about what happens to a store owner if he (for example) turns away all white customers. Firstly, he loses customers which is a loss of income. Secondly, he loses popularity among all but a fringe group which causes a second loss of income. Finally, his business fails. Not because of ideological reasons, but because of economical ones.

We live in a free marketplace of ideas and a free marketplace of marketplaces (or we used to). You are free to express any stupid idea you like and we are free to ridicule you.

When you legislate a freedom away you create a dangerous precedent. Rand Paul is absolutely, 100% correct in every way. He is advocating for the freedom of an individual to allow his business to fail however he likes. Would you shop at a store that excluded... um... tall people?! It's absurd. But if you force a store owner to allow tall people in the store, then he'll go to his grave saying: "If it weren't for those damn tall people, I would've been able to succeed."

The utter hypocrisy is that some business are legally obligated to segregate based on age.

 

[Galteeth]

My problem with Rand Paul is more so that he doesn't seem to be a straight shooter like his father. Listening to him during the presidential campaign, would have thought he's an anarchist. Now he's practically Sarah Palin.

 

[FlexGunship]

My problem with Rand Paul is more so that he doesn't seem to be a straight shooter like his father. Listening to him during the presidential campaign, would have thought he's an anarchist. Now he's practically Sarah Palin.

Agree. Sad.

 

[mheslep]

Rand Paul is absolutely, 100% correct in every way.

In his principles on this particular subject I agree with you. I like Rand and respect him. However, with respect to political strategy, or in terms of leadership effectiveness, this demonstrated poor judgement IMO. He was coming off a primary win and decided to go on MSNBC and spend time explaining himself on this non-issue when the country has so many other immediate problems over which he could actually have influence given he wins office.

 

[FlexGunship]

In his principles on this particular subject I agree with you. I like Rand and respect him. However, with respect to political strategy, or in terms of leadership effectiveness, this demonstrated poor judgement IMO. He was coming off a primary win and decided to go on MSNBC and spend time explaining himself on this non-issue when the country has so many other immediate problems over which he could actually have influence given he wins office.

Yeah. I can see it's a bad move politically. But too many American have gotten cozy with the idea that you need laws to control people's behaviors. I'm glad he took time to at least bring the idea out in the open. It's unfortunate that "black" was the race used.

If he had been asked: "Do you support store owners that want to prohibit white people from entering the store?" Paul would've answered "Yes." But what do you think the fallout would've been? I bet it would've been different.

 

[mheslep]

Yeah. I can see it's a bad move politically. [...] the idea that you need laws to control people's behaviors.

Yes, see that last is a better response, one I think he should have used, when asked about the ~50 year old Civil Rights Act - go with general principles which are applicable to pending legislation. If he wants to spend the limited amount of media time a political candidate is granted on on subject then he should be writing a book or applying for a think tank job and not running for the Senate.

 

[mugaliens]

Perhaps I misunderstood your post, I thought you were referring to the fact that political parties are adversarial since they represent different people with different beliefs. The phrase "It's long past time to throw off our differences..." must have led me astray. That and the fact that different people have very different opinions on how to "fix the problems". Would you support my agenda for fixing the problems? Would I support yours?

I dunno!

Mine is to drastically reduce government power over the economy and stop trying to control it. Let's get to it! Fix the problem now!

Then I support your agenda!

When you legislate a freedom away you create a dangerous precedent. Rand Paul is absolutely, 100% correct in every way. He is advocating for the freedom of an individual to allow his business to fail however he likes. Would you shop at a store that excluded... um... tall people?! It's absurd. But if you force a store owner to allow tall people in the store, then he'll go to his grave saying: "If it weren't for those damn tall people, I would've been able to succeed."

I agree. For example, I no longer frequent the mall, as they're one of the very few places here in town which prohibit, by means of signs at every entrance, one of our ten rights as listed in our Bill of Rights.

The utter hypocrisy is that some business are legally obligated to segregate based on age.

How - by offering senior citizen discounts? Healthcare plan issues at hospitals? By preventing frail old ladies in their 70s from riding the Death Spiral roller coaster?

Regardless, I don't see that as hypocrisy in the least, as it involves two different entities make the moves, not one person who says or purports one thing then does another.

 

[Char. Limit]

I agree. For example, I no longer frequent the mall, as they're one of the very few places here in town which prohibit, by means of signs at every entrance, one of our ten rights as listed in our Bill of Rights.

I assume you're talking about the 2nd Amendment... but I want to be sure. Is that the amendment you're referencing.

hypocracy

Now normally, I'd treat this like any other misspelled word and ignore it, but...

hypo- = below
-cracy = rule

Rule by those who are below!

 

[mugaliens]

I assume you're talking about the 2nd Amendment... but I want to be sure. Is that the amendment you're referencing.

Actually, I left it out as I'm partial to several of them which have had a direct impact on my life over the years, including the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 10th. For example, these days I'm using my 1st to help bring awareness to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" , which limits the powers of the federal government to only those specifically granted by the constitution.

Now normally, I'd treat this like any other misspelled word and ignore it, but...

hypo- = below
-cracy = rule

Rule by those who are below!

Lol - Good one! Sorry for the misspelling. Yes, it's "hypocrisy." :)

 

[FlexGunship]

How - by offering senior citizen discounts? Healthcare plan issues at hospitals? By preventing frail old ladies in their 70s from riding the Death Spiral roller coaster?

Regardless, I don't see that as hypocrisy in the least, as it involves two different entities make the moves, not one person who says or purports one thing then does another.

I'm sure if we all pooled our efforts we could come up with lots of businesses/industries that are forced by some federal or state mandate to operate in a manner they would otherwise choose not to based solely on age.

 

[FlexGunship]

Here is another logical disconnect from the right: It never ceases to amaze me that so many opposed, and still oppose, the bank bailouts. The puritan says: If a company needs to fail, then it should fail. The reality is that, had we and other nations not intervened to save the banking systems, we would have seen a global economic collapse; perhaps on an unprecedented scale, and likely one that could last for a decade or more.

The logic from the extreme right is, "Damn the consequences, let it fail!" Nevermind that this would mean suffering on a grand scale, nevermind that it seems completely heartless, but the implicit argument is that we shouldn't even try to prevent failure. The ideology is more important that the suffering of the masses? If we really can't save the system, we can always let it fail later. What's the rush?

What is your ideology protecting? Why should we let the system fail; to build a better world? Why not try to save the one we have? Why destroy it all? Who benefits? Are ideologies really more important than people?

Do tea partiers really believe they would be better off today, if we had allowed the system to collapse, in 2008/2009? How so? How would your life be better with 25%, or 30% unemployment? How would your life be better if the stock market had collapsed?

Is it better that we rewarded banks for behaving inappropriately? The grand economic lesson is: "take your risks, ignore danger, behaving insanely with people's private investments because you have nothing to fear... the taxpayers will save you if you lose money."

Free-market capitalism is a closed-loop negative-feedback system. "Capitalism" is constantly trying all kinds of things, it's like evolution. Crazy new business models. Insane investment schemes. People that get insanely rich. Other that lose everything. As each idea is tested out, the market needs to decide if they are viable or if they are not.

Here, we have short-circuited the system. We have shown that insane investment schemes with get-rich-quick goals are a great way to get taxpayer money. That's the cause-effect connection here.

Think about overly-greedy businesses or super-rich CEOs. If people really hated Wal-Mart, they wouldn't shop there and the company would fail for it's business model. Is there a company you hate? Judging by your attitude, I'm going to guess you hate Exxon (just use it as a place holder name if you actually like them).

Let's say the entire world decided they agree with you Ivan, and stopped buying Exxon products, and stopped buying products that are made with Exxon products. Exxon is about to fail, and then Bush/Obama grab some of your cash, Ivan (your's personally that you work for) and gives it to Exxon. Thus circumventing the entire system. How could you not be infuriated?

 

[mugaliens]

Is it better that we rewarded banks for behaving inappropriately

No.

The grand economic lesson is: "take your risks, ignore danger, behaving insanely with people's private investments because you have nothing to fear... the taxpayers will save you if you lose money."

Bollocks.

Free-market capitalism is a closed-loop negative-feedback system. "Capitalism" is constantly trying all kinds of things, it's like evolution. Crazy new business models. Insane investment schemes. People that get insanely rich. Other that lose everything. As each idea is tested out, the market needs to decide if they are viable or if they are not.

Here, we have short-circuited the system. We have shown that insane investment schemes with get-rich-quick goals are a great way to get taxpayer money. That's the cause-effect connection here.

Think about overly-greedy businesses or super-rich CEOs. If people really hated Wal-Mart, they wouldn't shop there and the company would fail for it's business model. Is there a company you hate? Judging by your attitude, I'm going to guess you hate Exxon (just use it as a place holder name if you actually like them).

Let's say the entire world decided they agree with you Ivan, and stopped buying Exxon products, and stopped buying products that are made with Exxon products. Exxon is about to fail, and then Bush/Obama grab some of your cash, Ivan (your's personally that you work for) and gives it to Exxon. Thus circumventing the entire system. How could you not be infuriated?

Oh, for goodness sakes! Let's all go back to sitting around the fire and see who gets the girl and the largest share of the evening's meal.

Pardon me while I go hunt elk. This year I've decided to try and take one bear-handed (rolls eyes). Don't laugh, though - I encountered a cougar two weeks ago near the local river basin, and I'm still standing. So's the cougar. It wasn't a conflict. Just a random meeting. I understood. I think it did too. Haven't seen it since then.

Getting back to banks and the tea party... ? I actually agree with you in that we taxpayers have bailed out billions of dollars foolishness, though I strongly suspect much of that "foolishness" exists in the form of water in many a $150k+ backyard pool.

At our expense.

So they're capitalistic crooks.

Ok... Next step is...?

 

[FlexGunship]

Oh, for goodness sakes! Let's all go back to sitting around the fire and see who gets the girl and the largest share of the evening's meal.

Any particular reason for disagreeing? Or just feeling disagreeable?

I would argue that communal socialist societies have been the only societies shown conclusively not to work. Even China only grows stronger and more economically viable as they allow rudimentary free markets to flourish.

I think my argument (and description) of free market capitalism does it a good deal of justice while avoiding being too overly romantic. It also shows the weaknesses inherent in bypassing it.

Can't we all agree that there must be a bottom rung to society? The goal lies in lifting the quality of life up for everyone. Wal*Mart is a text-book case of why capitalism is great. It increases the standard of living for the poorest in society by making food and clothes available at lower prices. Wal*Mart is a business acting in its own self interest, but it does good in the process. You'll notice that the only people in the entire world complaining about Wal*Mart are middle-class know-it-alls. You'll never hear the single-mother-of-two that works two jobs complain about Wal*Mart.

Can you imagine what would happen if you suddenly forced Wal*Mart to be artificially un-competitive? If some government stooge forced them to pay higher wages? Or if a union got in?

Those are the things that the Tea Party stands against. Pro-capitalism agendas have been shown to help everyone with a skill or the will to work hard.

EDIT: for clarity. I'm not saying that capitalism doesn't have failings. I'm just saying that allowing it to work is the best way of rooting out poor economic behavior. In which case we would've lost a lot of other banks (rightfully so).

 

[FlexGunship]

Getting back to banks and the tea party... ? I actually agree with you in that we taxpayers have bailed out billions of dollars foolishness, though I strongly suspect much of that "foolishness" exists in the form of water in many a $150k+ backyard pool.

At our expense.

Don't buy services or products from companies you disagree with. I don't buy anything with the word "organic" on it. Ever.

EDIT: sorry, I misunderstood your post. Yes, I agree that homeowners often borrow more money than they can afford to pay back. As such they should've been held responsible. I think most mortgage holders will quickly learn that foreclosure is NOT the most viable method of getting their money. However, we didn't really let capitalism take its course there either.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Oopsie... It seems that O'Donnell has hit yet another bump in the road [did we talk about her private use of campaign funds, as alleged by her former campaign manager?]. This is going to go over like a lead brick with the Christian community. She canceled her scheduled appearances this weekend on Face the Nation, and some Fox show.

“I dabbled into witchcraft - I never joined a coven. But I did, I did. ... I dabbled into witchcraft,” O’Donnell said during a 1999 appearance on the show, which ran from 1994-2002 on ABC. “I hung around people who were doing these things. I'm not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do.”

She then described one of her first dates – with a witch “on a satanic altar.”

“I didn't know it,” she said. “I mean, there's little blood there and stuff like that. We went to a movie and then had a midnight picnic on a satanic altar.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-1999-i-dabbled-in-witchcraft/?iref=allsearch

A midnight picnic... riiiiiiiight. You had sex on Satan's alter! :rofl:

 

[Char. Limit]

Oopsie... It seems that O'Donnell has hit yet another bump in the road [did we talk about her private use of campaign funds, as alleged by her former campaign manager?]. This is going to go over like a lead brick with the Christian community. She canceled her scheduled appearances this weekend on Face the Nation, and some Fox show.


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-1999-i-dabbled-in-witchcraft/?iref=allsearch

A midnight picnic... riiiiiiiight. You had sex on Satan's alter! :rofl:

Well, there goes her candidacy. Right down the drain.

Exactly what question was she asked that made her say that? Or was she stupid enough to admit it on her own? Either way, bad politics. Bad politics indeed.

 

[WhoWee]

Well, there goes her candidacy. Right down the drain.

Exactly what question was she asked that made her say that? Or was she stupid enough to admit it on her own? Either way, bad politics. Bad politics indeed.

Are you kidding? She just picked up 15% on the Left.:rofl:

btw - Didn't someone who said they "dabbled in drugs" get a pass?

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you kidding? She just picked up 15% on the Left.:rofl:

Actually, I think there's potential to pick up 15% from the Right. Nothing speaks out to them more than "born again"! She just needs to work that into her narrative now.

PS: Here's the clip:

btw - Didn't someone who said they "dabbled in drugs" get a pass?

Who are you talking about?

GWB, who dabbled in drugs and got a pass from the Right, who believe that all drug users go straight to Hell?

Or Obama, who dabbled in drugs and got a pass from the Left, who believe that it's all cool, dude? :tongue2:

 

[WhoWee]

...and to think Clinton took heat for "didn't inhale" from both sides.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, I think there's potential to pick up 15% from the Right. Nothing speaks out to them more than "born again"! She just needs to work that into her narrative now.

I don't see any gains coming from this, but she might get past this with the born again business. What is the religious demographic in Delaware? Biden is Catholic, and Catholics don't appeal to born-agains.

For true religious conservatives, this is a death sentence. As for the "we'll elect anyone from the tea party" crowd, hard to say. No doubt many will vote for anyone the leader of the Republican Party - Sarah Palin - endorses.

ps. wrt the my first post: That was "altar", not "alter".

 

[mheslep]

For true religious conservatives, this is a death sentence. [...]

That's what Edwards undoubtedly thought when the villain brought up Cheney's gay daughter in the televised '04 VP debate, ala: 'only bigots and rednecks could be supporting Cheney, and a gay daughter will therefore be a death sentence for Cheney'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's what Edwards undoubtedly thought when the villain brought up Cheney's gay daughter in the televised '04 VP debate, ala: 'only bigots and rednecks could be supporting Cheney, and a gay daughter will therefore be a death sentence for Cheney'

Cheney's daughter wasn't running for office. Had Cheney been gay, it would have been another matter.

 

[Galteeth]

As far as the age thing, I was mainly referring to my own business, which is an all ages rock club, and is always under a lot of pressure from "do-gooders" and other types to put in age restrictions.

I don't have a problem with things like senior citizens discounts, I don't think those are enforced by law though? As far as rollercoasters, um, well, if if i was a 70 year old who had worked hard to stay in excellent shape such a law would surely bother me.Moving on to O'Donnell, I find it really funny that she dated a "witch." It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Whenever people get the notion the sexuality is evil (as she seems/seemed to think) you wind up with some pretty weird attractions. As someone here who has defended the tea party somewhat, I find her candidacy horrifying, for a number of reasons.

Wal Mart is a complex issue. Personally I will never shop at walmart again after my first visit left me with a cd so censored (by walmart) that it was useless. I don't have a problem with competitive pricing per ce, but i do think a company like walmart should make sure the sources for their cheap products are ethical.
I think predatory pricing is scummy (lowering prices to kill your competitors then raising them) but don't think it should be illegal and i don't know if Walmart has actually directly done this. A lot of libertarians defend walmart, but i just think that exploiting differences in countries' standard of living laws doesn't seem right (or really in the spirit of "free market" as I think of it.)

 

[WhoWee]

Moving on to O'Donnell, I find it really funny that she dated a "witch." It makes a lot of sense when you think about it. Whenever people get the notion the sexuality is evil (as she seems/seemed to think) you wind up with some pretty weird attractions. As someone here who has defended the tea party somewhat, I find her candidacy horrifying, for a number of reasons.

I think this whole "Witch" thing is over blown. She was in high school when she made the comments. It was 1999 and "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" was a top ranked show, as were "Charmed" and "Buffy". If in doubt, read YOUR child's/friends facebook posts now and consider what effect these posts could have on them in the future.

I also think the Left is on very thin ice (with the Left) if they push this too far.

 

[skeptic2]

Free-market capitalism is a closed-loop negative-feedback system. "Capitalism" is constantly trying all kinds of things, it's like evolution. Crazy new business models. Insane investment schemes. People that get insanely rich. Other that lose everything. As each idea is tested out, the market needs to decide if they are viable or if they are not.

This is not completely correct and was already discussed in the thread titled "Free market question".

Though a free market incorporates both positive and negative feedback mechanisms, the positive feedback ones seem to dominate. In other words more successful companies tend to become more powerful, and without government intervention, eventually dominate the market and become monopolies.

This is more visible in the so called “banana republics” in which a few powerful companies have grown so powerful they control the government instead of the government controlling them. Powerful companies are able to maintain subsistence level wages which severely limit the options of the workers. Without government regulation companies are free to discriminate as they please and maintain the workplace as they want without regard to the safety of the workers. A worker who is fired often gets blacklisted and is unable to get another decent job. Older workers are let go and find it difficult or impossible to work. Without social security or welfare, these workers are found on the sidewalks begging for enough to eat.

 

[brainstorm]

This is more visible in the so called “banana republics” in which a few powerful companies have grown so powerful they control the government instead of the government controlling them. Powerful companies are able to maintain subsistence level wages which severely limit the options of the workers. Without government regulation companies are free to discriminate as they please and maintain the workplace as they want without regard to the safety of the workers. A worker who is fired often gets blacklisted and is unable to get another decent job. Older workers are let go and find it difficult or impossible to work. Without social security or welfare, these workers are found on the sidewalks begging for enough to eat.

This should also raise the issue of the relationship between individual self-governance and corporatism. Clearly what you're saying about "entire governments" being controlled by companies instead of the reverse (which you seem to find a natural idea). But what about when the purpose of government is to recognize and promote individual freedom and self-governance? Does the role of corporatism in usurping (self)governance at the individual merit any critical attention?

 

[mheslep]

... Whenever people get the notion the sexuality is evil (as she seems/seemed to think) you wind up with some pretty weird attractions. [...]

That's fairly outlandish claim (O'donnell thinks "sexuality is evil"). On what are you basing that statement?

 

[Gokul43201]

I think this whole "Witch" thing is over blown. She was in high school when she made the comments. It was 1999 and "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" was a top ranked show, as were "Charmed" and "Buffy". If in doubt, read YOUR child's/friends facebook posts now and consider what effect these posts could have on them in the future.

O'Donnell certainly wasn't in high school in 1999. Maybe you meant to say she was in high school when she dabbled in witchcraft, but that was in the 80s, long before Sabrina, Charmed or Buffy were on TV.

And ... no surprise ... I wasn't too far off when I suggested the "born again" angle. Apparently, she is a Born Again Evangelical!

O'Donnell, who is of Irish-Italian descent, grew up in Moorestown, New Jersey[8][9] as the second youngest of six children.[10] She was raised as a Catholic.[10] After graduating in 1987 from Moorestown High School, O'Donnell attended Fairleigh Dickinson University where she initially aspired to a career in the theater[10] and did course work toward a B.A..[11][12] She came to a turning point during college when she found herself drinking excessively and having sexual relationships with men with whom she lacked a strong emotional connection.[10] She would later say of this period, "I know what it's like to live a life without principle."[13] She became increasingly interested in both politics and religion.[9] She became an evangelical Christian, began preaching sexual abstinence and joined the College Republicans.[10]

She attended her university's commencement ceremony in 1993 but did not receive a degree. O'Donnell later said the degree was withheld due to unpaid tuition.[12] In 1994, Fairleigh Dickinson University sued her for $4,823, winning a judgment for the entire amount according to court documents. The debt was paid in 2003.[3][11][12] After O'Donnell completed a required course in the summer of 2010,[11] Fairleigh Dickinson awarded her a bachelor's degree in English literature,[10][11][12] with a concentration in communication.[10]

I also think the Left is on very thin ice (with the Left) if they push this too far.

I think it's a non-issue. She's been born again. End of story. I think you can only start examining what she's done after the rebirth, like trying to bilk her college out of its tuition money, maybe.

 

[skeptic2]

This should also raise the issue of the relationship between individual self-governance and corporatism. Clearly what you're saying about "entire governments" being controlled by companies instead of the reverse (which you seem to find a natural idea). But what about when the purpose of government is to recognize and promote individual freedom and self-governance? Does the role of corporatism in usurping (self)governance at the individual merit any critical attention?

Mentors: I would like to continue this discussion but feel this is probably the wrong thread to do it in. Would you like to create a new thread with these posts in it where we can continue this discussion?

 

[skeptic2]

O'Donnell certainly wasn't in high school in 1999. Maybe you meant to say she was in high school when she dabbled in witchcraft, but that was in the 80s, long before Sabrina, Charmed or Buffy were on TV.

And ... no surprise ... I wasn't too far off when I suggested the "born again" angle. Apparently, she is a Born Again Evangelical!

I think it's a non-issue. She's been born again. End of story. I think you can only start examining what she's done after the rebirth, like trying to bilk her college out of its tuition money, maybe.

That's an easy out isn't it?

 

[Gokul43201]

That's fairly outlandish claim. On what are you basing that statement?

The Catholic Church? Just guessing.

 

[mheslep]

The Catholic Church? Just guessing.

Then that would sex outside of marriage, and not sexuality in general.

 

[mheslep]

I think this whole "Witch" thing is over blown. She was in high school when she made the comments. [...]

O'Donnell certainly wasn't in high school in 1999. Maybe you meant to say she was in high school when she dabbled in witchcraft, but that was in the 80s, long before Sabrina, Charmed or Buffy were on TV.[...]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/19/campaign-magical-explanation-odonnells-witchcraft-dalliance/"

"I was in high school, how many of you didn't hang out with questionable folks in high school? But no, there's been no witchcraft since," she said, shrugging off her dalliances with the dark arts.

 

[nismaratwork]

Can't we just enjoy the gift of humor that is O'Donnell and not think about the details? It doesn't seem that she's bothering to do much thinking... or talking... she's now hired a lawyer to speak to the more substantive issue in regards to her candidacy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/20/embezzlement-accusation-frivolous-odonnell-says/

 

[Gokul43201]

Then that would sex outside of marriage, and not sexuality in general.

Well, outside of marriage, and outside of priesthood are the obvious ones. There was a piece on Radio Boston a couple weeks ago that talked about how the Church treats sexuality in general (in addition to the above issues), and the impression I got was there was an overall reluctance to talk about sexuality in general (as opposed to talking about 'sex' itself).