|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Teabaggers (Read 12691 times)
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 491
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
NewsArticle
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38228744/ns/politics-decision_2010/
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ziper1221
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 124
|
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.      (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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 14, 2010, 06:07:29 am by ziper1221 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
onpon4
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 709
Sharing is good.
|
*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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 491
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 06:53:28 am by Admiral Zeratul »
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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.
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
Draxas
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1044
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Admiral Zeratul
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 223
I enjoy overthinking things.
|
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?
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Priority override. New behavior dictated. Must break post into component ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3620
The Ancient One
|
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.
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.
[ 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."
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
|
|
|
|
|
