The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release => Starbase Café => Topic started by: RTyp06 on May 24, 2010, 06:56:21 am



Title: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on May 24, 2010, 06:56:21 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UASS1qFAIQ8

I'm curious about people's opinion on these tea party protests here in the U.S. After watching interview after interview (and not just the liberal sources) I can't help but to feel embarassed and ashamed for how the U.S. must look to the rest of the world.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on May 24, 2010, 11:31:28 am
I don't have any strong opinions really. There are plenty of weird political groups around here as well, as far as I can tell the Tea Party is just another one. I haven't really been following them all that closely, aren't they some sort of fringe-rightists that want to abolish taxes and whatnot?


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: SuddenDeath on May 24, 2010, 01:31:14 pm
Right-wing and religious nutters are nothing unique to the US... every country has a bunch, no need to be any more embarrassed than the rest of us :)


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Death 999 on May 24, 2010, 08:34:07 pm
I didn't read the links, but to me, it's the carrying guns to rallies and making statements that are just short of legally actionable threats against the president, while claiming to be oppressed and endangered, that is kind of special.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on May 25, 2010, 02:01:01 am
I'm all for speaking truth to power and standing up for what you believe in but these guys just seem to be Obama bashing without any real underlying cause. At least when the war protesters called Bush 'Hitler' and varouis other choice names, we knew why. These people must be racist. Why else do you only see a handful of token black people? The majority are white caucasian.

They take their name from the Boston Tea party who were protesting taxtation  without representation. Obama has lowered taxes for most Americans. Most teabaggers are claiming fear of what's going to happen rather than anything that actually has. And it's all mainly due to fox news network and republican shills like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. These guys get people so paniced up that they'll believe anything they say. They're trying to keep Americans angry and scared like we were on 9-12.

The closest thing I can find toward a unifying cause would be health care which people rightly have concerns. But most of these retirees rely on medicare and the va yet are the loudest ones screaming about socialism and communism. A complete contradiction.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Resh Aleph on May 25, 2010, 02:32:46 am
Wow, these people seem to act out of utter ignorance. And I thought Israel had some dumb folks...

Their numbers are kind of alarming. What a retarded little race we are. :(

Also, I thought this thread would be about something different when I read its topic. :P


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: up turned crafish on July 06, 2010, 03:44:08 am
i have two questions

1. why are these nuts worshiping Regan and not say i don't know Lincoln ya know the guy who ended slavery.

and 2. how can a person (Scott brown) represent himself as a man of the people when haveing sevral island vacation homes.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: onpon4 on July 06, 2010, 03:08:19 pm
i have two questions

1. why are these nuts worshiping Regan and not say i don't know Lincoln ya know the guy who ended slavery.

and 2. how can a person (Scott brown) represent himself as a man of the people when haveing sevral island vacation homes.

The answer is simple for both of your questions:

They're stupid right-wing extremist nuts who watch Fox news all day. They need to get out, play some video games, and maybe try some role-playing (BDSM style! ;D)


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: up turned crafish on July 06, 2010, 04:40:33 pm
Quote
They're stupid right-wing extremist nuts who watch Fox news all day. They need to get out, play some video games, and maybe try some role-playing (BDSM style! )
Quote

wasent there a stphen king novel about bdsm? i hope that hapens to the pepole who glue hitler mustashes to obama.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on July 06, 2010, 09:40:22 pm
The answer is simple for both of your questions:

They're stupid right-wing extremist nuts who watch Fox news all day. They need to get out, play some video games, and maybe try some role-playing (BDSM style! ;D)

While I don't have much love for your parties or system, I'd advise against going for "The opposition is opposing cause it is stupid". People have different opinions and some may be misled, but that doesn't automatically make them nuts.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: onpon4 on July 07, 2010, 03:37:03 pm
While I don't have much love for your parties or system, I'd advise against going for "The opposition is opposing cause it is stupid". People have different opinions and some may be misled, but that doesn't automatically make them nuts.

Left-wing extremist nuts are also stupid. It's not about beliefs; ANY sort of super-extreme belief is dumb.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Death 999 on July 07, 2010, 03:54:40 pm
I think the Obama Hitler moustaches were bad, but that reaction is waay overdone. Cool down and think strategically.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on July 07, 2010, 04:04:52 pm
Personally, I simply see that as an invocation of Godwin's Law, which just goes to show how weak their footing is to begin with.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on July 07, 2010, 09:52:29 pm
Well one thing is for certain, our country has become very politcally divided. I had the "pleasure" of political discussion (sometimes heated) with some of my conservative family members during our vacation. We agreed to disagree on many issues and the discussions accomplished little.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: ziper1221 on July 08, 2010, 07:58:21 am
I think they are pretty funny   ;D
just like glenn beck
does anyone watch the colbert report?


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on July 08, 2010, 08:15:53 pm
I watch Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart  every day. Glenn Beck has really went off the deep end and now fancies himself as some sort of prophet.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: up turned crafish on July 08, 2010, 09:00:56 pm
I watch Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart  every day. Glenn Beck has really went off the deep end and now fancies himself as some sort of prophet.

i think he is in the Mariana Trench right about now (deepest trench in the ocean)


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on July 14, 2010, 12:45:03 am

NewsArticle
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38228744/ns/politics-decision_2010/

(http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/100713-obama-hitler-billboard-hmed-2p.grid-6x2.jpg)

It's ignorant hypocrisy like this that pisses me off. Read the billboard sign and tell me how this sign isn't attempting to do the exact thing it claims about the Obama administration. And look at the Tea Party's slogan "LIVE FREE OR DIE!".

Why do these idiots insist on being the embarassment and laughing stock of our great nation?


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: ziper1221 on July 14, 2010, 06:01:42 am
If republicans are trying to be like the founding fathers maybe they should try to do something. The United States (I almost said we) weren't freed by sitting around trying to horde money.

plus the founding fathers changed a whole lot and their not on that billboard.  :-\ :P ??? ::) :'( (about half the smilies describe that one)

The current 2-party system and electoral college aren't very good though either.

And socialism is great if someone can pull it off without a corrupt government.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: onpon4 on July 14, 2010, 02:48:46 pm
*Facepalm*

OMG, what idiots! Don't they know that there's a difference between "national socialism" and other types of socialism?!

Yeah, socialism, executed properly, is a good thing. That's why some socialism exists within the US's otherwise capitalist system.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on July 15, 2010, 05:54:03 am
Well they came to their "senses" and removed the hideous billboard. So maybe there are some braincells  within the Iowa tea party group after all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38244427/ns/politics-decision_2010/

All modern nations have a mix of "socalism" or socailist programs. Public schools and the U.S. mail come to mind. Personally I welcome a shift toward providing for U.S. Citizens rather than War and empire across the globe.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Valos Cor on July 18, 2010, 04:52:00 am
I really don't have any opinion on this since I don't keep up with such late news (hey, we don't have a TV) but the video seemed to have a lot of people holding up pointless signs like "YOU LIE!" (uh...who? About what?) and "Stop global warming, gag liberal politicians!" (contradiction?)
I agree that extreme anything isn't the way to go.  You need to find balance - though I caution too much balance. I have this notion that someone is going to (or has already tried) to find equality by having everyone be the same.  You can be equal yet completely different.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Admiral Zeratul on August 13, 2010, 06:41:55 am
Out of everyone here, it seems I must be the only conservative. Nevertheless, I applaud what the Teapartiers are doing and see no reason why it should be seen as an embarrassment. True, the protests were illogical at times, but I say it's a good thing people are speaking out about something they think is wrong. It definitely beats having censorship. Obama is clearly an incompetent president who only ever added to the deficit and blamed Bush for America's problems, anyway. He isn't a bad president because he is black; he is a bad president who just happens to be black. Most of his own party does not trust him, so why should you?
Also, socialism must die. Yes, I am serious.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on August 13, 2010, 09:25:31 am
Out of everyone here, it seems I must be the only conservative. Nevertheless, I applaud what the Teapartiers are doing and see no reason why it should be seen as an embarrassment. True, the protests were illogical at times, but I say it's a good thing people are speaking out about something they think is wrong. It definitely beats having censorship.

Is the picture posted in this thread then all right on your mind, the one equating Obama with Hitler and Stalin? As someone in Europe I can tell you that to many of us that appears to be a pure smear campaign by people who don't understand the concept of socialism and really don't know their history.

Quote
Obama is clearly an incompetent president who only ever added to the deficit and blamed Bush for America's problems, anyway. He isn't a bad president because he is black; he is a bad president who just happens to be black. Most of his own party does not trust him, so why should you?

Do yout think it's at all relevant that there was a global recession when Obama came into office? I'm curious as to how you think things should have been done instead, please elaborate.

Quote
Also, socialism must die. Yes, I am serious.

So you're pretty against every Western European country and most of the Eastern European ones as well, except for maybe Belarus? I'm not trying to be edgy here, but try as I may I can't wrap my head around that opinion. I live in what could fairly be described as a socialist democracy (I've lived in two actually, Finland and Sweden). I pay my taxes and I have all sorts of human rights, as well as affordable healthcare and fair representation through open and democratic elections. Why is that wrong?


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Admiral Zeratul on August 13, 2010, 08:47:31 pm
Is the picture posted in this thread then all right on your mind, the one equating Obama with Hitler and Stalin? As someone in Europe I can tell you that to many of us that appears to be a pure smear campaign by people who don't understand the concept of socialism and really don't know their history.
It is an interesting comparison, but I agree that it went much too far. I don't suppose these ignorant mudslinging attempts balance out with the ways the media is often trying to "protect" him? Either way, both are lies.

Do yout think it's at all relevant that there was a global recession when Obama came into office? I'm curious as to how you think things should have been done instead, please elaborate.
I do believe it must be relevant. In fact, it serves as further proof of Obama's failings. Yes, there was a global recession, and yet he started massive, so-called "stimulus" programs that accomplished very little, especially when you take into consideration how much of it was wasted. I doubt the thought ever came to his mind that the private sector is not going to prosper if it consists of lazy, government-fed people. All in all, his spending sprees have been somewhere around the equivalent of throwing money down a hole. At least that undertaking wouldn't involve a larger, more intrusive government than before. If I were to suggest how things would be done differently, I'd say to cut the nonsense, buckle down, and show some responsibility. The energy used playing mindless blame-games would be so much more well-spent on making the best of the current situation. I could not care less about who started it in the first place, as long as all possible effort is made toward improving the economy and doing what the people think is best.

So you're pretty against every Western European country and most of the Eastern European ones as well, except for maybe Belarus? I'm not trying to be edgy here, but try as I may I can't wrap my head around that opinion. I live in what could fairly be described as a socialist democracy (I've lived in two actually, Finland and Sweden). I pay my taxes and I have all sorts of human rights, as well as affordable healthcare and fair representation through open and democratic elections. Why is that wrong?

I'm the kind of person who speaks bluntly and appreciates the same from others, so don't worry about coming across as too edgy.
I do not even see the point of healthcare. Ultimately, it's just wasteful. Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from it? I utterly despise those systems that provide for people what could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work. Insurance companies only redistribute the wealth. If people worked hard enough to acquire the needed wealth for themselves, no such thing would be necessary, and the funds which would otherwise be used to pay the people working for insurance companies would be available for other things. Insurance and welfare over-complicate things.  As you can most likely tell, I am a strong believer in capitalism. I love the sheer simplicity of it and how the money you make is directly proportional to the effort you put into it.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on August 13, 2010, 09:56:18 pm
I see you dodged Lukipela's question.

Quote
I'm curious as to how you think things should have been done instead, please elaborate.

So, instead of throwing money down a hole like you are suggesting that Obama has done, what do you think should be done differenty? You do know that we got out of the great depression in part by government spending right? I'm willing to bet you have no answer for this straight forward question. It's easy to sit back a criticize and offer no solution to the problems at hand.

I think Eth hit the nail on the head when he said this on the SCDB:

Quote
So yeah, the Tea Party is almost completely incoherent, as far as their philosophy goes. They're long on enthusiasm and short on actual ideas for governing. The same could be said for the Republican Party en toto, really. Their whole philosophy seems to be "do nothing, impede action, wait until things get worse as a result, then blame Obama."


I'm also curious to your thoughts as to why there is virtually no ethnic diversity in the tea party? I'm suspicious of any group that you could throw klan robes and hoods on and it would look like somthing straight out of the 20's. Care to shed any wisdom on that?
 


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on August 13, 2010, 10:31:01 pm
I'm the kind of person who speaks bluntly and appreciates the same from others, so don't worry about coming across as too edgy.
I do not even see the point of healthcare. Ultimately, it's just wasteful. Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from it? I utterly despise those systems that provide for people what could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work. Insurance companies only redistribute the wealth. If people worked hard enough to acquire the needed wealth for themselves, no such thing would be necessary, and the funds which would otherwise be used to pay the people working for insurance companies would be available for other things. Insurance and welfare over-complicate things.  As you can most likely tell, I am a strong believer in capitalism. I love the sheer simplicity of it and how the money you make is directly proportional to the effort you put into it.

That's cute. You know, in a pure capitalist society like the one similar to the system we had in place around the industrial revolution and turn of the century (1900), there was nothing in place to protect people who didn't have as much money from being victimized by those that did, and a lot of government efforts went toward rectifying that situation. You're suggesting we do away with all of that government oversight? Read a bit of The Jungle to see why that might be a bad idea; we'd be eating people and breathing smog soup again in no time as the companies eliminate safe working environments, pollution controls, reasonable hours, minimum wages, etc. etc. etc., because all that stuff cuts into their profits. Dare to protest against unjust conditions and go on strike? Well, the Pinkertons will brutally beat you (if they don't just shoot you on sight as an example) to dissuade that sort of behavior. And since medecines and treatment is so expensive and you're abolished healthcare and insurance, good luck with your recovery. Pure capitalist societies can be mighty dangerous places to live.

So, how do we handle cases where people don't have enough money to get the medical treatment they need, or maintain prescriptions that cost several hundred dollars per bottle? The impression I get is that you're suggesting to these folks that they curl up and die, since they don't work hard enough.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Admiral Zeratul on August 13, 2010, 11:40:51 pm
That's cute. You know, in a pure capitalist society like the one similar to the system we had in place around the industrial revolution and turn of the century (1900), there was nothing in place to protect people who didn't have as much money from being victimized by those that did, and a lot of government efforts went toward rectifying that situation. You're suggesting we do away with all of that government oversight? Read a bit of The Jungle to see why that might be a bad idea; we'd be eating people and breathing smog soup again in no time as the companies eliminate safe working environments, pollution controls, reasonable hours, minimum wages, etc. etc. etc., because all that stuff cuts into their profits. Dare to protest against unjust conditions and go on strike? Well, the Pinkertons will brutally beat you (if they don't just shoot you on sight as an example) to dissuade that sort of behavior. And since medecines and treatment is so expensive and you're abolished healthcare and insurance, good luck with your recovery. Pure capitalist societies can be mighty dangerous places to live.
Well, you've effectively flattened my argument to the ground. I had never considered that. Can I have your autograph?  :P

So, how do we handle cases where people don't have enough money to get the medical treatment they need, or maintain prescriptions that cost several hundred dollars per bottle? The impression I get is that you're suggesting to these folks that they curl up and die, since they don't work hard enough.
I am assuming that, with inefficiencies like healthcare out of the way, such essential tangibles needn't be  as expensive. As for those who still cannot afford them, that is what good neighbors and friends are for.
(In a subconscious sort of way, yes)


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on August 13, 2010, 11:53:42 pm
I am assuming that, with inefficiencies like healthcare out of the way, such essential tangibles needn't be  as expensive. As for those who still cannot afford them, that is what good neighbors and friends are for.

Why wouldn't they be? Cutting prices would cut profits, and we can't have that now. Everyone needs medicine and medical care, so they'd better be willing to pony up for it.

The system you're advocating would devolve into social darwinism very quickly, and that is a BAD place to be.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on August 14, 2010, 12:50:57 am
It is an interesting comparison, but I agree that it went much too far. I don't suppose these ignorant mudslinging attempts balance out with the ways the media is often trying to "protect" him? Either way, both are lies.

Is it an interesting comparison though? I mean, as far as I know, Obama hasn't instituted death camps, done away with the democratic system or actively invaded neighbouring countries in order to expand his power base. In which way is the comparison between two major dictators with the bloods of millions of innocents on their hand with the democratically elected president of a republic? Explain this to me, because to me it makes about as much sense as comparing the English Prime Minister to Pol Pot and Mao-Ze Dung based on that they are all men.

I do believe it must be relevant. In fact, it serves as further proof of Obama's failings. Yes, there was a global recession, and yet he started massive, so-called "stimulus" programs that accomplished very little, especially when you take into consideration how much of it was wasted. I doubt the thought ever came to his mind that the private sector is not going to prosper if it consists of lazy, government-fed people. All in all, his spending sprees have been somewhere around the equivalent of throwing money down a hole. At least that undertaking wouldn't involve a larger, more intrusive government than before. If I were to suggest how things would be done differently, I'd say to cut the nonsense, buckle down, and show some responsibility. The energy used playing mindless blame-games would be so much more well-spent on making the best of the current situation. I could not care less about who started it in the first place, as long as all possible effort is made toward improving the economy and doing what the people think is best.

I'm confused again I'm afraid. You agree that it is relevant that Obama did not inherit a well functioning economy, but a tattered one coming out of a bubble that had possibly been caused by the previous administration. Or do you feel that the previous administrations economic policies had nothing to do with the crisis? Either way, even though you agree that Obama's starting point was very bad, you disagree with his solutions. That's fair enough, economic theory is no clear cut business and about as opaque as it can get. But your answer seems to be "he should have done nothing at all", unless I misunderstand. Are you arguing that if there had been no stimulus program of any sort, the economy would be in better shape now? Or should there have been some other action taken instead of the stimulus program?

I'm the kind of person who speaks bluntly and appreciates the same from others, so don't worry about coming across as too edgy.
I do not even see the point of healthcare. Ultimately, it's just wasteful. Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from it?

I was born with a congenital heart defect. Basically, my aorta valve does not close properly by itself, allowing blood to flow back into the heart and forcing the heart to work much harder than it would otherwise. Without surgery I would have been dead by age 12. I had two operations, one at 10 and one at 13 when a artificial valve was installed. My parents are teachers with 3 children and would have been completely crushed under a burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars owed for corrective surgery and expensive medicines. Instead, they are productive members of society. I've graduated Uni with a M.Sci and have been a productive part of the workforce for four years, netting the state large incomes through all sorts of taxes, most recently when I bought a car. So I'd say both my parents and I have significantly benefited from healthcare, since I'm alive and they haven't been driven into poverty but have been able to provide for all their children.

But I think ultimately your question is phrased in an strange fashion. Healthcare, or any support system isn't about someone benefiting financially. It's about making sure that random chance doesn't crush anyone Over the course of my life, I fully expect that what I have cost the state will be paid back through different taxes. Some people will pay more into the system than they ever get out. some people will break even, and some people will gain more than they pay in. In fact, the only difference I can see between this and a health insurance of the type you guys use is  that no one makes a huge profit on human suffering and no human being is put on the scrap heap because of random chance.

Quote
I utterly despise those systems that provide for people what could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work.

At 12 I'd have had trouble finding work to pay for heart surgery. Also, one of my friends dads was a doctor, but not a surgeon. Do you really think that badly of me because I was dealt a bad card when I was a child? Do you really think that I don't deserve the chance to become a productive member of society, but that I should have either waned and died at 12 or forced my parents into abject poverty with no hope of putting food for 3 children on the table? Would it please you if my brother had been given up for adoption because of something completely outside our control? Healthcare is about people.

[
Quote
Insurance companies only redistribute the wealth. If people worked hard enough to acquire the needed wealth for themselves, no such thing would be necessary, and the funds which would otherwise be used to pay the people working for insurance companies would be available for other things. Insurance and welfare over-complicate things.  As you can most likely tell, I am a strong believer in capitalism. I love the sheer simplicity of it and how the money you make is directly proportional to the effort you put into it.

But that doesn't seem right though. I can understand the principle that people need to acquire wealth for themselves, that they need to prove their worth by earning it. It's a fair principle. But I don't think you're living by it. I mean, you still benefit from loads of socialist services in your country that by rights you should provide by yourself. Why should you be entitled to a police force to protect you when working hard could easily earn you the money to hire private security? Why do you need a fire brigade when an honest days labour and some common sense would let you afford to hire someone less competent to guard your property against fire? Why should you pay for public roads when you and other person of reasonable wealth could lay those roads yourselves, and only for your use?

I think that if the principle is that every man should stand on his own, by his own worth and his own hard labour, then that principle should not be diluted. Otherwise it becomes a muddy line where you can ask questions such as "Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from a police station" or make harsh statements such as " I utterly despise those systems that provide fire protection for people that could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work."


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Admiral Zeratul on August 14, 2010, 03:05:23 am
Is it an interesting comparison though? I mean, as far as I know, Obama hasn't instituted death camps, done away with the democratic system or actively invaded neighbouring countries in order to expand his power base. In which way is the comparison between two major dictators with the bloods of millions of innocents on their hand with the democratically elected president of a republic? Explain this to me, because to me it makes about as much sense as comparing the English Prime Minister to Pol Pot and Mao-Ze Dung based on that they are all men.

By "interesting", I meant that it was slightly amusing to me. I'm not really all that serious on the topic.

I'm confused again I'm afraid. You agree that it is relevant that Obama did not inherit a well functioning economy, but a tattered one coming out of a bubble that had possibly been caused by the previous administration. Or do you feel that the previous administrations economic policies had nothing to do with the crisis?
I don't know if it's possible to verify which previous administrations contributed and how much, but there is no doubt that Obama inherited a bad economy.

Either way, even though you agree that Obama's starting point was very bad, you disagree with his solutions. That's fair enough, economic theory is no clear cut business and about as opaque as it can get. But your answer seems to be "he should have done nothing at all", unless I misunderstand. Are you arguing that if there had been no stimulus program of any sort, the economy would be in better shape now? Or should there have been some other action taken instead of the stimulus program?
I don't think a federal government-run stimulus plan like the one Obama enacted holds water. Even if it does improve things, there is bound to be much waste between the red tape and the people who need the money. It's like having an oasis in a desert. Thanks to the water and sustenance, you aren't going to die, but you're going to suffer while traveling between oases. In the mean time, all that expenditure is added to the deficit in one fell swoop. Private entities in their respective communities can be much more efficient at providing jobs and helping out in times of great need.


Quote
I'm the kind of person who speaks bluntly and appreciates the same from others, so don't worry about coming across as too edgy.
I do not even see the point of healthcare. Ultimately, it's just wasteful. Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from it?

I was born with a congenital heart defect. Basically, my aorta valve does not close properly by itself, allowing blood to flow back into the heart and forcing the heart to work much harder than it would otherwise. Without surgery I would have been dead by age 12. I had two operations, one at 10 and one at 13 when a artificial valve was installed. My parents are teachers with 3 children and would have been completely crushed under a burden of hundreds of thousands of dollars owed for corrective surgery and expensive medicines. Instead, they are productive members of society. I've graduated Uni with a M.Sci and have been a productive part of the workforce for four years, netting the state large incomes through all sorts of taxes, most recently when I bought a car. So I'd say both my parents and I have significantly benefited from healthcare, since I'm alive and they haven't been driven into poverty but have been able to provide for all their children.

But I think ultimately your question is phrased in an strange fashion. Healthcare, or any support system isn't about someone benefiting financially. It's about making sure that random chance doesn't crush anyone Over the course of my life, I fully expect that what I have cost the state will be paid back through different taxes. Some people will pay more into the system than they ever get out. some people will break even, and some people will gain more than they pay in. In fact, the only difference I can see between this and a health insurance of the type you guys use is  that no one makes a huge profit on human suffering and no human being is put on the scrap heap because of random chance.

At that point I was merely suggesting a theory and an alternate point of view to spark debate. In retrospect, I'd say I could not have planned it any better. Excellent points have been made, especially by you, and I enjoy the debate. I have to say, though, it is getting awfully chaotic.

Quote
I utterly despise those systems that provide for people what could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work.

At 12 I'd have had trouble finding work to pay for heart surgery. Also, one of my friends dads was a doctor, but not a surgeon. Do you really think that badly of me because I was dealt a bad card when I was a child? Do you really think that I don't deserve the chance to become a productive member of society, but that I should have either waned and died at 12 or forced my parents into abject poverty with no hope of putting food for 3 children on the table? Would it please you if my brother had been given up for adoption because of something completely outside our control? Healthcare is about people.
I am nothing like that! Due to horrendous choice of words and/or phrases on my part, I must have struck a sensitive cord somewhere and unleashed an avalanche of responses upon myself.


Quote
Insurance companies only redistribute the wealth. If people worked hard enough to acquire the needed wealth for themselves, no such thing would be necessary, and the funds which would otherwise be used to pay the people working for insurance companies would be available for other things. Insurance and welfare over-complicate things.  As you can most likely tell, I am a strong believer in capitalism. I love the sheer simplicity of it and how the money you make is directly proportional to the effort you put into it.

But that doesn't seem right though. I can understand the principle that people need to acquire wealth for themselves, that they need to prove their worth by earning it. It's a fair principle. But I don't think you're living by it. I mean, you still benefit from loads of socialist services in your country that by rights you should provide by yourself. Why should you be entitled to a police force to protect you when working hard could easily earn you the money to hire private security? Why do you need a fire brigade when an honest days labour and some common sense would let you afford to hire someone less competent to guard your property against fire? Why should you pay for public roads when you and other person of reasonable wealth could lay those roads yourselves, and only for your use?

I think that if the principle is that every man should stand on his own, by his own worth and his own hard labour, then that principle should not be diluted. Otherwise it becomes a muddy line where you can ask questions such as "Can you honestly tell me that anyone has ever benefited financially from a police station" or make harsh statements such as " I utterly despise those systems that provide fire protection for people that could have been gained easily from a friend or through hard work."

I think this is precisely what I was attempting to communicate but somehow failed to do, so please do not get offended.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on August 14, 2010, 08:38:29 am
By "interesting", I meant that it was slightly amusing to me. I'm not really all that serious on the topic.

Oh, okay then. It's just the way you phrased it it came across (to me at least) as "I don't fully agree with this but there is a point to it" and I was struggling to see any point at all. But if you just think the wordplay is amusing or some such then I guess there isn't much to discuss.

Quote
I don't know if it's possible to verify which previous administrations contributed and how much, but there is no doubt that Obama inherited a bad economy.

So do you feel that, for instance, McCain would have been able to better handle the economic crisis? I don't know all that much about American politics, but didn't some of the bailouts for banks and such already start during the end of the last Administration? Or do you think there should be some third party in charge?

Quote
I don't think a federal government-run stimulus plan like the one Obama enacted holds water. Even if it does improve things, there is bound to be much waste between the red tape and the people who need the money. It's like having an oasis in a desert. Thanks to the water and sustenance, you aren't going to die, but you're going to suffer while traveling between oases. In the mean time, all that expenditure is added to the deficit in one fell swoop. Private entities in their respective communities can be much more efficient at providing jobs and helping out in times of great need.

Oh I agree that thee is always waste in government programs. Though from working on the private side of things I don't think private companies are that much more effective, a lot of them waste long term resources for incredibly short termed goals. But if I understand your analogy right, you're saying that there shouldn't be an oasis. Doesn't that just mean that most travellers die from thirst instead? I mean, it sounds like you're saying that you'd prefer to let the economy tank as hard as it naturally would and see how survived rather than to waste any financial resources. If that is your position then you're entitled to it of course, but it sounds pretty harsh towards your fellow man to say "Well, there could be water but some of it would be wasted, so crawl through the desert without instead".

Quote
At that point I was merely suggesting a theory and an alternate point of view to spark debate. In retrospect, I'd say I could not have planned it any better. Excellent points have been made, especially by you, and I enjoy the debate. I have to say, though, it is getting awfully chaotic.

It's in the nature of forum debates to spread out and become a bit messy. :) But to be honest, it sounded like you were suggesting that socialized healthcare never works and never does anyone any good. I provided an anecdotal counterexample. It doesn't hold any statistical weight of course, but I don't think that was what you were asking for.

Quote
I am nothing like that! Due to horrendous choice of words and/or phrases on my part, I must have struck a sensitive cord somewhere and unleashed an avalanche of responses upon myself.

I having a bit of a hard time figuring out what you actually mean here though. So far it has certainly sounded like you were making the argument that people should only be entitled to healthcare or other such functions if they already have the means to pay for it, and that if someone can't pay for it then they are clearly not working hard enough or don't have enough friends. In addition to that, the way you've been phrasing things does make it sound like you take it as a personal emotional affront "Socialism needs to die" makes me think that you don't consider any regular European countries as "proper countries", but like some sort of backward part of the world infected with a horrible disease". "I utterly despise systems that provide for people" makes it sound like you have a vested emotional opposition to any system that helps people survive hardship that they weren't, or couldn't have been, prepared for. I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, but perhaps you could explain where I've gone wrong?

Quote
I think this is precisely what I was attempting to communicate but somehow failed to do, so please do not get offended.

Again, I apologize if I've misunderstood you. But reading through your posts, I tend to get the opposite of what you're saying now. All the way through, I think you've made the argument that socialized institutions such as universal healthcare, public schools or police officers are bad because these are things that you should provide for yourself through hard work and a social network. But now it sounds as if you are actually agreeing with me and saying that socialized institutions such as these perform a vital function in a country. Which, unless I've misunderstood, would actually make you pro-socialism with just a dash of capitalism on the side for things that aren't integral to a functioning society. So are you against socialism or for it?


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: onpon4 on August 15, 2010, 03:49:19 am
I actually recently briefly discussed with a conservative friend on Facebook about free market capitalism vs. regulation. In it I mentioned how insignificant the national dept really is. Here is the conversation (the friend is referred to as "Bob"):

It was all in response to me favoriting this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-z874-gKFA).

Quote from: Bob
historically speaking it has and always will
Quote from: Me
Historically speaking it has caused the Great Depression.
Quote from: Bob
FDR didnt help anything
Quote from: Me
Well, I can't argue with that, because I don't know much about him, but that doesn't make de-regulation any better of an alternative. If FDR didn't do well, George W. Bush did terribly.
Quote from: Bob
and obama is doing good? only if you're karl marx he is
Quote from: Me
No, he isn't... I never said he was. Obama has been kissing the Republican Party's ass too much. For example, off-shore drilling (which led to the recent oil spill).
Quote from: Bob
It didn't help that the administration gave that specific drill a safety award just last year with out even fully analyzing it, why? How bout the millions of dollars BHO got from bp in 08
Quote from: Me
Exactly. Lack of good regulation more often than not results in big messes to clean up.
Quote from: Bob
no necessarily, the 19 trillion dollar debt by 2020, due to barack that we're going to have to clean up is due to regulation
Quote from: Me
The national dept is not that big of a problem. It doesn't need to be "cleaned up". The whole point of borrowing money is so that government spending doesn't put too much of a burden on the American citizens. Here are some articles:

http://tinyurl.com/2356rr4 (http://tinyurl.com/2356rr4)
http://tinyurl.com/2btqao4 (http://tinyurl.com/2btqao4)
http://tinyurl.com/24yub4 (http://tinyurl.com/24yub4)
Quote from: Bob
Regardless, Obama continuously goes around blaming bush for setting him up with all the debt yet he has spent more in 18 months than the bush administration in 8 years


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Death 999 on August 16, 2010, 05:06:29 pm
The 'spending more in 18 months' is malarkey. Where are these numbers coming from? I'd bet it includes the bank bailout, which consisted of loans, not handouts. Most of these loans have already been repaid, and most of the rest are expected to be repaid.

And... Admiral. The stimulus wasn't welfare. People aren't sitting around feasting on government cheese from it. There are people going out and building things. Some of these things, to be sure, are not so very necessary (the train station I use every day has been rebuilt. It is a significant upgrade, but it wasn't a critical need); and no doubt there is some fraud somewhere. But to say
Quote
I doubt the thought ever came to his mind that the private sector is not going to prosper if it consists of lazy, government-fed people
denotes that they aren't doing anything, which is totally false.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: ziper1221 on August 16, 2010, 05:50:25 pm
This is not correct, but just to point out saying that saying he spent more could be taken out of context: Bush could have spent no money and the economy would have suffered, and Obama had to spend more money to fix than if bush had just kept spent a little...

This is funny from the scdb: http://suppe.busn.org/post/28886166/The-Final-Option-Comic-Hitler-Obama-Universal


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on August 16, 2010, 06:20:26 pm
Note: The "too big to fail" Bank bailout was under the Bush administration. It's questionable wether this was a wise decision as this made it so that banks don't have to try to re negotiate with mortgage holders to try and recoop their losses. In other words they lose nothing by forclosing on deliquent mortgages.

The big auto company bailout was under Obama's administration. And so far it looks like it was a good decision as it saved thousands of jobs and GM in particular is turning a profit and about to start publicly trading it's stocks again.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Admiral Zeratul on August 16, 2010, 10:25:00 pm
Even so, it is not the Federal government's responsibility to do those things. It was not its responsibility when Bush was president, and it certainly isn't now. Big government has no place in a free country. I would much rather preserve my own autonomy than have an unnecessarily huge government looming over my head making sure nothing goes wrong. Government bailouts is slippery business. Sure, they helped out in the short term, but no-one has ever learned anything by getting something for nothing. What in your oh-so-infallible liberal logic gives you the impression GM won't simply go down under anyway? Even if the company now has enough money to stay afloat for a little longer, it still has to tumble sooner or later without some new ideas and much-needed innovation. Would you rather have local entities address the problem who could focus their efforts more precisely and are more familiar with how their area functions or just have the government expand to cover all those failing businesses? Should businesses even want to remain in the US if government intervention grows beyond tolerable levels? If I were the head of my very own business, I know I wouldn't. And I would not even consider starting a business here, either, because I fear what the government could very possibly become, and I resent its current so-called leader.
Obama obviously has an innate skill for giving charismatic speeches. Obama's efforts would have been better spent on delivering speeches to inspire private organisations to excel, rather than his ridiculous, filled-with-nothing rhetoric. Would he do that, though? No, because he thinks himself better than his people. Arrogance in any leader is a bad thing, you know, especially when he goes out and does unpredictable things with his power. Much like Julius Caesar and his crossing the Rubicon, the country might never truly recover from this idiotic "change" Obama keeps on preaching about. The traditional values have served humanity well for centuries, so why not rely on them instead of falling back on some wannabe prophet who, by the way, gravely overestimates his own abilities and underestimates the people who, by popular vote, elected him in the first place?
You're asking for "numbers", but where are yours?! You have just as much need to backup your arguments as any other point of view. So, if you are so confident about your position, why not share with me that secret stash of irrefutable statistics you all seem to possess and are hiding from me.
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them? Gosh, now I know how Admiral Zex of the VUX must feel... Guess I'll have to rent my own planet to rid you of my nonsense... Not that that is happening any time soon.  ;)


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on August 16, 2010, 10:41:19 pm
While I'm short on time, I'd like to note that you haven't addressed my questions, at least directly. From you're writing, it seems that you believe that everything should be privatized, down to law enforcement and firefighting. Is that a correct position?

Also, it's clear you don't like what Obama is doing. But you're not actually saying what should be done, other than "private interests should handle it". Could you be a bit more clear on that? Should government just lean back and do nothing, or is there some other way it should stimulate private industries?

Also, I guess you consider Newsweek to be "liberal" or whatever term you wish to apply, but guess whose country they think is the best in the world? Not yours (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html) :)


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on August 16, 2010, 10:52:32 pm
Even if the company now has enough money to stay afloat for a little longer, it still has to tumble sooner or later without some new ideas and much-needed innovation.

Or perhaps, it would serve the company if it could shake the deathgrip the horrendously bloated auto unions have on it. Of course, odds are that this would result in outsourcing its manufacturing overseas, and we can't be having that from one of the last of the American car makers.

Quote
The traditional values have served humanity well for centuries, so why not rely on them instead of falling back on some wannabe prophet who, by the way, gravely overestimates his own abilities and underestimates the people who, by popular vote, elected him in the first place?

Oh. You're a red state bible thumper, I get it now. All of this nonsense you're spouting is to hide your irrational fear and loathing of anyone who doesn't want to rule the country according to "good wholesome Christian values" (AKA: Democrats).

You know, those traditional values we "relied on for centuries" held back scientific progress and education for centuries, endorsed torture, forced conversion, and murder of anyone who disagreed with them, and worst of all, has been and still remains one of the most corrupt institutions on this planet. Nobody really wants an American Theocracy, if that's what you're pushing for, so it's hardly a surprise that we'd push back.

Quote
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them? Gosh, now I know how Admiral Zex of the VUX must feel... Guess I'll have to rent my own planet to rid you of my nonsense... Not that that is happening any time soon.  ;)

The Obama-Stalin-Hitler comparison didn't bother you, but now you're trying to call us out for persecuting you? I think now is when I plan to call it quits on this topic, then, because that's more hypocrisy than I can handle; you obviously have no idea what being persecuted is all about.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Admiral Zeratul on August 16, 2010, 11:34:22 pm
Quote
I think this is precisely what I was attempting to communicate but somehow failed to do, so please do not get offended.

Again, I apologize if I've misunderstood you. But reading through your posts, I tend to get the opposite of what you're saying now. All the way through, I think you've made the argument that socialized institutions such as universal healthcare, public schools or police officers are bad because these are things that you should provide for yourself through hard work and a social network. But now it sounds as if you are actually agreeing with me and saying that socialized institutions such as these perform a vital function in a country. Which, unless I've misunderstood, would actually make you pro-socialism with just a dash of capitalism on the side for things that aren't integral to a functioning society. So are you against socialism or for it?

Very rarely do I become emotionally charged. Your reaction is understandable. I make a few statements that make me sound as if I were acting on intense emotions, but I have never necessarily been easy to communicate with.
The way I have phrased my arguments seems counter-effective, so I'll try from now on to make better-organised points.
By the way, I only agreed that some socialism is not a terrible thing. I still proudly support capitalism and free-enterprise despite the bashing it has gotten.

While I'm short on time, I'd like to note that you haven't addressed my questions, at least directly. From you're writing, it seems that you believe that everything should be privatized, down to law enforcement and firefighting. Is that a correct position?
Not necessarily, but privatized law enforcement and firefighting would be great in my book, as long as there is a sufficient number of private entities for these services to be brought to everyone.

Also, it's clear you don't like what Obama is doing. But you're not actually saying what should be done, other than "private interests should handle it". Could you be a bit more clear on that? Should government just lean back and do nothing, or is there some other way it should stimulate private industries?
First of all, a precautionary background check for any and all future president candidates (and of course for all other political offices) like they have in corporations is one thing not present that, by common sense, really should be. As long as a candidate has the skill and knowhow to be a good president, congressman, or whatever, the requirement to have lived a certain number of years in America is unreasonable. The background check will root out most if not all of the troublesome types.
I think regulation from state governments could be feasible, not regulation from a singular Federal government. As it stands, state governments have little say when the Federal government comes in stomping around and hounds them with pretty much whatever absurdities they feel like. Much benefit could be had from a symbiotic relationship between the private sector and state administrations. This would let both cooperate in solving local problems and fighting for their freedom from the Federals whenever the need arises. The state governments, for example, could be given limited ability to ensure the things like law enforcement and fire departments given by private organisations that regular people need could not impose unfair tariffs or other such unfavorable tactics companies in such monopolistic (being the only fire department/police headquarter in a given district) situations would feel compelled to do. Private entities could fight crime, fight fires, and protect other citizens, while the state government could help ensure that corruption is kept in check. Of course, this would require qualified individuals and mutual trust that just does not exist as of now, but at least a system like this would not consist of a tax-happy Federal government throwing its weight around. It is clear to me that both Bush and Obama are guilty of exploiting that exact situation.
Also, I guess you consider Newsweek to be "liberal" or whatever term you wish to apply, but guess whose country they think is the best in the world? Not yours (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/15/interactive-infographic-of-the-worlds-best-countries.html) :)
The world is a fairly uncertain and ever-changing place. There is no best country in the world, in my opinion. Most of the pride and respect I have held for my country is already dead.


Oh. You're a red state bible thumper, I get it now. All of this nonsense you're spouting is to hide your irrational fear and loathing of anyone who doesn't want to rule the country according to "good wholesome Christian values"
Now you're only stereotyping me according to what you assume that Christians and people on my side of the political spectrum are like. I'll pay no further attention to your posts in this thread, in that case. I apologize for having my own beliefs and values that happen to differ from your own.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on August 17, 2010, 06:57:38 pm
Quote
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them?

I don't think that's fair to say. We are considering them. You presented your position then crack and backtrack under the slightest scrutiny. I get that the 'baggers and republicans are "Mad as hell and not going to take it" but when asked about specific plans to get our economy out of this mess they have nothing. It's easy to criticize others. The 'baggers and GOP are "experts" on what Obama and the Dems are doing wrong but when they don't offer a solution or "better way" it just makes them look like sore losers with a lot of sour grapes.

Here's a challenge for you. Next time you watch Glenn Beck, O'Riely or Limbaugh, (or FOX news in general) try counting the number of fear mongering statements from these guys. All you get is Obama's a racist, the Democrats are destroying our values etc. They use empty buzzwords like illegal immigrant, anchor baby, ground zero mosque, muslim, socialism, communisim, redistribute wealth, nanny state etc. These are scare tactics in an attempt to drum up fear and mistrust. They are trying to scare people into voting republican. I'm not saying that the Dems aren't above doing this as well but from my perspective it's not nearly as prevalent.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Dabir on August 18, 2010, 12:16:44 am
First of all, a precautionary background check for any and all future president candidates (and of course for all other political offices) like they have in corporations is one thing not present that, by common sense, really should be. As long as a candidate has the skill and knowhow to be a good president, congressman, or whatever, the requirement to have lived a certain number of years in America is unreasonable. The background check will root out most if not all of the troublesome types.
This would definitely be a step in the right direction, if it seems to be a problem. I'm not American, I have no idea exactly how many pies politicians tend to have their fingers in, but I imagine it's probably quite a few.

The living in America thing, though, is one thing that's probably not going to ever budge and for a sound reason, at least as I see it. If this law didn't exist, if instead of Obama the Democrats had fielded a man born and largely educated in, say, Iran, there would definitely be a risk of that president feeling more loyal to Iran than to the country he was supposed to be in charge of.

Of course here in the UK we have no such crazies, as Mr Nigel 'Foaming' Farage will happily tell you.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on August 18, 2010, 07:39:50 am
Even so, it is not the Federal government's responsibility to do those things. It was not its responsibility when Bush was president, and it certainly isn't now. Big government has no place in a free country.

You'll have to help me out here, keep in mind that I'm not American. Why does government organization not allow freedom. I mean, I'm pretty free and we have a government. What exactly is it that you lose?

Quote
I would much rather preserve my own autonomy than have an unnecessarily huge government looming over my head making sure nothing goes wrong.

Again, help me understand this. Are you saying you'd rather the government didn't maintain infrastructure of any kind (roads, power plants) or organizations of any kind (military, teachers etc.)? Or just that they should only maintain some of them? And if so, which ones?

Quote
Government bailouts is slippery business. Sure, they helped out in the short term, but no-one has ever learned anything by getting something for nothing. What in your oh-so-infallible liberal logic gives you the impression GM won't simply go down under anyway? Even if the company now has enough money to stay afloat for a little longer, it still has to tumble sooner or later without some new ideas and much-needed innovation.

My logic isn't actually liberal, it's right wing. There's not actually any "liberal logic" in the US, at least if you take the political spectrum in the rest of the world into account. As for GM, at least from an outsider point of view it would appear that they now have a better chance of getting new ideas and innovation than if it was bust.

Quote
Would you rather have local entities address the problem who could focus their efforts more precisely and are more familiar with how their area functions or just have the government expand to cover all those failing businesses? Should businesses even want to remain in the US if government intervention grows beyond tolerable levels? If I were the head of my very own business, I know I wouldn't. And I would not even consider starting a business here, either, because I fear what the government could very possibly become, and I resent its current so-called leader.

So what is it that these local entities would actually do? In your opinion, what would have been the right way to proceed? Local entities would have founded new car companies, local entities would have raised enough money to save the old companies, local entities would have...? I understand that you want to see things done on a local level, but I'm unclear on what you think ought to be done on that level.

Quote
Obama obviously has an innate skill for giving charismatic speeches. Obama's efforts would have been better spent on delivering speeches to inspire private organisations to excel, rather than his ridiculous, filled-with-nothing rhetoric.

Excel in doing what? What is it that he should have inspired private organisations (I assume you mean companies?) to do? When a global recession hits, should he have told the people at the local supermarkets (or whatever) "Just work harder and you'll earn your worth"?  Again I'm confused as to what a private company can actually do, other than fire people to stay profitable.

Quote
Would he do that, though? No, because he thinks himself better than his people. Arrogance in any leader is a bad thing, you know, especially when he goes out and does unpredictable things with his power. Much like Julius Caesar and his crossing the Rubicon, the country might never truly recover from this idiotic "change" Obama keeps on preaching about.

Julius Ceasar? I understand that you're speaking  in metaphors here but you'll have to help me out. As I understand it, Caesar crossed the Rubicon and overthrew the old Roman system, doing away with the way they had ben handling things before. As far as I can understand, Obamam rose to power within your normal system, not by overthrowing it. Since then, he also hasn't done away with the senate or any other part of what is normally considered your political system. So you're going to have to explain a bit more in detail why these two are alike. Because to be honest, it sounds a lot more like Obama = Stalin = Caesar and so forth.

Quote
The traditional values have served humanity well for centuries, so why not rely on them instead of falling back on some wannabe prophet who, by the way, gravely overestimates his own abilities and underestimates the people who, by popular vote, elected him in the first place?

To be honest, I definitely agree here. American traditional values are pretty impressive and something well worth admiring. I mean, you came up with separation of church and state ages ago, while we're still stuck with it here. Devout Christian as I am, I'm sure we can both agree that religion running things usually ends in a bad fashion. And you figured that out over 200 years ago. And your immigration principle used to be amazing, allowing anyone who could work to move into the countries, bringing skills and mixing cultures. It's a pity it's been so watered down in the last 60 years or so, don't you think? Oh, and of course the fact that you haven't made English your official language. I mean, it takes serious balls to guarantee your citizens to freely speak and demand service in any language they damn well please.

Also of course, I'd say that people are falling back on the person who they elected, meaning that Obama is probably doing what his constituents want done. So pretty much respecting them.

Quote
You're asking for "numbers", but where are yours?! You have just as much need to backup your arguments as any other point of view. So, if you are so confident about your position, why not share with me that secret stash of irrefutable statistics you all seem to possess and are hiding from me.

No one has been asking you fro numbers, but there has been some discussion on the ones Nuclear presented. That wasn't aimed at you, but it seems clear that you want some numbers. What kind of numbers is it you would like?

Quote
Why is it that most everyone else here opposes my beliefs and refuses to consider them? Gosh, now I know how Admiral Zex of the VUX must feel... Guess I'll have to rent my own planet to rid you of my nonsense... Not that that is happening any time soon.  ;)

You know, I'm not a very emotional person. The fact that in your perfect world I'd already be dead, or possible my brother would be dead, doesn't phase me much. I don't consider it a very humane outlook, but we're all entitled to our own beliefs. So this doesn't annoy me either. If you think that people discussing issues with you means that they refuse to consider them, so be it. Thus, if anyone else after this accuses you of refusing to consider their beliefs, I won't step in and correct them since such statments can swing both ways. I would like to point out that I am a moderator here and that by stating that you feel as persecuted and hounded as ZEX very indelicately implies that I am not doing my job. So here's a task for you. I want you to pick out specific sentences that makes you feel as harassed as ZEX was and PM them to me so that I can make sure everyone is behaving. Because I've tried to look for this persecution, but I can't find it.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on August 18, 2010, 09:30:39 am
Very rarely do I become emotionally charged. Your reaction is understandable. I make a few statements that make me sound as if I were acting on intense emotions, but I have never necessarily been easy to communicate with.

If you do not feel strongly about things on an emotional level, I do not see the purpose of attempting to convey that. It seems counter productive to any good debate, as anyone discussing with you has to assume that you mean what you say and stand by what you write. I'd advise you to tone down the strong emotional language you're using if it is only for show.

Quote
The way I have phrased my arguments seems counter-effective, so I'll try from now on to make better-organised points.
By the way, I only agreed that some socialism is not a terrible thing. I still proudly support capitalism and free-enterprise despite the bashing it has gotten.

I'm glad to hear you are becoming more organised, it makes things easier to follow. Also, I'm glad you have something to proudly stand by, although I'd note that pride isn't always a very useful emotion and can be very dangerous at times. But perhaps this is another instance of not meaning what you write? I could also note that no one here has actually bashed free enterprise or capitalism, we have merely pointed out that it is not the solution to every problem and does occasionally need regulation and supporting systems.. Rather, it is you who have, as it were, "bashed" socialism right from the get-go. I understand that it is more appealing to appear the martyr for a wounded cause than the instigator and aggressor, but in your case the sheep's clothing does not quite fit. Anyhow, I'm glad we can agree on that some social services are useful. That means our disagreement is more along the lines of how many different services are needed, rather than the existence of those services. A good note to make would be that even in socialist Europe, we have plenty of capitalism and free enterprise. It's not a binary situation really. No one is "bashing" the concepts as such. We're merely pointing out that running everything that way is not necessarily ideal.

Quote
Not necessarily, but privatized law enforcement and fire-fighting would be great in my book, as long as there is a sufficient number of private entities for these services to be brought to everyone.

Really? You think it is a good idea to tell a room full of men "Well, unless we put out X fires per year we will have to downsize some of you"? In an ideal society this might work, but people are flawed. Private armies haven't really done well either, which is what a police force becomes if it obeys money rather than law. Lets discuss this a bit more, but turn the question around. What services do you feel would not benefit from a purely capitalist approach? The judiciary? Or are there any at all?

Quote
First of all, a precautionary background check for any and all future president candidates (and of course for all other political offices) like they have in corporations is one thing not present that, by common sense, really should be. As long as a candidate has the skill and knowhow to be a good president, congressman, or whatever, the requirement to have lived a certain number of years in America is unreasonable. The background check will root out most if not all of the troublesome types.

I don't think I asked about this, but interesting nonetheless. I thought the media and other political players performed these background checks for you for free? Isn't that more of a capitalist way of doing it rather than regulating it into federal government structures?

Quote
I think regulation from state governments could be feasible, not regulation from a singular Federal government. As it stands, state governments have little say when the Federal government comes in stomping around and hounds them with pretty much whatever absurdities they feel like. Much benefit could be had from a symbiotic relationship between the private sector and state administrations. This would let both cooperate in solving local problems and fighting for their freedom from the Federals whenever the need arises. The state governments, for example, could be given limited ability to ensure the things like law enforcement and fire departments given by private organisations that regular people need could not impose unfair tariffs or other such unfavorable tactics companies in such monopolistic (being the only fire department/police headquarter in a given district) situations would feel compelled to do. Private entities could fight crime, fight fires, and protect other citizens, while the state government could help ensure that corruption is kept in check. Of course, this would require qualified individuals and mutual trust that just does not exist as of now, but at least a system like this would not consist of a tax-happy Federal government throwing its weight around. It is clear to me that both Bush and Obama are guilty of exploiting that exact situation.

Interesting. You'll have to forgive me, not being an American, but I don't quite understand your distinction between state and federal government. As I understand it, each state governs itself to a degree, with the Federal government acting on issues that touch upon all states. But can't the same thing be said about State government versus mayors, municipalities and so forth? Your states are pretty big after all. I guess I don't understand why the distinction should be drawn at that level, and not slightly lower if you really want a synergy between local private entities and government. Local firms are unlikely to make themselves heard in state government as well, I assume?

Other than that, I'm not quite sure you answered my question. I asked specifically what should have been done in this recession rather than what was done now, but these seem to be general principles. Or are you saying that the correct reaction to the recession would be to privatize police and fire fighting forces? As has been mentioned, your government has spent a lot of money building roads and bridges, and I assume they have given this task to private corporations. They've also bailed out big banks, and I'm given to understand that a large amount of the bailouts have been paid back. But you're saying that these are only temporary relief, and that true relief for workers laid off in these industries would be to find new work at newly formed law enforcement and fire fighting companies? Wall Street as police officers, it's a novel idea. Or is there something else that should have been done, specifically, right now, instead of what was done?


Quote
Oh. You're a red state bible thumper, I get it now. All of this nonsense you're spouting is to hide your irrational fear and loathing of anyone who doesn't want to rule the country according to "good wholesome Christian values"
Now you're only stereotyping me according to what you assume that Christians and people on my side of the political spectrum are like. I'll pay no further attention to your posts in this thread, in that case. I apologize for having my own beliefs and values that happen to differ from your own.

I do agree that Draxas was toeing a line here, but keep in mind that you first told all of us that we are persecuting you with our "liberal" views. The thing about respect is that it should be mutual. Accusing people of close-mindedness and persecution rarely does much to make them more polite.

As a moderator I'd like to remind everyone that if this grows too hot, there will be a time-out and some serious words. So far it looks civilized enough though. Just don't get too hot-headed.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on August 18, 2010, 06:28:53 pm
Since the topic is the Tea Party movement (Teabaggers) I thought I'd mention the Daily Show with Jon Stuart who put on a phenominal show last night. (Aug 17, 2010) His guest was Dick Armey, former Republican house majority leader who wrote a book called "Give Us Liberty. A Tea Party Manifesto". The debate that followed was very interesting. The video is entitled "Exclusive - Dick Armey Extended Interview"

 http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Not only was the interview great but much of the show seemed to be themed around the Tea Party movement. We learn that Tea Party advocate, Congressman Louie Gohmert , warns us about "Terror Babies" I recommend this Daily Show episode in it's entirety.

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

Carry on...


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on August 18, 2010, 07:25:40 pm
I feel the need to interject here, for the (possible) benefit of my friend in Europe.

Quote
The traditional values have served humanity well for centuries, so why not rely on them instead of falling back on some wannabe prophet who, by the way, gravely overestimates his own abilities and underestimates the people who, by popular vote, elected him in the first place?

To be honest, I definitely agree here. American traditional values are pretty impressive and something well worth admiring. I mean, you came up with separation of church and state ages ago, while we're still stuck with it here. Devout Christian as I am, I'm sure we can both agree that religion running things usually ends in a bad fashion. And you figured that out over 200 years ago. And your immigration principle used to be amazing, allowing anyone who could work to move into the countries, bringing skills and mixing cultures. It's a pity it's been so watered down in the last 60 years or so, don't you think? Oh, and of course the fact that you haven't made English your official language. I mean, it takes serious balls to guarantee your citizens to freely speak and demand service in any language they damn well please.

I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate here by purposely misconstruing this statement, or if you're just not aware of its implications. "Traditional values" is code in US politics for "unseparating church and state," hence my accusation of bible thumping. It tends to be a popular platform in the same areas where ideas like Intelligent Design and Having a Monument of the Ten Commandments Erected Outside the State Supreme Court crop up.

Quote
What services do you feel would not benefit from a purely capitalist approach? The judiciary?

Worst idea ever. The legal system in the US is already dangerously teetering on "money will buy your freedom" territory. If we were to codify that into the official system, we may as well not bother having any laws at all.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on August 18, 2010, 09:59:59 pm
I'm not sure if you're playing devil's advocate here by purposely misconstruing this statement, or if you're just not aware of its implications. "Traditional values" is code in US politics for "unseparating church and state," hence my accusation of bible thumping. It tends to be a popular platform in the same areas where ideas like Intelligent Design and Having a Monument of the Ten Commandments Erected Outside the State Supreme Court crop up.

I may be vaguely aware that some people misuse the term, but those are the traditional American values that still shine from that great big city on the hill to the outside world. Liberty for everyone, equality and a chance for anyone to make something of themselves. regardless of language, creed or colour. That's the stuff that awes and inspires the rest of us, regardless of whether some people within the US has forgotten their true traditional values or not.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Death 999 on August 18, 2010, 10:44:50 pm
Some have. And the rest of us only let them change things around the edges (immigration, cough cough) when we don't notice they're doing it. However, immigration was rarely the rosy image you have of it, especially for the eastern europeans and asians.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: lakota.james on September 11, 2010, 01:03:31 am
It makes me real sad that this discussion stopped, I was enjoying reading it a lot. 


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on September 11, 2010, 08:41:01 am
It makes me real sad that this discussion stopped, I was enjoying reading it a lot. 

To be honest, at this point in time the thread subject isn't what is most interesting to me, but rather the psychology going on here. I mean look at the thread. It starts off pretty slow, just a few people remarking that they don't know or care much, but that every country has their fringe groups. The general attitude towards them is negative, but since everyone agrees the thread is pretty relaxed. Only the Hitler picture gets a bit of a rise out of people, but even then, not much.

But then it gets pretty interesting. A dissenting voice appears, which is generally good for debate. But the way it acts is a case study in its own. While taking the dissenting side, it gears up the emotional level quite a few notches by making a lot of strong emotional statements that at face value are pretty polarizing. Things need to die, people are being censored, controversial images are defensible, systems are despised and pointless and so on. It completely changes the tone of the thread. Previously only on poster was somewhat emotional about his objections to the Tea party in general and the image in particular, but this slew of strong language fires thingsup. It looks like everything is set up for a major argument.

But, then it suddenly veers off in a completely new direction. After making a slew of strong, polarizing and emotional statements the dissenting voice suddenly changes completely. As soon as a answer pops up that doesn't just contradict, but does so in a less than friendly fashion, things change again. Despite having entered a thread and made numerous attacks on several subjects, the dissenting voice now casts itself as the victim of unjust attack on subjects that haven't even been discussed in full. It's something pretty unexpected to see, the person on the attack is suddenly cast as the victim, going as far as to leaving the thread because of the lack of support. Even though there was clearly no support to begin with and that didn't dissuade entry into the thread.

To me, that's just a fascinating path to take. A man can never know another man's mind of course, but it would be really interesting to know if this is a planned strategy or unconscious behaviour. And if it is planned, what is it meant to accomplish? The best way to get people to listen generally isn't to antagonize them first. And if it is unconscious, is it something that poster ever reflects over, or is there just a general sense of sadness that people won't listen?

Fascinating stuff really.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on September 11, 2010, 05:48:42 pm
When I started the thread my frame of mind was disgust at the conservative movement. But my disgust was mainly due to my father's approval of this group and the fact that the tea party movement itself is recieving political clout here in the U.S. At the time my father was sending me protest pictures via. e-mail with which he would point out his favorite protest signs and claim that "we are taking our country back."  I've since struggled to understand the people behind the movement, their agenda and what it means politically.

At first I thought Admiral Zeratul was just trolling. When Draxas and Lukipela joined the conservation ,it was time to sit back an watch the show. It was indeed enjoyable while it lasted.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: ziper1221 on September 11, 2010, 09:59:11 pm
And the worst thing about hospitals and medical facilities is the crazy prices. $500 for some blood work without insurance. who gets that money anyway?


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on September 12, 2010, 08:49:13 am
I've since struggled to understand the people behind the movement, their agenda and what it means politically.

I think this is important and good. A lot of people mix strong emotions into their political beliefs, making them more akin to actual religious beliefs rather than political opinions. I personally think this stems from equal parts fear of the unknown and the desire for a black and white world where you have clearly defined rights and wrongs.

Emotion is a funny thing. Whatever we like to think, we're all irrational monkeys trying to make sense of a world far more complex than the jungle our brains are used to. It's easy to get caught up in snap judgements, to succumb to peer pressure without even knowing it, to stand by a decision rather than re-evaluate it.

Of course, some people close their eyes and ears to everything except what fits their worldview. That doesn' mean we should give up on them, and assign them subhuman value. The only way forward is through talking to and trying to understand one another. We all benefit from that, unless we are already 100% right and everyone disagreeing is wrong. And in that case, maybe we are the ones who have closed our eyes and ears.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on September 13, 2010, 05:27:16 pm
And the worst thing about hospitals and medical facilities is the crazy prices. $500 for some blood work without insurance. who gets that money anyway?

I'd guess most of it either goes toward hospital costs or the hospital's insurance. Malpractice insurance is going a long way toward making sure having a medical practice is not a particularly profitable endeavor anymore, and medical supplies cost at least 10X what you would expect them to. Of course, it doesn't help that hospitals are run as businesses nowadays, so there has to be some profit in there as well.

That doesn't make the prices any less exorbitant, of course, but it's just another serious flaw in our current healthcare system.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on September 13, 2010, 10:19:47 pm
Since I have a artifical valve, I eat Warfarin that thins my blood out. Unfortunately, Warfarin (or rat poison) is notoriously unstable. A change in diet, exercise habits, sleeping habits, or getting out of bed on the wrong side can cause the values to shift. Values that are too low enhance the risk of the valve failing. Values that are too high increase the risk of inner bleeding and all the goodies associated with that.

Anyway, that means I have to take a blood sample a month, on a good month. If something goes wrong (which it invariably does once or twice a year) I get to go once a week, then once every second week and so forth. I pay 15€ per visit, and that includes talking to the doctor afterwards as well to get my new regimen and possibly a new prescription. After I have paid over 90€, I get a little card that shows I've paid the maximum amount of personal coverage and up until a year later I can go in for free. Well, semi-free. I pay taxes of course. :)

So over here I effectively pay 90€ a year for this, plus maybe 40€ a year more for my medication. Since I was born with this and it is an existing condition, could I even have gotten insurance for this in the US? If not, I'd be paying a minimum of 6000€ a year, but probably around 10000€ a year to stay alive. That'd eat up a pretty big part of my salary, even with lower taxes.

Since we're on healthcare, a question for you Americans. What do you pay, on average, for health insurance for you and your spouse/children? I don't need an exact amount or anything, just a general approximation. Or maybe how much of your monthly salary it is. I hear all sorts of crazy values being thrown around so it'd be interesting to get some insight.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: lakota.james on September 13, 2010, 10:55:39 pm
I can't decide how on topic this is.
I always wanted to leave the US just because so many people here take pride in being idiots.  Back when I was active on here, I decided that I'd look into moving to Finland at somepoint.  Ever since then, all I ever hear about is how awesome Finland is.  My girlfriend also wanted to move to Europe, but maybe France or Italy, she's in school for cooking.  How's the food in Finland?  Finish food we look up online sounds either bland or nasty (fermented fish?).


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on September 13, 2010, 11:03:25 pm
Scandinavian food in general is pretty good. We eat a lot of fish, like salmon and such. We plenty of berries and mushroom from our beautiful forests. And reindeer, but pleased don't tell Santa. Our beer isn't that good unless it comes from a local brewery. We have some traditional foods which are probably disgusting to people who didn't grow up with them, such as liver pudding. Jamie Oliver did a show on Stockholm, Sweden and the food he really loved there, and Finnish food is very similar. And fermented fish is Swedish, but eaten in some coastal parts of Finland as well. It's supposed to taste all right, but smell horribly.

However, the climate is dreary and if you're American you're going to find the people cold and unfriendly. They aren't necessarily, but it is a culture shock, coupled with a language shock.

If you're seriously considering this kind of move, I'd recommend setting it up for a short time first. Find a job or get a transfer for a year or two. That'll give you a taste of what the culture you're encountering is like.



Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: lakota.james on September 13, 2010, 11:18:21 pm
I've talked to Finnish people here and some other places online, and they seem pretty cold and dry.  That was one of the things I liked about Finland.  I heard someone tell a story about a Finnish friend they had, where he said hi to him at a bar and the response was "are we here to talk, or to drink?" I don't like the way people here are.  Thanks for the information :)

Also, do you have any idea if raindeer is similar to other deer?  Because that's probably my favorite meat.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on September 14, 2010, 06:37:46 pm
So over here I effectively pay 90€ a year for this, plus maybe 40€ a year more for my medication. Since I was born with this and it is an existing condition, could I even have gotten insurance for this in the US? If not, I'd be paying a minimum of 6000€ a year, but probably around 10000€ a year to stay alive. That'd eat up a pretty big part of my salary, even with lower taxes.

Depends on the whims and whimsy of your insurance company. It's quite likely that you would be able to get coverage, but it would be hideously expensive. Also, if one of the bean counters at the insurance company decides that you're just not profitable enough, you could be dropped with no more notice than a letter in the mail stating when your coverage will be terminated.

Quote
Since we're on healthcare, a question for you Americans. What do you pay, on average, for health insurance for you and your spouse/children? I don't need an exact amount or anything, just a general approximation. Or maybe how much of your monthly salary it is. I hear all sorts of crazy values being thrown around so it'd be interesting to get some insight.

For myself and my wife, I pay ~$225 a month on my employee plan ($100 of that is for the actual coverage, and the rest is a spousal surcharge since my wife doesn't use the insurance offered to her by her employer). This is a fairly reasonable monthly cost (once upon a time, I was paying $500+ a month for COBRA just for myself before I was eligible for health coverage through work), but the coverage is poor. Only 80% of the cost of routine medical (checkups, doctor visits for minor illness or other issues not requiring a specialist) is covered, and that percentage goes down for more significant care. Fortunately, they're revising the health plan at work this year. It also should say quite a lot that my wife significantly improved her health coverage and reduced her monthly cost by abandoning the health care plan offered at her job and signing up solely for mine, despite the spousal surcharge. I work for a major multinational corporation, and she works for a local business, which goes a long way toward explaining the disparity (she previously paid ~$250 a month for her work plan, only for herself, and had a plan that covered her up to a annual maximum of $4000 for all medical bills, with both the first $1000 of that and anything above that amount coming straight out of pocket).

So yeah, you can see why I think healthcare is pretty mesed up here in the US.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Lukipela on September 14, 2010, 07:07:37 pm
Thanks for sharing Draxas. It sound like you're sort of well enough set, though that 500 a month thing sounds pretty bad. An interesting insight in American life, cheers!


I've talked to Finnish people here and some other places online, and they seem pretty cold and dry.  That was one of the things I liked about Finland.

Or so you think. Just make sure you visit extensively before taking the leap.

 
Quote
I heard someone tell a story about a Finnish friend they had, where he said hi to him at a bar and the response was "are we here to talk, or to drink?" I don't like the way people here are.

That's just folklore stuff, it could be a Scot or an Irishman saying that. Only they'd say it with a smile on their face, or at least a glint in their eye.

Quote
Also, do you have any idea if raindeer is similar to other deer?  Because that's probably my favorite meat.

Sort of I guess. It's quite gamey and very delicious, but I'm not sure how to describe the difference between reindeer and deer.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: ziper1221 on September 14, 2010, 11:34:58 pm
this morning I heard on NPR about this guy with Haemophilia, they came out with a drug that would have him clot in hours instead of days, and he maxed out his coverage cap in 2 years. He's changed insurers 5 times since then. Obama is passing a bill to get rid of the cap.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Kaiser on November 05, 2010, 11:45:22 am
why are these nuts worshiping Regan and not say i don't know Lincoln ya know the guy who ended slavery.
Reagan was the first true conservative in American politics in the modern era.  He created many traditional mindsets that still exist.

Lincoln was a pseudo-socialist despot.  He suspended habeas corpus, had legislatures arrested just incase they might even think about seceding, sought to control the press, etc.  The biggest fallacy about the man is that he "freed the slaves".  He did nothing of the sort.  The Emancipation Proclamation only declared the elimination of slavery in States currently in an act of rebellion against the Federal Government.  Basically, the President of the United States of America ordered the freedom of the slaves in the independent Confederate States of America.  It was a political maneuver, nothing more.  He wanted to encourage slaves to rebel against their masters.

Meanwhile, there were slaves still in the United States...

As for the Tea Party, the "tea" part stands for Taxed Enough Already.  They support devolved government (more power to local and state government rather than Federal), lower taxes, etc.  Certainly nothing wrong with that.  Strong Federal/Weak State vs Weak Federal/Strong State has been an argument that's been fought over since before the Declaration of Independence was written!


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Angelfish on November 05, 2010, 04:14:25 pm
hmm, I have to pay around E110,- per month for health insurance. Which is pretty much. Next year it will be E120 each month. But coverage is generally quite good.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on November 05, 2010, 05:37:34 pm
Taxes went up under Reagan. The defict soared under Reagan. Regan got hired by pandering to the religious right. Remember the "moral majority"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

For Bush it was the Christian Coalition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Coalition_of_America

The Tea Party is is pretty much the same thing with Glenn Beck, Rush, and Sarah Palin leading the cause. We're not seeing anything new here other than a slight downplay of the religious component. They pander to the religious right and are backed by corporate billionaires. The Tea Party are mainly scared, devoutly religious white folks that see Obama as a black muslim.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: ziper1221 on November 06, 2010, 06:20:54 am
Obama as a black muslim.

black non-american muslim. On a related note, I went to the rally to restore sanity this past weekend, it was quite nice.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on November 06, 2010, 05:25:07 pm
Nice. I watched the rally on Comedy Central. I read an estimated ~200k people showed up.

Recently I picked up "Earth (the book) A Visitor's Guide to the Human Race" put out by Jon Stewart and the Daily Shiow team. It's witty and hilarious.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Death 999 on November 07, 2010, 08:39:06 pm
Basically, the President of the United States of America ordered the freedom of the slaves in the independent Confederate States of America.  It was a political maneuver, nothing more.  He wanted to encourage slaves to rebel against their masters.

It did have the immediate effect of freeing those slaves in occupied territory, whose status was previously undetermined; and of course as they captured more territory, the number of freed slaves rose drastically.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: up turned crafish on April 11, 2011, 12:49:02 am
Quote
As for the Tea Party, the "tea" part stands for Taxed Enough Already.[/glow]

i always thought it had something to do with the Boston tea party (a protest of unfair taxes


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on April 11, 2011, 02:14:53 am
The historical Boston Tea Party was about taxtation without representation. We had no say in it. This is what alot of tea party people don't seem to understand is that we do have representation. If you don't like a tax rate then you vote for the politican that will change it. In essence that is what the Teabaggers are doing except they are snaking their right-wing extremes in the back door. They want to privatize S.S., repeal the new health care laws that protect citizens and heads off rising medical costs, overturn our abortion laws, abolish the minimum wage, destroy collective bargaining and unions period, crack down on illegal immigration ..to name a few.

Our federal government almost shut down because of these guys. Why? Because they didn't want to fund the planned parenthood program that they claim spends tax money on abortion. Problem is that it is illegal to pay for abortions with tax money and planned parenthood is an important part of American women's health.

One core tennant of the tea party is small, fiscally responsible government. Who can't agree with that? You'd have to be barking mad to not think that isn't a good idea. Problem is where do we cut? How are we going to tackle our mounting debt? So the conservatives in this country go after the social programs. Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, planned parenthood etc; programs that benifit the very poor in our country and account for a very small percentage of our tax revenue.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: oldlaptop on April 11, 2011, 02:52:55 am
Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, planned parenthood etc; programs that benifit the very poor in our country and account for a very small percentage of our tax revenue.

What? (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html)


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Death 999 on April 11, 2011, 03:51:04 am
Yeah, about that. Planned Parenthood? Yes, tiny. Welfare? Substantially larger, but still tiny.

Medicaid? Er, getting noticeable there. Medicare? EFFING HUGE.

What really gets to me is the focus on the tiny at the expense of the big. Bob wants to have a conversation about medicare and medicaid? Let's have that. Bob wants to destroy Planned Parenthood on the pretext of budget cutting? Bob is probably not being honest about his motives, there.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: RTyp06 on April 11, 2011, 03:54:02 am
Yes, excuse me. I meant that they are picking on small parts of those programs. Parts that make up very little of the entire entitlment.

With S.S. they want to put that money on the stock market. S.S. would be fine if the politicians would keep their fingers out of it. Yes that means you democrats and republicans.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: ziper1221 on April 11, 2011, 04:45:50 am
Quite funny about the difference between military funding and education.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: onpon4 on April 11, 2011, 12:23:13 pm
The U.S. needs to cut its military spending and stop cutting taxes for the rich. That wouldn't just magically solve all its problems, but it would surely help. Unfortunately, American politicians are just too greedy for that.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on April 11, 2011, 05:38:50 pm
That's because American politicians are practically unilaterally the rich that they're approving tax cuts for.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Death 999 on April 11, 2011, 08:21:48 pm
'Unilaterally' doesn't mean what you think it does.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: onpon4 on April 11, 2011, 10:15:19 pm
'Unilaterally' doesn't mean what you think it does.

Very true. A more correct term would have been "exclusively". From dictionary.com:

Quote
u·ni·lat·er·al /ˌyunəˈlætərəl/
–adjective
1. relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only: unilateral development; a unilateral approach.
2. undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual: a unilateral decision; unilateral disarmament.


Title: Re: Teabaggers
Post by: Draxas on April 12, 2011, 01:08:11 am
Seems fairly appropriate to me, but if you want to ding me on my vocab, then OK. I certainly don't see any congressmen that could be considered the working poor.