News The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[mheslep]

No, you didn't ask me about my opinion on "birthers". I wasn't talking about "birthers" specifically, I was talking in general about paranoid, crazy people that fear Obama. You apparently selected one item out of my entire post, but you didn't even state that until now.

Arg. Ok, on the general subject of "paranoid, crazy people that fear Obama", then what is the particular concern about this group that is leads you fear for the country given the history of irrational beliefs in the public?

 

[turbo]

Arg. Ok, on the general subject of "paranoid, crazy people that fear Obama", then what is the particular concern about this group that is leads you fear for the country given the history of irrational beliefs in the public?

Do you think this post deserves a reply? Do you deny that there is a well-funded right-wing mouthpiece (Murdoch, Armey, Kochs, for example) trying to demonize Obama? It's pretty obvious to anybody that is not living along that river called "de-Nile". When right-wing sources bash Soros, the neo-cons gleefully pile on. When some well-established media expose the machinations of the Koch brothers, you dismiss it out of hand. I think Edward put it well when he asked if some media sources would publish stories that were false or libelous against billionaires that could squash them like a bug. At some point, reality should intervene.

 

[edward]

Oh, crazy people like this for starters.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-august-17-2010-dick-armey

Also, if you can listen to someone like Beck and not be horrified, I seriously doubt that there is anything anyone could say to make you see what is so scary to those of us that are.

I do not think these people are rational, and I don't think they could make rational decisions for the good of the people. I think they would make decisions based on their misguided beliefs regardless of the detriment to the general population. This is purely my opinion.

This was all I needed to hear from Beck the man of god to tell me he is dangerous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzNNOeO3is&feature=related

It really makes one think about the mindset of his followers. To think that there are a significant number of people who hate Obama enough to blind their reasoning is truly disturbing.

 

[Evo]

Arg. Ok, on the general subject of "paranoid, crazy people that fear Obama", then what is the particular concern about this group that is leads you fear for the country given the history of irrational beliefs in the public?

It depends on the belief. Some irrational beliefs are very dangerous. When fear and/or hatred of others forms a basis for your beliefs and motivates your actions, it is very dangerous, IMO. When you decide that you have the right to dictate to others what they should believe and how they can live their personal lives when it does not affect the well being of others, it is very dangerous.

 

[Galteeth]

The divide I am seeing in this nation is frightening. There was a political commercial on tv tonight calling for the end of Obamacare and to elect the person that will oppose Obama's reforms.

You see the comments by people that for reasons unknown manage to access the internet and post their comments to yahoo articles blaming Obama for everything. These are the people that believe he's not American, and say he's Muslim and has ties to terrorism.

I understand that racism is still big in America. When you combine the white supremicst movement with the Evangelical movement, you've got quite a mix.

But this divide does not seem to be totally rational, and the hyper polarization of view points (which frankly many on this thread are guilty of) is increasing this divide. In your post for example, you point out a commercial opposing Obama's healthcare reforms, and then go on to talk about some crazy internet commenters (which I agree there are a very large number of.)

Reading your post, one might get the impression that you think that opposition to Obama's healthcare plan is on the same level of rationality as those who think that he is a secret muslim.

This conflation of a political viewpoint you might oppose with a clearly irrational viewpoint helps this political polarization.

 

[Evo]

Reading your post, one might get the impression that you think that opposition to Obama's healthcare plan is on the same level of rationality as those who think that he is a secret muslim.

There was no justification for opposing the healthcare plan other than it was tied to Obama. The commercial called it "Obamacare". That was not my term.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Evo, I don't suppose you can find a link to the commercial online?

 

[Evo]

Evo, I don't suppose you can find a link to the commercial online?

No, but if it's on again, I'll see who paid for it.

It's for the next state over Missouri. Here's a google search that wil give you some idea. http://www.google.com/search?q=miss...US339&ei=VXiATM2VLYjmsQPZjfHVBA&start=10&sa=N

 

[Al68]

The divide I am seeing in this nation is frightening. There was a political commercial on tv tonight calling for the end of Obamacare and to elect the person that will oppose Obama's reforms.

A "divide" is an inevitable consequence of using government force to control people. Who's to blame, those who want to control others, or those who want to "live and let live"?

I understand that racism is still big in America. When you combine the white supremicst movement with the Evangelical movement, you've got quite a mix.

Huh? This statement isn't logically connected to the rest of your post. What do Evangelical white supremist racists have to do with opposition to Obama's health care plan? Are those the only people who logically could oppose it?

There was no justification for opposing the healthcare plan other than it was tied to Obama.

Huh? Do you mean just that the justification wasn't stated in the commercial? Why state the obvious?

 

[Al68]

Completely expected given the circumstances. The Republicans did far more damage to the economy than was hoped; and the republican and independent voters cannot yet accept that fact. With the failure of free-market capitalism, supply-side economics, and the devestating consequences of maximized deregulation in the financial markets - to root causes of our problems - the Republicans literally have no credible platform left. But they are good at smoke and mirror shows, which is how they are getting by for now - a gullible public

LOL. Gullible is what you call someone who would believe any of that delusional nonsense. Or Democratic Party constituency.

 

[Galteeth]

No, but if it's on again, I'll see who paid for it.

It's for the next state over Missouri. Here's a google search that wil give you some idea. http://www.google.com/search?q=miss...US339&ei=VXiATM2VLYjmsQPZjfHVBA&start=10&sa=N

Was it this one?

 

[Evo]

Was it this one?

Could be, or similar.

 

[Evo]

What do Evangelical white supremist racists have to do with opposition to Obama's health care plan? Are those the only people who logically could oppose it?

Just a few thoughts. It should have read more like this

The divide I am seeing in this nation is frightening. I understand that racism is still big in America. When you combine the white supremicst movement with the Evangelical movement, you've got quite a mix.

What is "stating the Obvious" for opposing the new Health care bill?

 

[Galteeth]

Could be, or similar.

In the case of that specific ad, I would say the between the lines reason for opposing it had to do with the idea that it wasn't the Federal government's role to create a national health insurance policy. Thus the Dichotomy between "the choices of Missourians" and "Obamacare" (the choice of the president). The idea of local, (or individual) versus federal control has long been one of the political tensions in the history of the country.

The "tea party" specifically is opposed to what they perceive as an out of control federal government.
it is important to understand that this concern is not rendered irrelevant by less thoughtful or sane people who oppose the person of obama for non-sensical or reactionary racist reasons.

My general point is, that I think the political dialogue has gotten so toxic because both sides lump the most extreme viewpoints with the more moderate ones, or see the surface message as "code" for the most unsavory viewpoints.

 

[Al68]

What is "stating the Obvious" for opposing the new Health care bill?

Well, reasons for opposition are obvious to a libertarian. And I assume the intended audience of the commercial, although I haven't seen a commercial similar to the one you describe.

And for that matter, many reasons are obvious to everyone familiar with the issue, whether they acknowledge it or not.

 

[Gokul43201]

A "divide" is an inevitable consequence of using government force to control people.

I'd like to see the proof of that conjecture.

Also, is Govt force the only significant force today capable of creating such a divide?

 

[Gokul43201]

In the case of that specific ad, I would say the between the lines reason for opposing it had to do with the idea that it wasn't the Federal government's role to create a national health insurance policy.

I disagree. Medicare is also basically a national health insurance policy, created and administered by the Fed Govt. But the ad very clearly supports protecting medicare.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

LOL. Gullible is what you call someone who would believe any of that delusional nonsense. Or Democratic Party constituency.

Most of the so called revolt from the right, is based on lies.

Consider that ridiculous commercial linked earlier. Health care was already in a state of crisis. Obama has taken the first definitive steps to provide a practical solution.

You can wish for pure libertarianism all that you want, but when people are suffering, when the system doesn't work, ideologies go out the window. You have to be realistic. You can't govern according to ideology, instead of reality.

I have a tea drinker in the family who calls me just to complain about Obama. As a rule, he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He watches Glenn Beck and gets all worked up over the lies and utter nonsense that Beck is dumping on a gullible audience.

 

[turbo]

I disagree. Medicare is also basically a national health insurance policy, created and administered by the Fed Govt. But the ad very clearly supports protecting medicare.

That's one of the critical-thinking disconnects of the tea party. You could see signs at rallies saying both No Socialized Medicine! and Hands Off my Medicare! The irony is unintended and is due to the ignorance of the participants.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all socialist programs meant to provide safety nets for the well-being and health of ordinary citizens. And no, "socialism" is NOT a bad word, except when nut-cases conflate it with Stalinism, etc, as they frequently did when attacking health-care-reform.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

 

[Galteeth]

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?

It gets down to short term versus long term consequences. A commonly used analogy is drug addiction. Yes, stopping a drug completely is likely to cause more significant suffering then getting another fix. But if you are doing something unsustainable, you are better off stopping sooner rather then later.

 

[turbo]

It gets down to short term versus long term consequences. A commonly used analogy is drug addiction. Yes, stopping a drug completely is likely to cause more significant suffering then getting another fix. But if you are doing something unsustainable, you are better off stopping sooner rather then later.

There is the little matter of "collateral damage" as the US military calls it. "Cold turkey" might be acceptable when individuals are involved, but when institutions are highly leveraged, wrecking them can have unintended and unforeseen consequences. I'm not a big fan of corporate socialism, but emergency intervention seemed necessary to keep our economy from tanking.

 

[Galteeth]

There is the little matter of "collateral damage" as the US military calls it. "Cold turkey" might be acceptable when individuals are involved, but when institutions are highly leveraged, wrecking them can have unintended and unforeseen consequences. I'm not a big fan of corporate socialism, but emergency intervention seemed necessary to keep our economy from tanking.

Fair enough, but hypothetically, let's say something very similar happens again in the near future (i.e, many large scale financial institutions suddenly are revealed to be insolvent, the entire system seems on the brink of collapse, the market tanks, etc,) Would you then support an even larger bailout?

 

[Al68]

You can wish for pure libertarianism all that you want, but when people are suffering, when the system doesn't work, ideologies go out the window. You have to be realistic. You can't govern according to ideology, instead of reality.

You say that as if non-libertarian positions on issues aren't based on an underlying ideology. Not recognizing one's own ideology doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It strikes me as particularly ironic when Marxist ideology is the obvious foundation of someone's positions, and they decry that those who reject such Marxist ideology are "ideologues".

 

[Al68]

That's one of the critical-thinking disconnects of the tea party. You could see signs at rallies saying both No Socialized Medicine! and Hands Off my Medicare! The irony is unintended and is due to the ignorance of the participants.

I have yet to see such signs, but they wouldn't be contradictory, anyway. Being opposed to "socialized medicine" doesn't mean one should not fully expect to receive the benefits they were forced to pay for. Should someone opposed to "Obamacare" also be opposed to receiving any benefit claims after they were forced to buy the insurance?

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are all socialist programs meant to provide safety nets for the well-being and health of ordinary citizens. And no, "socialism" is NOT a bad word, except when nut-cases conflate it with Stalinism, etc, as they frequently did when attacking health-care-reform.

You mean it's OK to use the word "socialist" instead of "economic authoritarianism" after all?

 

[SixNein]

Oh, crazy people like this for starters.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-august-17-2010-dick-armey

Also, if you can listen to someone like Beck and not be horrified, I seriously doubt that there is anything anyone could say to make you see what is so scary to those of us that are.

I do not think these people are rational, and I don't think they could make rational decisions for the good of the people. I think they would make decisions based on their misguided beliefs regardless of the detriment to the general population. This is purely my opinion.

These people are not crazy; instead, they are capitalist who have found a new niche to sell.

 

[SixNein]

The divide I am seeing in this nation is frightening.

The divide in the nation has always existed. I think the divide is just more clear today because of globalization, the economy in recent decades, social changes, scientific discoveries, religious issues, and various other issues. These issues have come together to create a storm that make the divide in the nation more visible. You have to keep in mind that this nation had a civil war in the not too distant past. Although the civil war may seem like a long time ago, it really happened just a few generations ago. I'm sure several people who post at this forum have a great-great-grandfathers who fought in the war. In fact, I have a great-great grandfather who was hung twice during the war (once by the north and once by the south). The memory of the civil war still runs in the blood of people. In other words, many ideas that started and propelled the civil war were handed down through the generations from father to son and mother to daughter and such things do not die out quickly. As far as nations go, the civil war is very recent.

There was a political commercial on tv tonight calling for the end of Obamacare and to elect the person that will oppose Obama's reforms.

Twas Mark Twain who once wrote, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.“ Attack ads work, so people who wish to gain power use them.

I understand that racism is still big in America. When you combine the white supremicst movement with the Evangelical movement, you've got quite a mix.

Racism is big everywhere, but Americans seem to talk about it the most. I sometimes wonder if the following comedian wasn't right about the rich:

On a side note, Evangelicals are not all alike, so don't make the mistake of generalization. I believe in God of the bible, but I'm not the same thing as Glen Beck.

Anyway, I think the right is driven more by money than anything else.

 

[Al68]

In fact, I have a great-great grandfather who was hung twice during the war (once by the north and once by the south).

Are you going to tell us the whole story, now that we're curious?

 

[mugaliens]

I'm not a big fan of corporate socialism, but emergency intervention seemed necessary to keep our economy from tanking.

It seemed necessary only to some. Not to others.

When fishing, one never attempts to jerk the fish to a stop. Slow and easy does it, a little bit at a time, and often less than what's needed for some "max-effort stop." It takes an experienced fisherman to know how, and how much, the fish should be played.

We are one of the largest countries on the planet - attempting to "fix" the economy by party politics, idealisms, or any similar "guesswork," including whatever brilliance one might possesses in an unrelated field, is incredibly arrogant and foolhardy. It's a great way to do more damage than good, with serious potential for very harmful effects.

There are very few folks out there who're even remotely qualified to handle the mix of economics, politics, and social psychology it takes to even get close to the mark, and while we're a big country, it's a small, fuzzy, and often elusive target, even for the best of those very few who are qualified to tackle the problem.

I think the American public is largely beginning to realize there are no "quick fixes," and that no amount of "confidence building" by our nations' leaders will replace the need for slow and steady results. I only hope they're also communicating this to their representatives. In times like these, party politics only hurts our country.

Most countries come together in times of war. I'm not sure if there's a clear enemy this time, but we're all victems of the recession. It's long past time to throw off our differences and focus on fixing the problems, beginning with this shizophrenic split in our country's psyche known as party politics.

 

[Galteeth]

I'm not sure if there's a clear enemy this time, but we're all victems of the recession. It's long past time to throw off our differences and focus on fixing the problems, beginning with this shizophrenic split in our country's psyche known as party politics.

But when the basic diagnoses of the ills are fundamentally opposite(too much versus not enough government intervention), it's difficult to unite to fix the problems.

 

[Al68]

It's long past time to throw off our differences and focus on fixing the problems, beginning with this shizophrenic split in our country's psyche known as party politics.

I think it would be much better to just recognize that our country has no single psyche, but 300 million of them. The word schizophrenic implies a single person. It's not a mental illness for different people to have different ideals, beliefs, ideologies, etc.

We would be far better off, instead of trying to "unify" society, or "fix" our differences, to embrace them, and recognize that the fact that people are different is not such a horrible thing. Our differences aren't the problem, the efforts of some to control or shape society is the problem.

 

[SixNein]

Are you going to tell us the whole story, now that we're curious?

From what I understand, he joined the north and was captured by the south. Later on, he was caught by the north for housing and feeding slaves.

 

[mugaliens]

I think it would be much better to just recognize that our country has no single psyche, but 300 million of them. The word schizophrenic implies a single person.

Not really. It's entirely appropriate to use it when discussing entities with fractured psyches. "It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia" . If this isn't an apt description of the gridlocked two-party political system in the U.S., nothing is.

It's not a mental illness for different people to have different ideals, beliefs, ideologies, etc.

It's a mental illness for one person to have a major fracture of these beliefs. For a company to experience such a high degree of bimorphism is deadly, and such a company would either hire big gun consultants to tell them where it's best to amputate, or they'd go under. The same is true of a wolf pack, or of any fighting unit in the military, and only one leader would win. The other would be ousted.

For wolf packs, groups of neighbors, companies, and countries, it's a psychosocial illness.

We would be far better off, instead of trying to "unify" society, or "fix" our differences, to embrace them, and recognize that the fact that people are different is not such a horrible thing. Our differences aren't the problem, the efforts of some to control or shape society is the problem.

I'm not out to fix our differences. Viva la difference! I'm out to heal the schizophrenic political structure of the U.S. that's costing us billions of dollars in productivity every year while making us look like a laughingstock throughout the world.

Yeah, I know - tall order, right? (shrugs). I can't do it alone. But together, it can be done.

"United we stand; divided we fall."

 

[Al68]

I'm not out to fix our differences. Viva la difference! I'm out to heal the schizophrenic political structure of the U.S. that's costing us billions of dollars in productivity every year while making us look like a laughingstock throughout the world.

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?

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!

 

[FlexGunship]

I had to laugh when I saw that, just after winning the the Republican nomination, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul, caused the Republicans to run for cover.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/politics/21paul.html?ref=politics

Please do tell us more, Mr. Paul. I am dying to hear all about it!

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."

 

[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!