Never mind Sarah Palin and the tricornered hats. The tea-party movement is dominated by conspiracist kooks. The tea-party movement has no leader. But it does have a face: William Temple of Brunswick, Ga. For months, the amiable middle-aged activist has been criss-crossing America, appearing at tea-party events dressed in his trademark three-cornered hat and Revolutionary garb. When journalists interview him (which is often—his outfit draws them in like a magnet), he presents himself as a human bridge between the founders' era and our own. "We fought the British over a 3 percent tea tax. We might as well bring the British back," he told NPR during a recent protest outside the Capitol. It's a charming act, which makes the tea-party movement seem no more unnerving than the people who spend their weekends reenacting the Civil War. But the 18th-century getups mask something disturbing. After I spent the weekend at the Tea Party National Convention in Nashville, Tenn., it has become clear to me that the movement is dominated by people whose vision of the government is conspiratorial and dangerously detached from reality. It's more John Birch than John Adams.
Like all populists, tea partiers are suspicious of power and influence, and anyone who wields them. Their villain list includes the big banks; bailed-out corporations; James Cameron, whose Avatar is seen as a veiled denunciation of the U.S. military; Republican Party institutional figures they feel ignored by, such as chairman Michael Steele; colleges and universities (the more prestigious, the more evil); TheWashington Post; Anderson Cooper; and even FOX News pundits, such as Bill O'Reilly, who have heaped scorn on the tea-party movement's more militant oddballs.
One of the most bizarre moments of the recent tea-party convention came when blogger Andrew Breitbart delivered a particularly vicious fulmination against the mainstream media, prompting everyone to get up, turn toward the media section at the back of the conference room, and scream, "USA! USA! USA!" But the tea partiers' well-documented obsession with President Obama has hardly been diffused by their knack for finding new enemies. Steve Malloy, author of Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin Your Life, kicked off the first full day of conference proceedings by warning that Obama and his minions are conspiring to control every aspect of Americans' lives—the colors of their cars, the kind of toilet paper they use, how much time they spend in the shower, the temperature of their homes—all under the guise of U.N. greenhouse-gas-reduction schemes. "Obama isn't a U.S. socialist," Malloy thundered. "He's an international socialist. He envisions a one-world government."
I consider myself a conservative and arrived at this conference as a paid-up, rank-and-file attendee, not one of the bemused New York Times types with a media pass. But I also happen to be writing a book for HarperCollins that focuses on 9/11 conspiracy theories, so I have a pretty good idea where the various screws and nuts can be found in the great toolbox of American political life.
Within a few hours in Nashville, I could tell that what I was hearing wasn't just random rhetorical mortar fire being launched at Obama and his political allies: the salvos followed the established script of New World Order conspiracy theories, which have suffused the dubious right-wing fringes of American politics since the days of the John Birch Society.
This world view's modern-day prophets include Texas radio host Alex Jones, whose documentary, The Obama Deception, claims Obama's candidacy was a plot by the leaders of the New World Order to "con the Amercican people into accepting global slavery"; Christian evangelist Pat Robertson; and the rightward strain of the aforementioned "9/11 Truth" movement. According to this dark vision, America's 21st-century traumas signal the coming of a great political cataclysm, in which a false prophet such as Barack Obama will upend American sovereignty and render the country into a godless, one-world socialist dictatorship run by the United Nations from its offices in Manhattan.
Sure enough, in Nashville, Judge Roy Moore warned, among other things, of "a U.N. guard stationed in every house." On the conference floor, it was taken for granted that Obama was seeking to destroy America's place in the world and sell Israel out to the Arabs for some undefined nefarious purpose. The names Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers popped up all the time, the idea being that they were the real brains behind this presidency, and Obama himself was simply some sort of manchurian candidate.
A software engineer from Clearwater, Fla., told me that Washington, D.C., liberals had engineered the financial crash so they could destroy the value of the U.S. dollar, pay off America's debts with worthless paper, and then create a new currency called the Amero that would be used in a newly created "North American Currency Union" with Canada and Mexico. I rolled my eyes at this one-off kook. But then, hours later, the conference organizers showed a movie to the meeting hall, Generation Zero, whose thesis was only slightly less bizarre: that the financial meltdown was the handiwork of superannuated flower children seeking to destroy capitalism.
And then, of course, there is the double-whopper of all anti-Obama conspiracy theories, the "birther" claim that America's president might actually be an illegal alien who's constitutionally ineligible to occupy the White House. This point was made by birther extraordinaire and Christian warrior Joseph Farah, who told the crowd the circumstances of Obama's birth were more mysterious than those of Jesus Christ. (Apparently comparing Obama to a messiah is only blasphemous if you're doing so in a complimentary vein.) To applause, he declared, "My dream is that if Barack Obama seeks reelection in 2012 that he won't be able to go to any city, any city, any town in America without seeing signs that ask, 'Where's the birth certificate?'"
Many of the tea-party organizers I spoke with at this conference described the event as a critical step in their ascendancy to the status of mainstream political movement. Yet with rare exceptions, such as blogger Breitbart, who was reportedly overheard protesting Farah's birther propaganda, none of them seems to realize how off-putting the toxic fantasies being spewed from the podium were. Perhaps the most distressing part of all is that few media observers bothered to catalog these bizarre, conspiracist outbursts, and instead fixated on Sarah Palin's Saturday night keynote address. It is as if, in the current overheated political atmosphere, we all simply have come to expect that radicalized conservatives will behave like unhinged paranoiacs when they collect in the same room.
That doesn't say much for the state of the right in America. The tea partiers' tricornered hat is supposed to be a symbol of patriotism and constitutional first principles. But when you take a closer look, all you find is a helmet made of tin foil.
Jonathan Kay is the managing editor for comment at Canada's National Post newspaper. His book, Among the Truthers: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, will be published by HarperCollins in 2011. Contact him at jkay@nationalpost.com.
I think its important to note that people who actively protest tend to have extreme, or conspiratorial views. I say this as a veteran of the many liberal protests I attended out of academic curiosity.
As ever, there must be a disclaimer indicating that the characters of a movement are, by necessity, caricatures of that movement. And all protesters are, fundamentally, characters, or at least a single character en masse. Its a natural consequence of a narrow message.
I think its important to note that people who actively protest tend to have extreme, or conspiratorial views. I say this as a veteran of the many liberal protests I attended out of academic curiosity.
As ever, there must be a disclaimer indicating that the characters of a movement are, by necessity, caricatures of that movement. And all protesters are, fundamentally, characters, or at least a single character en masse. Its a natural consequence of a narrow message.
Is the tea party composed of anything other than the protests though? Didn't the protests both spawn it and now currently maintain it? That said, we had anti Iraq protests in my hometown every summer for since the war began (they're still at it, and it's a liberal college town with a naval air station attached) and they were hardly sensible.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Is the tea party composed of anything other than the protests though? Didn't the protests both spawn it and now currently maintain it?
This I don't know. I've been trying to draw a line between the Tea Party, and Tea Party sympathizers (ie. people who support some of their abstract goals), but its been difficult to say the least. I do think that its a bit to easy to label any group of people as fundamentally insane. It makes it to easy to miss out on what may be a legitimate critique of the system.
For my part, I agree with some of the principles outlined by the Tea Party, though not necessarily in ordinary ways (shocking!). For example, I'd like to return to the vision of the Founders by eliminating the popular election of Senators.
Ah, harkening back to the good old days when the Europeans were kicked out of the Americas by its native sons, the United States of Awesome were founded, and you could buy people like Obama for cents on the dollar!
Nurglitch wrote:Ah, harkening back to the good old days when the Europeans were kicked out of the Americas by its native sons, the United States of Awesome were founded, and you could buy people like Obama for cents on the dollar!
Wanting to regress to earlier elements does not entail wanting to regress to all elements of an earlier time. I wouldn't get your nose to far up, your ancestors were the ones selling them to the US.
Nurglitch wrote:Ah, harkening back to the good old days when the Europeans were kicked out of the Americas by its native sons, the United States of Awesome were founded, and you could buy people like Obama for cents on the dollar!
Wanting to regress to earlier elements does not entail wanting to regress to all elements of an earlier time. I wouldn't get your nose to far up, your ancestors were the ones selling them to the US.
I'm European? Score. I will now brag of my honourary honkiness.
Godless socialist one-world government? There are too many bible-thumpers and greedy corporations to let that be a reality. We're too busy circling the drain to get a one-world government together.
The new world order is pretty flaky from what I seen. It's powerful enough to elect a "non-American" citizen as president of the US, but not quite powerful enough to push socialist bills through Congress.
One of my lab partner is one of these people and he is exactly like how the article describes. In his words:
"Liberals want "green" power because they don't want people making money. It's not that they want to make money off "green" energy, Democrats don't care about money, they just want power. That's why they hate capitalism, which is what made America the most technologically advanced country in the world. Because money is a form of power, once they take away people's money they can control all the power."
There seems to be two elements to the tea party movement. The first is the kooks, arguing for the gold standard or an end to the one world government and all that. The second element appears to be standard conservatives arguing for fiscal responsibility.
The movement appears to have started as a way for standard conservatives to express their disapproval of the Republican Party in the wake of the Bush administration. As all new movements will tend to do, they quickly picked up all manner of nutters. Arguably they could do something about excising the crazies, but leftwing movements have exactly the same problem so it'd be unfair to criticize the tea partiers for the same.
The bigger issue, to me, is whether the sane elements of the movement will end up having a lasting effect on the GOP, and actually introduce a commitment to fiscal responsibility. I doubt it personally as the issues being raised over government are as superficial as they are when the GOP mainstream raises them, and don't address any of the real, systemic causes of long government overspending.
dogma wrote:This I don't know. I've been trying to draw a line between the Tea Party, and Tea Party sympathizers (ie. people who support some of their abstract goals), but its been difficult to say the least. I do think that its a bit to easy to label any group of people as fundamentally insane. It makes it to easy to miss out on what may be a legitimate critique of the system.
You can't throw the whole movement under the bus because of the fact that you see the crazies on television. Of course the media is going to find and present the most absolutely nuts people it can, that is what makes the story interesting. If you honestly believe that they are going to put just normal people who are frustrated and concerned with the path of this nation, then you are sorely mistaken. I support several ideas endorsed by the tea party movement, and have even attended a few rallies as a correspondent. That being said, I normally found other citizens who were there on their own breaks, or days off, to try and make their voices heard.
dogma wrote:For my part, I agree with some of the principles outlined by the Tea Party, though not necessarily in ordinary ways (shocking!). For example, I'd like to return to the vision of the Founders by eliminating the popular election of Senators.
JEB_Stuart wrote:You can't throw the whole movement under the bus because of the fact that you see the crazies on television. Of course the media is going to find and present the most absolutely nuts people it can, that is what makes the story interesting. If you honestly believe that they are going to put just normal people who are frustrated and concerned with the path of this nation, then you are sorely mistaken. I support several ideas endorsed by the tea party movement, and have even attended a few rallies as a correspondent. That being said, I normally found other citizens who were there on their own breaks, or days off, to try and make their voices heard.
Did you not read my first post? Because I addressed most of your criticism there.
Though I will say that my experience with the Tea Party is likely tainted by my long hair, and expensive fashion sense.
For my part, I agree with some of the principles outlined by the Tea Party, though not necessarily in ordinary ways (shocking!). For example, I'd like to return to the vision of the Founders by eliminating the popular election of Senators.
Isn't that directly contrasted against the stated ideals of populist governance and direct public accountability?
Nurglitch wrote:Ah, harkening back to the good old days when the Europeans were kicked out of the Americas by its native sons, the United States of Awesome were founded, and you could buy people like Obama for cents on the dollar!
Wanting to regress to earlier elements does not entail wanting to regress to all elements of an earlier time. I wouldn't get your nose to far up, your ancestors were the ones selling them to the US.
I'm European? Score. I will now brag of my honourary honkiness.
Well, it seemed only fair if you were going to make idiotic generalizations and assumptions that you shouldn't be the only one allowed to. Even ignoring that Whites make up roughly 80~87% of the population in Canada so I still have a 8 in 10 or almost a 9 in 10 chance of being right. While not European strictly, odds say that you have roots in Europe.
I meant to be in agreement with you, I was more referring to Shuma's posts.
Well, when a populist movement (I dislike populism) forms large incoherent protests, (I generally dislike protest movements for the exact reasons you have described) while getting a considerable amount of play on fox news (A news station i dislike for being substance-less and irrational) and then grows rapidly due to the conservative groundswell derived from that coverage using them as a focal point (I'm not a conservative) I'll get that bus gassed up.
There's nothing connected to the tea party movement that I'm not willing to throw under the bus.
"Liberals want "green" power because they don't want people making money. It's not that they want to make money off "green" energy, Democrats don't care about money, they just want power. That's why they hate capitalism, which is what made America the most technologically advanced country in the world. Because money is a form of power, once they take away people's money they can control all the power."
Oh FFS can we keep nothing secret anymore people ?!
Actually it was government spending during the Civil War, 1st and 2nd World Wars and the cold war that underpinned a lot of America's industrial expansion and technology development.
I like how a group of people who would never darken the doors of Republican meeting, much less a Tea Party protest, are discussing the merits of the Tea Party, based on an article from the rag Newsweek.
Frazzled wrote:I like how a group of people who would never darken the doors of Republican meeting, much less a Tea Party protest, are discussing the merits of the Tea Party, based on an article from the rag Newsweek.
I have a fair number of conservative friends, and I've had them for quite some time. Living next to (what used to be, Bush shut it down) the largest naval air station in the northeast for 19 years does that to you. I've never been to a liberal meeting either. I didn't know they had those.
Frazzled wrote:I like how a group of people who would never darken the doors of Republican meeting, much less a Tea Party protest, are discussing the merits of the Tea Party, based on an article from the rag Newsweek.
I was a member of the Young Republicans in college. Yeah. Think about that for a few minutes.
dogma wrote:Actually, I spent a lot of time in gay bars in college. Experimental men are hilarious.
I went to a gay bar in the Boro cos it was 99p a pint. Id go again too. Unless shagging the patrons becomes an entry requirement i will happily continue drinking anywhere that sells booze that cheap!
dogma wrote:Actually, I spent a lot of time in gay bars in college. Experimental men are hilarious.
I'm just saying that, like college conservatives, gay men seem to be very concerned about masculinity.
mattyrm wrote:I went to a gay bar in the Boro cos it was 99p a pint. Id go again too. Unless shagging the patrons becomes an entry requirement i will happily continue drinking anywhere that sells booze that cheap!
Wait, it's not an entry requirement?! Happy memories of $2 beer nights too...
Frazzled wrote:I like how a group of people who would never darken the doors of Republican meeting, much less a Tea Party protest, are discussing the merits of the Tea Party, based on an article from the rag Newsweek.
I have a fair number of conservative friends, and I've had them for quite some time. Living next to (what used to be, Bush shut it down) the largest naval air station in the northeast for 19 years does that to you. I've never been to a liberal meeting either. I didn't know they had those.
Translation: I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are INSERT GROUP HERE.
Thats utterly irrelevant.
Dogma was in the the Republican club in college. 1. Don't believe it; 2. Who cares, thats college. Thats like saying I was in the chess club in elementary school.
Frazzled wrote:I like how a group of people who would never darken the doors of Republican meeting, much less a Tea Party protest, are discussing the merits of the Tea Party, based on an article from the rag Newsweek.
I have a fair number of conservative friends, and I've had them for quite some time. Living next to (what used to be, Bush shut it down) the largest naval air station in the northeast for 19 years does that to you. I've never been to a liberal meeting either. I didn't know they had those.
Translation: I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are INSERT GROUP HERE. Thats utterly irrelevant.
Dogma was in the the Republican club in college. 1. Don't believe it; 2. Who cares, thats college. Thats like saying I was in the chess club in elementary school.
Might point stands excellently.
Insofar as any irrelevant logical fallacy can. There are plenty of things you've never been and plenty of meetings you've never attended. Should I list them off in every thread related to them?
Frazzled wrote:I like how a group of people who would never darken the doors of Republican meeting, much less a Tea Party protest, are discussing the merits of the Tea Party, based on an article from the rag Newsweek.
I have a fair number of conservative friends, and I've had them for quite some time. Living next to (what used to be, Bush shut it down) the largest naval air station in the northeast for 19 years does that to you. I've never been to a liberal meeting either. I didn't know they had those.
Translation: I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are INSERT GROUP HERE.
Thats utterly irrelevant.
Dogma was in the the Republican club in college. 1. Don't believe it; 2. Who cares, thats college. Thats like saying I was in the chess club in elementary school.
Might point stands excellently.
I noticed you didn't address the charge. Of course I am assuming you're even old enough to vote at this point.
Insofar as any irrelevant logical fallacy can. There are plenty of things you've never been and plenty of meetings you've never attended. Should I list them off in every thread related to them?
What Frazzled is trying to say, is that none of us are qualified to make judgments of a opposing political party (excluding Frazz himself). Only people that are actually involved, and as such, likely will not pass any substantial judgment, can do so.
Wrexasaur wrote:What Frazzled is trying to say, is that none of us are qualified to make judgments of a opposing political party (excluding Frazz himself). Only people that are actually involved, and as such, likely will not pass any substantial judgment, can do so.
Makes perfect sense... wait... no, it doesn't.
Not quite. What I am trying to say is that the people commenting are their political enemies. Its like Dick Cheney and Glenn Beck discussing a Rush Limbaugh missive on the Democratic Party.
Not quite. What I am trying to say is that the people commenting are their political enemies. Its like Dick Cheney and Glenn Beck discussing a Rush Limbaugh missive on the Democratic Party.
Wrexasaur wrote:We are clearly dealing with some form of strawman here, as the points brought up by Frazzled barely pass for contextually appropriate.
bs.
You're discussing a Newsweek article about the Tea party. You should stop right there if you want to have a balanced, informed discussion. Newseek isn't either.
Check out actual Tea Party information or at least less biased secondary sources.
Frazz wrote:You're discussing a Newsweek article about the Tea party. You should stop right there if you want to have a balanced, informed discussion. Newseek isn't either.
Check out actual Tea Party information or at least less biased secondary sources.
I can agree with that, but I see no reason why people cannot discuss this article.
If you feel like providing more information via different sources, I would humbly suggest you do so.
The Frazzled Effect. me likey.
I should apologize to Dogma. I could see him being in the repub party in college. I myself was in many clubs and organizations in college, signing and attendance directly proportional to the level of co-ed participation...
You're discussing a Newsweek article about the Tea party. You should stop right there if you want to have a balanced, informed discussion. Newseek isn't either.
I have never seen a flattering depiction of the tea parties in any venue other than on certain fox news infotainment shows since they started. Not a single article. Not a single web page. Not a single news story. Take issue with newsweek all you want, but don't down a few bottles of vodka than imply that other people live in some sort of liberal commune because they aren't card carrying members of the tea party.
Check out actual Tea Party information or at least less biased secondary sources.
I lived through most of the Cold War, the Kennedy assassinations, the riots and rebellions of the 60s, Watergate, the bloated government spending sprees, wars, etc., but for the first time in my life, I'm afraid for the survival of our republic.
The Left is out to destroy all that is America. Behind closed doors, in secret meetings, they use our money to bribe and intimidate our legislators into voting in favor of overwhelmingly unpopular and unconstitutional bills. They create and invent crises as a means of forcing their agenda, they seize control of our industries at every opportunity, they betray our allies and give advantage to our enemies, they spend our economy into obliteration, they intend to force us to buy rationed health care which will be directed by new federal bureaucracies with the power of life and death and the goal of cutting cost, and they intend to give us a Death Tax.
Fraz, I think you've drank too much of the fething coolaid if you think that "actual tea party information" exists in some form that doesn't simply mock them. Even on their own sites they look like conspiracy nutcases and ill educated whiny rednecks.
Nah. I'm trying to wean myself off discussing politics here.
Frazzled wrote:The Frazzled Effect. me likey.
I should apologize to Dogma. I could see him being in the repub party in college. I myself was in many clubs and organizations in college, signing and attendance directly proportional to the level of co-ed participation...
Note four things here:
1. I'm not liberal. Not by a long shot.
2. I only argue with you because your points tend to be wildly illogical, or generally ignorant of fact.
3. The majority of the liberal posters on this board (Shuma, Sebsters, etc.) don't make many factual errors. They tend to err via idealism, which is an issue of morality or judgment. This is par for the course.
4. The majority of conservative posters on here (You, Fateweaver, Envy89, etc.) love hyperbole, but don't seem to realize what it is. This is par for the course.
Frazzled wrote:The Frazzled Effect. me likey.
I should apologize to Dogma. I could see him being in the repub party in college. I myself was in many clubs and organizations in college, signing and attendance directly proportional to the level of co-ed participation...
Note four things here:
1. I'm not liberal. Not by a long shot.
2. I only argue with you because your points tend to be wildly illogical, or generally ignorant of fact.
3. The majority of the liberal posters on this board (Shuma, Sebsters, etc.) don't make many factual errors. They tend to err via idealism, which is an issue of morality or judgment. This is par for the course.
4. The majority of conservative posters on here (You, Fateweaver, Envy89, etc.) love hyperbole, but don't seem to realize what it is. This is par for the course.
1. I'm not liberal. Not by a long shot. 3. The majority of the liberal posters on this board (Shuma, Sebsters, etc.) don't make many factual errors. They tend to err via idealism, which is an issue of morality or judgment. This is par for the course.
1. I'm not liberal. Not by a long shot.
3. The majority of the liberal posters on this board (Shuma, Sebsters, etc.) don't make many factual errors. They tend to err via idealism, which is an issue of morality or judgment. This is par for the course.
Why does everyone always assume I'm a liberal?
only in your "learned" opinion.
That wasn't a very good comeback.
It was accurate though.
I never said I was good at playing snaps. I usually just hit them with a stick at this point.
Insofar as the term "learned opinion" is one of flattery and not derision.
I never said I was good at playing snaps. I usually just hit them with a stick at this point.
Just don't hit me in the head or face. I tend to get riled up when that occurs.
Its whatever you make it to be.
Don't worry Shuma I won't hit you with a stick. I have graduated to killer attack wiener dogs. They will gnaw on your big toe like nobody's business.
Frazzled wrote:
Mmm, harsh words from the personal trainer working in a gym. I don't know how I shall recover from this witty assault upon my person.
It wasn't meant to be witty, its a statement which describes my regard for your reasoning ability. You value your emotions far too much to be considered of sound mind. Unless you're simply putting on an act for internet.
Are you attempting to insult my profession? If so, that isn't very accurate. I manage the gym you're referring to.
Frazzled wrote:
Gave? No one gave me anything. I bought mine out of the candy ball machine like everyone else. We're talking at least $.50.
No, someone gave it to you. Even if the giving was the result of placing it in the candy machine.
Frazzled wrote:
Mmm, harsh words from the personal trainer working in a gym. I don't know how I shall recover from this witty assault upon my person.
It wasn't meant to be witty, its a statement which describes my regard for your reasoning ability. You value your emotions far too much to be considered of sound mind. Unless you're simply putting on an act for internet.
Are you attempting to insult my profession? If so, that isn't very accurate. I manage the gym you're referring to.
Frazzled wrote:
Gave? No one gave me anything. I bought mine out of the candy ball machine like everyone else. We're talking at least $.50.
No, someone gave it to you. Even if the giving was the result of placing it in the candy machine.
So the gym manager is questioning my sanity. I'm heartbroken. If you only knewme better you wouldn't have to question it.
Frazzled wrote:
So the gym manager is questioning my sanity. I'm heartbroken. If you only knewme better you wouldn't have to question it.
So you're going to question my knowledge of you as an internet persona, while simultaneously assuming that being a gym manage renders my ability to perform intellectual tasks suspect? That's cute.
You should really avoid addressing things which you could not possibly have knowledge of. It makes you look foolish, and it plays directly into my criticism of you.
Frazzled wrote:
No it was not given to me. I earned that $.50.
Frazzled wrote:
So the gym manager is questioning my sanity. I'm heartbroken. If you only knewme better you wouldn't have to question it.
So you're going to question my knowledge of you as an internet persona, while simultaneously assuming that being a gym manage renders my ability to perform intellectual tasks suspect? That's cute.
You should really avoid addressing things which you could not possibly have knowledge of. It makes you look foolish, and it plays directly into my criticism of you.
Kettle meet pot.
Frazzled wrote:
No it was not given to me. I earned that $.50.
Illusions are comforting, aren't they?
Well in my younger days I would have said yes, that this is all an illusion, God's dream. We're just bits of that dream and nothing, absoutely nothing matters.
Then I discovered chocolate tuxedo chessecake. Mmmm cakkkeeeee.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:$.50 for a law degree.
I think I'll go to Walmart and buy one tomorrow.
Naw, I don't want to be a lawyer. I'd rather be unemployed and hated by few than be a lawyer and hated by all.
Well with inflation the price has gone up, but look at it this way. if you think being a lawyer is bad you should try being a banker. We have to tell people we're serial killlers to avoid all the hate mail.
You're imagining things again. I've not insulted your profession, and you haven't provided any criticism of me. You've pretended towards McLintock!, but that doesn't actually describe anything beyond your own self-image.
You're imagining things again. I've not insulted your profession, and you haven't provided any criticism of me. You've pretended towards McLintock!, but that doesn't actually describe anything beyond your own self-image.
You've questioned my sanity among other things on this thread, and I should not reply?
You put forth statements as if your opinion is any better than other poster here. Just wanted to put your opinion in perspective from where its coming from. Neither you nor I are exactly Stephen Hawkings.
Besides only the wife can question my sanity, and the State of Texas but that was just a misunderstanding...
Frazzled wrote:
You've questioned my sanity among other things on this thread, and I should not reply?
No, you should reply in a way that is sensible. The phrase "kettle meet pot" implies that I took the same line of criticism that you did. I didn't, and you just admitted to that fact.
Frazzled wrote:
You put forth statements as if your opinion is any better than other poster here. Just wanted to put your opinion in perspective from where its coming from.
From a person? A person who's been published repeatedly in political science, philosophy, neuroscience, and gender studies? Einstein was a patent clerk.
Not that I'm claiming to be comparable to Einstein. Though it does strike me as amusing that you tend towards populism in all things that don't relate to intelligence.
Frazzled wrote:
Neither you nor I are exactly Stephen Hawkings.
Of course you don't know that, you're assuming it. Really, if you ever read Steven Hawking, I bet you would think less of him. You seem to think less of anyone who isn't of your academic standing (none).
Frazzled wrote:
Besides only the wife can question my sanity, and the State of Texas but that was just a misunderstanding...
Apparently I can as well. Because, you know, you just said that I did. Though I never actually did. I questioned your reasoning ability, that isn't sanity.
Frazzled wrote:
You've questioned my sanity among other things on this thread, and I should not reply?
No, you should reply in a way that is sensible. The phrase "kettle meet pot" implies that I took the same line of criticism that you did. I didn't, and you just admitted to that fact.
Frazzled wrote:
You put forth statements as if your opinion is any better than other poster here. Just wanted to put your opinion in perspective from where its coming from.
From a person? A person who's been published repeatedly in political science, philosophy, neuroscience, and gender studies? Einstein was a patent clerk.
Not that I'm claiming to be comparable to Einstein. Though it does strike me as amusing that you tend towards populism in all things that don't relate to intelligence.
Frazzled wrote:
Neither you nor I are exactly Stephen Hawkings.
Of course you don't know that, you're assuming it. Really, if you ever read Steven Hawking, I bet you would think less of him. You seem to think less of anyone who isn't of your academic standing (none).
Frazzled wrote:
Besides only the wife can question my sanity, and the State of Texas but that was just a misunderstanding...
Apparently I can as well. Because, you know, you just said that I did. Though I never actually did. I questioned your reasoning ability, that isn't sanity.
In any case, description is only an insult if it is taken as such. I cannot be faulted if you are uncomfortable with your own nature.
Slick words like an eel. At least man up about and admit you play in the mud like the rest of us and can't resist the insults in covered speech. Oh well. Back to putting you on ignore.
Come now lads, lets find something we can all hate together! How about C.S. Goto? He is someone we can all have a mutual disgust for, so lets put this all behind us eh?
My god, you really have no grasp of what's going on here, do you? You have all these sad preconceptions about me, and my nature that you're using to judge me without even bothering to pay attention to what I write.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Come now lads, lets find something we can all hate together! How about C.S. Goto? He is someone we can all have a mutual disgust for, so lets put this all behind us eh?
Is he the one who wrote abut kids putting rocks in the gunnbarrels of falcons. He really does suck.
(Takes deep breath) ok. Calming down.
If you want to talk about the Tea Party. Talk about the actual party, potential positions, the synthesis of a potential new party, co-opt by the Big Two just saying they are all loons is stupid and both parties do so at their peril.
JEB_Stuart wrote:Come now lads, lets find something we can all hate together! How about C.S. Goto? He is someone we can all have a mutual disgust for, so lets put this all behind us eh?
Fraz, if you're going to post in the thread, only doing so to say "nuh uh" is not productive, or constructive. If you want to participate in the discussion of an article, and you're going to assert that there are better sources of information about the subject matter, it behooves you to cite some. As Shuma pointed out, even going to a website in favor of the movement and quoting directly from their own public statements doesn't do them any favors. They come off as paranoic and delusional.
dogma wrote:3. The majority of the liberal posters on this board (Shuma, Sebsters, etc.) don't make many factual errors.
That's the nicest thing anybody has ever said about me.
dogma wrote:It wasn't meant to be witty, its a statement which describes my regard for your reasoning ability. You value your emotions far too much to be considered of sound mind. Unless you're simply putting on an act for internet.
I think people can approach use very different approaches to different parts of their lives. I know a medical researcher who (as near as I can tell anyway, I have to admit most of his stuff goes way over my head) is extremely good at what he does. He's also a 9/11 truther. If you switch from one topic to the other the difference in approach is incredible, completely different mindset, he goes from giving balanced, considered arguments to wild speculation, there's even a change in his tone of voice.
The first is the result of having a mindset beaten in to him by his profession. You simply learn to give balanced, considered analysis or you get drummed out of the field. The latter has no consequences for poor methodology, and as consequence he has no discipline.
I have no problem believing Fraz could be a decent lawyer, despite his methods of arguing on-line.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:If you want to talk about the Tea Party. Talk about the actual party, potential positions, the synthesis of a potential new party, co-opt by the Big Two just saying they are all loons is stupid and both parties do so at their peril.
So my earlier summary, that the party started as a response by core Republican voters, mostly movement conservatives, to the failure of the GOP to hold to their values, particularly fiscally... is that more or less what you think?
sebster wrote:
I think people can approach use very different approaches to different parts of their lives. I know a medical researcher who (as near as I can tell anyway, I have to admit most of his stuff goes way over my head) is extremely good at what he does. He's also a 9/11 truther. If you switch from one topic to the other the difference in approach is incredible, completely different mindset, he goes from giving balanced, considered arguments to wild speculation, there's even a change in his tone of voice.
The first is the result of having a mindset beaten in to him by his profession. You simply learn to give balanced, considered analysis or you get drummed out of the field. The latter has no consequences for poor methodology, and as consequence he has no discipline.
I have no problem believing Fraz could be a decent lawyer, despite his methods of arguing on-line.
There is truth in what you say. As evidenced by my forays into physics, and chemistry.
The issue with the Tea Party currently is that its still forming, still nascent. Its a clarion call for all non left disaffected groups. Whether this forms into a coherent new party, collapses ala the Perot Party, or is pre-empted by the Republicans, remains to be seen. Much of their agenda (cut spending, cut taxes, represent middle America) is actually Libertarian and anti elite Republican.
But the Republicans, and Democrats need to remember, this is how both of their parties formed. The Republicans were nutbag fringers when they formed, shortly after to gain power and that resulting Civil War nastiness. On the positive they freed the slaves so achieved their primary goal.
But for the sake of that movement, don't let Palin co-opt it.
ahhh thank you shuma as I had been wondering what all that was about. Seems to me that this "Tea Party" is a right wing anti-gov't group. Now they may claim love in the form of gov't just not the current one, and it is as an American their inalieable right if the gov't is deemed to outlive its usefullness for the people to overthrow it, but thse people just remind me of some extremist. Seems more like the white supremists have found a new legit outlet to voice themselves without being labeld nut jobs.
thats from the detractors. From the movement itself:
One viewpoint (which screams both Libertarian and Perot):
Tea Party Patriots
Mission Statement and Core Values
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Core Values
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets
Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject it's citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.
Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.
Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.
Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.
Though I agree big gov't isn't always the best thing, people forget that without it a lot of our basic ness. wouldn't be there since big gov't supplies funding for it. By what you described they really attribute a lot fo their beliefs to the founding fathers if I am corect in that assumption. If this is the case they need to think because when we free ourselves from england we had no where NEAR the population per capita we have now. Plus that wack jobs statement saying we may as well have england back is so assinine I don't even know what to say. Lets look at their taxes currently vs. ours... hrmmm yep I'll stick with what we have.
Ok, I consider myself pretty moderate in my political views but a political party that has a such an epic fail for a member makes me wonder. I know she is old but come on.
Most likely this picture is going to earn me a warning
Don't know if she is member and I am not saying that the movement is incorrect. However, have you noticed that people with to much time on their hands end up producing these kinds of signs to show their support. Or, she could have known what the term meant and her grandkids would be shocked and ashamed of grandma back in the day.
Considering that under-regulation was at the root of financial crisis, then limited government is idiocy. The problem is that not all regulation is equal, and regulation determined by a political process of compromise will always be compromised. Likewise a balanced budget is pointless unless balancing the budget has a positive effect on both the current economic situation and the future economic climate.
Part of the problem with touting things such as limited government and balanced budgets as good things is that you presume them to be ends in themselves, rather than means to ends that can be either good or bad.
Frazzled wrote:Yes idiocies like limited government and a budget thats balanced.
Yes, and the white supremacists league talks about limited government and fiscal responsibility too. A movement can say all it wants. The reality often times, and especially here, is starkly different.
Frazzled wrote:The issue with the Tea Party currently is that its still forming, still nascent. Its a clarion call for all non left disaffected groups. Whether this forms into a coherent new party, collapses ala the Perot Party, or is pre-empted by the Republicans, remains to be seen. Much of their agenda (cut spending, cut taxes, represent middle America) is actually Libertarian and anti elite Republican.
But we've had the disaffected right wing making noises about forming their own party before. They were very vocal during the Clinton administration, but suddenly got very quiet when Bush took office. Now they're back again.
I'm not saying this isn't different, but that we don't know yet and it will take time to tell.
But for the sake of that movement, don't let Palin co-opt it.
Yes. And let them be just as vocal during a Republican government, and then they might be on their way to being something like a third force.
Frazzled wrote:I like how a group of people who would never darken the doors of Republican meeting, much less a Tea Party protest, are discussing the merits of the Tea Party, based on an article from the rag Newsweek.
I was a member of the Young Republicans in college. Yeah. Think about that for a few minutes.
I've also been to a couple Tea Party meetings.
hence the name?
Young Republicans are on the same level as homeless philanthropists as far as believability. Young Republicans in my college were jerks. Seriously. That's just the way they were. Funny how you can whine about fiscal responsibility when you live in a friggin dorm, right? I don't think that statement really helps your cause here. Welcome to the tea-party republicans... They hate black people, they hate taxes, and they love anyone who will bring down their unwanted reality.
A tricorn hat? are you serious?
I play in a rock band and I wouldn't even step on stage wearing something so stupid and obvious.
Maybe that's the theme: STUPID AND OBVIOUS (WOOT!)
if its stupid and obvious enough, then some elderly folks who remember the days when they could drink from the 'uncolored' fountain will jump on the brainless bandwagon and all sway stories about how god made white people conquer the indians or whatever. The tea party was really about the pope and king George and some Aliens too right?
Guitardian wrote:hence the name?
Young Republicans are on the same level as homeless philanthropists as far as believability. Young Republicans in my college were jerks. Seriously. That's just the way they were. Funny how you can whine about fiscal responsibility when you live in a friggin dorm, right? I don't think that statement really helps your cause here. Welcome to the tea-party republicans... They hate black people, they hate taxes, and they love anyone who will bring down their unwanted reality.
To be fair, all student politics is ridiculous and full of hate for the evil enemy that only exists in their mind.
I've been to Socialist Youth meetings (hot girls). I've been to Young Liberal meetings (the Liberal are our version of the Republican, it refers to a belief in a liberal economy unhindered by government). I joined because my sister's boyfriend was trying to get a mate put on the party's list of applicants for the State senate and they needed to come from an electorate with a minimum party size, I have no idea who paid my $30 membership fee because I certainly wasn't going to. I went along to some meetings to see if they were as crazy as people said - they are. I also went along to Young Labor meetings, just because of the fun I'd had at the other meetings. I am a member of the Communist Party, a mate and I were arguing over whether there was a Communist Party in Australia so we looked it up on-line and the membership button was right there...
For the record, the Young Liberals had the most poor members, while the Socialists had the most middle and upper class members. They're all completely crazy, although the Socialists are certainly the funniest (unintentionally), the Liberals put on the best food, and Young Labor is the most boring. In time they all grow up, except the Communists, they're adults who are still celebrating the coup in which the Bolsheviks siezed power in Russia as a great moment in the history of the worker's struggle. Those guys are just ridiculous.
We don't have nearly so many parties over here as you guys do over there. Reductionism is the American Way I guess. Pretty much, it comes down to here: Liberals want health care, republicans want bank bailouts. Libs are generally poor or middle class people who know how to deal with a gak lot in life and expect the govt to jump in, while pubs are eirther over-bibled hicksters or well-to-do white collars who don't want anyones hands on their 'well-earned' money. Pick a side of the fence right? lousy commie or self absorbed hippocrite? Welcome to America.
Guitardian wrote:
hence the name?
Young Republicans are on the same level as homeless philanthropists as far as believability. Young Republicans in my college were jerks. Seriously. That's just the way they were. Funny how you can whine about fiscal responsibility when you live in a friggin dorm, right? I don't think that statement really helps your cause here. Welcome to the tea-party republicans... They hate black people, they hate taxes, and they love anyone who will bring down their unwanted reality.
A tricorn hat? are you serious?
I play in a rock band and I wouldn't even step on stage wearing something so stupid and obvious.
Maybe that's the theme: STUPID AND OBVIOUS (WOOT!)
if its stupid and obvious enough, then some elderly folks who remember the days when they could drink from the 'uncolored' fountain will jump on the brainless bandwagon and all sway stories about how god made white people conquer the indians or whatever. The tea party was really about the pope and king George and some Aliens too right?
Sarah Palin sold what? A couple million books? While a couple million is a large-ish number it hardly accounts for the rest of the country's point of view about her. Monica Lewinsky sold a bunch of books too and I don't see anyone giving a crap about her any more since Clinton left office. Sarah Palin has less people caring what she thinks than Harry Potter fans, yet she has the right people in the right places caring, which puts her on the news, which in turn makes people think she's a big deal. The only people I've seen who take her seriously, or the 'teabagger' agenda seriously, are bonafide ignorant hicks. Lets pray they don't get in charge... Oh wait.. that's their department, the whole praying thing. We need it back in public schools or god won't make the nixxers balance the budget for all the moose hunters and their slowed children's nobel prize special olympics under the guise of healthcare, or their accidental daughter-mom underage kid who gets healthcare for her baby because her mom is a rich book 'writer' with people to ghost write for her because she's too busy defending our borders against russia by hunting bears from a helicopter.
God will sort all of that out just so long as the teabaggers get their act together and all pray at the same time... like... at election time.
Guitardian wrote:Sarah Palin sold what? A couple million books? While a couple million is a large-ish number it hardly accounts for the rest of the country's point of view about her. Monica Lewinsky sold a bunch of books too and I don't see anyone giving a crap about her any more since Clinton left office. Sarah Palin has less people caring what she thinks than Harry Potter fans, yet she has the right people in the right places caring, which puts her on the news, which in turn makes people think she's a big deal. The only people I've seen who take her seriously, or the 'teabagger' agenda seriously, are bonafide ignorant hicks. Lets pray they don't get in charge... Oh wait.. that's their department, the whole praying thing. We need it back in public schools or god won't make the nixxers balance the budget for all the moose hunters and their slowed children's nobel prize special olympics under the guise of healthcare, or their accidental daughter-mom underage kid who gets healthcare for her baby because her mom is a rich book 'writer' with people to ghost write for her because she's too busy defending our borders against russia by hunting bears from a helicopter.
God will sort all of that out just so long as the teabaggers get their act together and all pray at the same time... like... at election time.
Mannahnin wrote:Guitardian is my new favorite funny poster.
Tis good to know. I was thinking I'd be banned or something...
here's another good one for ya: If we turn off the active desktop, the terrorists have already won... maybe not so relevant, but it made me laugh when I saw it scrawled on a comp box with a sharpie marker... (right next to the 'please do not sacrifice to Cthulu' message)... yes that computer existed and that, in itself, is just awesome...
Mannahnin wrote:Guitardian is my new favorite funny poster.
Tis good to know. I was thinking I'd be banned or something...
here's another good one for ya: If we turn off the active desktop, the terrorists have already won... maybe not so relevant, but it made me laugh when I saw it scrawled on a comp box with a sharpie marker... (right next to the 'please do not sacrifice to Cthulu' message)... yes that computer existed and that, in itself, is just awesome...
Oh, it's no protection from banning. If we find you amusing we're more likely to look for your posts. And if you flame someone or use inappropriate language, we still have to treat you just the same.
Warning accepted, and I don't know anyone well enough to bother flaming stuff so don't worry. About innapropriate language however, I don't quite understand 'innapropriate' in the same way as the rest of the hoomaan species, so please forgive my accidental screwups... meanwhile... did you guys hear about that piper cherokee versus office space incident? I was half asleep when it showed up on the news... I'm just waiting to see who is first to jump on the blamegame wagon... Last week it was kidnapped haitian orphans, this week it's a plane crashing into a bunch of telemarketers... next week it will be a plane piloted by orphans into a nascar rally because of teabagging activists. where do we go from here?
The Onion wrote:Tea Party Movement Hopelessly Divided Into Enraged, Apoplectic Factions
WASHINGTON—Organizers of the Tea Party movement, a group opposed to the federal government’s attempts to alleviate the ongoing financial crisis through increased spending and taxation, announced today that their members have split down reactionary lines into those who are apoplectic in regard to the Obama administration and those who are merely enraged. “This rift is absolutely irresolvable,” screamed red-faced events coordinator Daniel Hume, head of the movement’s apoplectic faction. “We believe that now is simply not the time to be irrationally furious about unprecedented economic policies that have had little more than a year to start showing any signs of effectiveness. Now is the time to be foaming-at-the-mouth, incoherently livid about them.” A third camp of angry protesters had reportedly emerged from the recent upheaval, but its entire membership tragically died from massive brain aneurysms shortly after the group formed.
WASHINGTON, DC—In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction.
"We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul."
Enlarge Image Democrats image
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reaffirms the Democratic Party’s promise to remain marginalized.
"We can lose this," Reid added. "All it takes is a little lack of backbone."
Despite plummeting poll numbers for the G.O.P nationwide and an upcoming election in which all House seats and 33 Senate seats are up for contention, Democrats pledged to maintain their party's sheepish resignation.
"In times like these, when the American public is palpably dismayed with the political status quo, it is crucial that Democrats remain unfocused and defer to the larger, smarter, and better-equipped Republican machine," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said. "If we play our cards right, we will be intimidated to the point of total paralysis."
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) cited the Bush Administration's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina as a model for Democrats.
"Grandmothers drowning in nursing homes, families losing everything, communities torn apart—and the ruling party just sat and watched," Lieberman said. "I'm here to promise that we Democrats will find a way to let you down just like that."
According to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Democrats are not willing to sacrifice their core values—indecision, incoherence, and disorganization—for the sake of short-term electoral gain.
"Don't lose faithlessness, Democrats," Kennedy said. "The next election is ours to lose. To those who say we can't, I say: Remember Michael Dukakis. Remember Al Gore. Remember John Kerry."
Kennedy said that, even if the Democrats were to regain the upper hand in the midterm elections, they would still need to agree on a platform and chart a legislative agenda—an obstacle he called "insurmountable."
"Universal health care, the war in Iraq, civil liberties, a living wage, gun control—we're not even close to a consensus within our own ranks," Kennedy said. "And even if we were, we wouldn't know how to implement that consensus."
Enlarge Image Democrats image
Democratic Party faithful cheer on their leaders’ resolutely defeatist agenda.
"Some rising stars with leadership potential like [Sen. Barack] Obama (D-IL) and [New York State Attorney General Eliot] Spitzer have emerged, but don't worry: We've still got some infight left in us," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said. "Over the last decade, we've found a reliably losing formula, and we're sticking with it."
Dean reminded Democratic candidates to "stay on our unclear message, maintain a defensive, reactive posture, and keep an elitist distance from voters."
Political consultant and Democratic operative James Carville said that, if properly disseminated, the message of hopelessness could be the Democrats' most effective in more than a decade.
"For the first time in a long time, we're really connecting with the American people, who are also feeling hopeless," Carville said. "If we can harness that and run on it in '06, I believe we can finish a strong second."
Hey Fraz, nice job going after the poster instead of arguing against their argument!
That said, most of the rhetoric in the note is more akin to Libertarian stuff (especially the overall hate for taxes and the government), which is not the same as the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement seems to be a bit of a catch-all right now, including Libertarians but also including a lot of other anti-government and reactionary conservative elements. There are some parts of the note (like support for government healthcare, and anti-religious ranting) which really don’t resemble anything coming out of the Tea Party.
Mannahnin wrote:Hey Fraz, nice job going after the poster instead of arguing against their argument!
That said, most of the rhetoric in the note is more akin to Libertarian stuff (especially the overall hate for taxes and the government), which is not the same as the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement seems to be a bit of a catch-all right now, including Libertarians but also including a lot of other anti-government and reactionary conservative elements. There are some parts of the note (like support for government healthcare, and anti-religious ranting) which really don’t resemble anything coming out of the Tea Party.
I had to go get some coffee to mellow out.
Read the frigging note Molotov. Its a ranting raving mess all other the place with as amany lefty references as rightwinger. he was a raving nutjob who tried to burn his family alive, and you trying to tie him to a party. Read first and quit trying to score cheap political points on the bodies of dead and missing. Have you no shame!
I'd better stop before I tell you what I really think.
I'd better stop before I tell you what I really think.
And yet you don't bat an eyelash when people say liberals are trying to capitulate and aid terrorists. Double standard much? Or do you have fateweaver on ignore.
Mannahnin wrote:Hey Fraz, nice job going after the poster instead of arguing against their argument!
That said, most of the rhetoric in the note is more akin to Libertarian stuff (especially the overall hate for taxes and the government), which is not the same as the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement seems to be a bit of a catch-all right now, including Libertarians but also including a lot of other anti-government and reactionary conservative elements. There are some parts of the note (like support for government healthcare, and anti-religious ranting) which really don’t resemble anything coming out of the Tea Party.
While some forms of libertarianism are pretty hostile towards religion (Rand), the support for government healthcare, and tacit support for Marx's communist doctrine, seem to skew him away from it. He also blame collusion between companies not having been stopped by the local justice department, and specifically criticises capitalism, rather than some sort of "mockery of capitalism". He has a very strong populist feeling to him, and this makes him seem more "tea party" than traditional Libertarian to me, although I don't think he can be said to be of either group, really.
The guy really must have snapped at the end. Even if you accept the need to kill a bunch of people to get everyone to listen to you, his plan for doing so was stupid. He was an engineer, he should have had a better idea of how much damage his small plane would do (not a whole lot, if you compare it to the Fort Hood shooter, or another major attack). Starting your own house on fire (with your family inside) doesn't make any sense either, it just makes you look even crazier than you otherwise would.
I think libertarians on the surface just don't like rules. If they come from religion (Rand's gripe) or governance (Limbaugh's gripe) or nextdoor neighbors (my gripe), its still just rules: therefore it's stepping on your freedoms.
Isn't it more important to challenge bad rules instead of just challenging the authority that makes them, just because it's rules? Some rules are bad, but not all rules are bad, and I think the common "I HATE AUTHORITY!" anarchist needs to remember that everything in life needs a level of order to it, otherwise nothing makes sense. But the libertarian version is more like "I HATE AUTHORITY... when it doesn't do my self interest". I know many anarchists, protesters, step-up types who would pee on a cop car if given half a chance, but none of them are as selfish as a person who would protest health care because THEY don't need it. All those Teabaggers would think a lot differently if they had to go to dialysis (which happens to old fat people sooner or later so count yer days gramps) and then have the bills in the mail and wonder why every other nation capable has public healthcare just not us. (we get tanks instead)
Geee... shucks.. awww thats lame... I had to go into the hospital at 64 instead of 65 years old... if only i had waited a week for my birthday my kid would still have a house...
Republican moneygrubbers need to spend a summer living under a bridge or a bush or something and THEN they can talk about fiscal responsibility. Until then all they get from me is spit in the face and attitude, but that's okay... because 'certain' taxes... like having me arrested for spitting on em... those are okay... other taxes, like for instance helping my GFs dying dad in the hospital aren't okay? I want to take a baseball batt and go beat the mess out of a horde of old grouchy golfers at a teabagging party until the cops show up and remind them that taxes are there for a reason.
Guitardian wrote: I want to take a baseball batt and go beat the mess out of a horde of old grouchy golfers at a teabagging party until the cops show up and remind them that taxes are there for a reason.
I wouldn't try that. Tea party/libertarians tend to be more heavily armed. You'd end up very dead. Or you can try that and find out for yourself.
While true, that is yet still very true. That's what's so scary about these people getting together. Do you think a man could get away with going to a Bush rally with a loaded gun and a sign that says "my right" or whatever it said along those lines? I wouldn't actually beat up old golfers to prove that health care matters... just their kids. It's sad that the most newsworthy new 'party' is getting talked about all over the place when they don't really have any new ideas, just gun waving and flag belching one liners from Americas greatest irrelevant mom, and a bunch of superstitious hicks that think muslims will end the world if we don't make prayer in school a policy and so on. I never really thought tea was the issue in the first place, it had more to do with self governance. Or maybe revisionist history and dumbed down No-Child-Left-(behind?) education has made that less relevant nowadays.
Nononono got it all wrong man; out here in the sticks, we actually fire raccoons and the occasional deer at pickup trucks on the WAY to their hunting turf. Everyone thinks its roadkill but the vegetarians know better.
Don't go out and fight a tea party protest. Just find someone who identifies themselves as a teapartier and beat them up. Neither action has any effect to stem the movement, but it would probably feel really good.
Isnt the 'stem' of the movement actually, eventually the problem? That's what is worrisome.. that it even exists because half our country is brain-dead god-bothering-hicks with front seats on busses, window shades on their golf carts, and careless attitudes towards the 'have-nots' out of sheer greed and ignorance that was personified by their 'greatest generation'. GUESS WHAT GRAMPS I DONT GIVE A FLYING (ahem) IF YOU WERE COOK ON A SHIP WHILE DDAY WAS GOING ON, CUZ I WAS A MACE SPRAYED COP BEATEN HOMELESS FORK DURING THAT PROTEST THAT YOU GUYS JUST WATCHED ON THE NEWS. Old people need to grow up. Tiger Woods already proved that golf isn't necessarilly good xtian beaver cleaver ethical either, what more do they need?
Isnt the 'stem' of the movement actually, eventually the problem? That's what is worrisome.. that it even exists because half our country is brain-dead god-bothering-hicks with front seats on busses, window shades on their golf carts, and careless attitudes towards the 'have-nots' out of sheer greed and ignorance that was personified by their 'greatest generation'.
We've always had that, Americans were never at their smartest when you're just talking to some joe on the street. The big issue with the tea parties is the coverage they can now receive due to an incredibly business oriented and polarized media industry both enabling their message to get out (Because it's good television to both praise and mock the tea parties) and reinforce it's own view as a legitimate movement. The internet has also greatly enabled the tea parties to flourish by providing them safe channels to communicate en masse, relatively free from scrutiny or harassment.
GUESS WHAT GRAMPS I DONT GIVE A FLYING (ahem) IF YOU WERE COOK ON A SHIP WHILE DDAY WAS GOING ON, CUZ I WAS A MACE SPRAYED COP BEATEN HOMELESS FORK DURING THAT PROTEST THAT YOU GUYS JUST WATCHED ON THE NEWS
Caps lock.
Old people need to grow up.
The tea parties aren't composed entirely of the elderly.
Tiger Woods already proved that golf isn't necessarilly good xtian beaver cleaver ethical either, what more do they need?
That guy rocks so hard in ways that he does not and will not ever know. Or maybe they do just make it up as an excuse to go out and eat hot dogs or something. Scary thought. I wan't to make one up: American Taxpayers are the reason Oprah has no space marines under my chair! yeah that one was pretty lame, but almost as relevant I guess.
He told me to shut up once, but only because I was about to puke on him at a kegger.
Actually the real story is a tad different. Back when he was senator Obama instead of president elect Obama I was on a political volunteer thing for the newspapers that was keeping busy dealing with Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama standoff (or beatdown, depending on how you revise history) usually debunking myths - and there were lots... and we were told that our language was too strong for him to him to approve of our letters. That was none too surprising to him, or myself, and really not a big deal. I tried to get a Jonathan Swift essay removed from the curriculum too but it fell on deaf ears because the essay in question was all about eating deaf people, (or the otherwise disenfranchised unfortunates of the species). Point being, we were SILENCED! (and still kept campaigning for him)
Guitardian wrote: I know many anarchists, protesters, step-up types who would pee on a cop car if given half a chance, but none of them are as selfish as a person who would protest health care because THEY don't need it. All those Teabaggers would think a lot differently if they had to go to dialysis (which happens to old fat people sooner or later so count yer days gramps) and then have the bills in the mail and wonder why every other nation capable has public healthcare just not us. (we get tanks instead)
If only it was as simple as the anti-healthcare teapartiers being hypocrites. Many are drawn from the ranks of the poor and unemployed, and do not have insurance.
The teapartiers ran fairly heavily with the story of Kenneth Gladney, who claimed to be hurt during a protest (video footage shows him more or less unharmed, but that’s besides the point here). Despite not actually going to hospital, the next day he turned up in a wheelchair and complained about the treatment he copped, and in between attacks on healthcare advocates he asked for donations from fellow teapartiers for his hospital bills – as he was unemployed and didn’t have insurance. He was at a rally opposed to giving him healthcare.
The power of the American myth that you’ll make be rich soon is very powerful, and frequently results in the poor voting against their own interests.
Well, they're named after the Boston Tea Party. My guess is they started out calling themselves the tea party, got called teabaggers by people making fun of them, didn't know they were being made fun of and so used the name themselves, then slowly figured it out.
Guitardian wrote:Isnt the 'stem' of the movement actually, eventually the problem? That's what is worrisome.. that it even exists because half our country is brain-dead god-bothering-hicks with front seats on busses, window shades on their golf carts, and careless attitudes towards the 'have-nots' out of sheer greed and ignorance that was personified by their 'greatest generation'. GUESS WHAT GRAMPS I DONT GIVE A FLYING (ahem) IF YOU WERE COOK ON A SHIP WHILE DDAY WAS GOING ON, CUZ I WAS A MACE SPRAYED COP BEATEN HOMELESS FORK DURING THAT PROTEST THAT YOU GUYS JUST WATCHED ON THE NEWS. Old people need to grow up. Tiger Woods already proved that golf isn't necessarilly good xtian beaver cleaver ethical either, what more do they need?
what are you, umpteen? Stupid question. Yeah age has a lot of bearing on how percieve age I suppose. The fact that there are a lot more old grouchy jerks than young grouchy jerks makes me a bit prejudicial in assumptions. Younger generations did not grow up assuming that life was leav-it-to-beaver and expecting the government to be 'good' and 'right' and 'american values' and all that crap. Superman died and wolverine and marilyn manson took over. It's just how time works. When I see old people protesting I think "oh great, someone is threatening their health care strangle hold monopoly again. Great that the AARP can dictate mass movements of otherwise uncaring people." when young people protest they throw rocks at cops, turn over cars, and let the cops know that police brutality is not okay, or that WTO can go fork itself for all we care (yeah I was at that one too). I guess what I'm saying is that its a different standard of interests represented by the generational gap. Sorry I cannot be more eloquent right now, I'm 13.
Guitardian wrote:what are you, umpteen? Stupid question. Yeah age has a lot of bearing on how percieve age I suppose. The fact that there are a lot more old grouchy jerks than young grouchy jerks makes me a bit prejudicial in assumptions. Younger generations did not grow up assuming that life was leav-it-to-beaver and expecting the government to be 'good' and 'right' and 'american values' and all that crap. Superman died and wolverine and marilyn manson took over. It's just how time works. When I see old people protesting I think "oh great, someone is threatening their health care strangle hold monopoly again. Great that the AARP can dictate mass movements of otherwise uncaring people." when young people protest they throw rocks at cops, turn over cars, and let the cops know that police brutality is not okay, or that WTO can go fork itself for all we care (yeah I was at that one too). I guess what I'm saying is that its a different standard of interests represented by the generational gap. Sorry I cannot be more eloquent right now, I'm 13.
In all fairness, even if you aren't 13, you come across as someone who has no idea what they are talking about so they create extremes (there is really only young and old?) and use stereotypes (old people be like this, while young people be all like this) as well as using examples that are not that relevant (Leave it To Beaver? Really?). These are common among younger less savvy humans who are trying to figure out how to use the information they are given. Though this is obliviously not exclusive to Jonas Brother fans, it is very common. Your complete disregard for punctuation and other simple grammatical conventions which adds to the consideration of impetuous youth because you don't realize how you present yourself will also dictate how you will be received. Mariyln Manson? This also shows a level of immaturity and youth. Either you are to young to realize how marginalized he really is, just how long he's been around, and don't recognize that musicians like him have been around a long time. He doesn't represent some strange cultural touchstone any more than Alice Cooper did. Is there irony in youth picking a middle aged man to represent their youth? Wolverine has been around for 36 years and Manson is over 40.
He's clearly venting stream of consciousness in part in an attempt at humor. Some of it's funny, too.
Seb- yeah, the "official" name was always the Tea Party movement, in reference to the famous historical event in my neck of the woods. Tea baggers was always a parodic/polemical nickname.
Mannahnin wrote:He's clearly venting stream of consciousness in part in an attempt at humor. Some of it's funny, too.
I don't know how clear it is. It seems to be maybe a hope on your part that that is what is happening.
Mannahnin wrote:Seb- yeah, the "official" name was always the Tea Party movement, in reference to the famous historical event in my neck of the woods. Tea baggers was always a parodic/polemical nickname.
I've always enjoyed that they took that hane but have a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual events at the Boston Tea Party. Shays' Rebellion would have probably been a better analogue. That would mean knowing more than the kindergarten version of events of course.
Mannahnin wrote:He's clearly venting stream of consciousness in part in an attempt at humor. Some of it's funny, too.
I don't know how clear it is. It seems to be maybe a hope on your part that that is what is happening.
Mannahnin wrote:Seb- yeah, the "official" name was always the Tea Party movement, in reference to the famous historical event in my neck of the woods. Tea baggers was always a parodic/polemical nickname.
I've always enjoyed that they took that hane but have a fundamental misunderstanding of the actual events at the Boston Tea Party. Shays' Rebellion would have probably been a better analogue. That would mean knowing more than the kindergarten version of events of course.
Yea but Shea's rebellion didn't have as happy an ending, although defintiely more the Frazzled's style.
"Get a rope."
-Washington, on hearing the farmers were proffering yankee store bought picante sauce.
@Ahtman. Sorry if it seems convoluted and juvenile, but that's what the problem with generation gaps is, isn't it? extremes exist because they are real, and what it 'looks like' to some condescending elder is just not an issue to me, nor should it be.
Are we more 'mature' because we don't look at things like middle ground? Extremes and dichotomies are there because people needed to create them. Why does that make me this insular demon you seem to think I am?
Punctuation is a litttle difficult on this box, so forgive my misgivings and find a better attack bud.
Guitardian, you will tend to find that proper punctuation and clear writing in your posts will almost universally get a better reception. If you are trying to be serious, it's usually worth the effort.
Guitardian wrote:@Ahtman. Sorry if it seems convoluted and juvenile, but that's what the problem with generation gaps is, isn't it? extremes exist because they are real, and what it 'looks like' to some condescending elder is just not an issue to me, nor should it be.
Are we more 'mature' because we don't look at things like middle ground? Extremes and dichotomies are there because people needed to create them. Why does that make me this insular demon you seem to think I am?
Punctuation is a litttle difficult on this box, so forgive my misgivings and find a better attack bud.
Actually you just sound ranty ravy like the radicals you're trying to make fun of.
Sorry if it seems convoluted and juvenile, but that's what the problem with generation gaps is, isn't it? extremes exist because they are real, and what it 'looks like' to some condescending elder is just not an issue to me, nor should it be.
I'm not much older than you presumably, and from where I sit you're a little soap box crazy.
Why does that make me this insular demon you seem to think I am?
It doesn't help that you are framing others arguments to fit your own by proclaiming a form of persecution.
Punctuation is a litttle difficult on this box, so forgive my misgivings and find a better attack bud.
Box? What are you on an xbox? Don't most keyboards come with punctuation keys?
Persecution was never assumed. You guys are cool. I think what we are talking about is why and who these people are in the first place. Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.
Guitardian wrote:Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.
Dissection of a movement generally involves statistical evidence, not opinion. Granted, there isn't a whole lot of statistical evidence about the Tea Party, but that doesn't imply that we should make judgments with what lies at hand.
Guitardian wrote:Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.
Dissection of a movement generally involves statistical evidence, not opinion. Granted, there isn't a whole lot of statistical evidence about the Tea Party, but that doesn't imply that we should make judgments with what lies at hand.
Guitardian wrote:Disect the population and we get the resultant answer.
Dissection of a movement generally involves statistical evidence, not opinion. Granted, there isn't a whole lot of statistical evidence about the Tea Party, but that doesn't imply that we should make judgments with what lies at hand.
I used em in doom but in the real world, the noise is hellish. (but it did a heckuva job knocking out 2 acres of trees in a day!) Okayyyy then: new concept: are socialists self serving, society serving BY being self serving? Are populists really just out for their own good and finding other people who are equally out for their own different good? All the 'isms' become confusing. Libertarianism has become meaningless because nobody wants to pay a parking ticket yet everyone wants roads. I'm so confused when I see these FoxNews and MSNBC shows. I can't even remember who is mad at who any more as far as name dropping, just that I don't like old rich selfish people barring my girlfriend's dad from having it. Maybe that makes me a jerk but I have to watch him die because someone else wants to be taxed less, but still play golf or whatever random thing they do with their excess money. I just watched a bunch of news guys argueing over the difference between socialism and communism to the point where I became confused myself. I think within 10 years we won't have dems versus pubs we'll have socialists versus populists, just as a redefining of roles in society... just needs to get a new word for it or whatever you legally define, the real issue is greedy versus selfish? Or do people actually care about other people's greediness versus selfishness?
Isn't that self serving too though? Classes exist for the benefit of the people who belong to them, at the expense of the people who belong underneath them. It never goes backwards (except maybe for cats, who get worshipped despite being formidably dumb from time to time)
Reversely, forming classes is a reward system that, ideally, respects the most able and their contribution to society, while giving a pat on the head and a shortbus to the unable contributors just so they can feel better about themselves when they hit the sack, all the while wondering why the big brothers bother.
Neither seems like a good system of morality to me. I guess the problem is in the need to babysit a neighbors kid (which I have which I have wished a chainsaw upon in missions earlier in life), thinking that it is for the greater good, but then wondering what you get out of the greater good.... Yay, five bucks to plug back into a system I thought was dumb in the first place... yet still contribute to because I live in it... but when III need something from the taxing system etc I just get a parking fine so I can pay my local cops to act like dicks to me, or a legal fee for needing a lawyer cuz some other stupid user-of-the-system who ran me over but had good insurance, or, or, pick your dilemma, right?
I want to love people, but I want them to love me too, and it has to be a two way exchange... but, paradoxically, it doesn't have to be a two way exchange if you love somebody regardless (hence the existance of the Shortbus) so you get all complicated about who is worth loving... and then government steps in and says you're worth loving if you're 65, or have golf clubs and friends, or etc.... While everyone under the bridge just wonders why and get mad that they don't have things their nextdoor neighbor do. (hmmm... I have a chainsaw, he has a leafblower... but to his advantage he has short conservative hair and a 'regular' job and a brother on the small town police force, so I doubt if my efforts would get far.... If not, who are we? Even Jesus got pissed when he heard Creed for the first time.
Classes exist for the benefit of the people who belong to them, at the expense of the people who belong underneath them.
Classes do not have an inherent value scale, and in most class based societies in history there have been multiple classes of roughly equivalent social status.
what, like slaves and such? I'm pretty sure if you asked a medieval self who was in charge he'd point at the big golf course looking thing on the mountain nearby.
Guitardian wrote:what, like slaves and such? I'm pretty sure if you asked a medieval self who was in charge he'd point at the big golf course looking thing on the mountain nearby.
And if I asked a Kshatriya in the 12th century india who was of a higher caste, he or a vaishyas he would likely have the opposite answer as the vaishya. If I asked an ancient persian merchant who was of higher standing, he or the local priest I would find the same issue. Not all forms of governance is feudalism.
Guitardian wrote:Okayyyy then: new concept: are socialists self serving, society serving BY being self serving? Are populists really just out for their own good and finding other people who are equally out for their own different good?
The reasons people believe in one or more of the wide variety of political beliefs broadly grouped together as socialism are as varied as the number of people who espouse those views. A person might believe in socialism because he wants a greater distribution of society’s wealth, he might believe it because he believes the guy over the road deserves a higher standard of living, he might believe it because he really hates his boss.
All the 'isms' become confusing.
Politics is science of analysing how the six billion people on the planet share power. It’s complicated by necessity.
I'm so confused when I see these FoxNews and MSNBC shows. I can't even remember who is mad at who
I would recommend you don’t watch those shows. They won’t help you understand politics at all. They exist by having members of the two major parties come out and give their talking points. There is little effort given to examine the reasons for candidate’s position, no exploration of solutions outside of those chosen by the major parties, and no examination of the situation on the ground, to review if the policies of either party actually make any sense. All that stuff would be hard work.
any more as far as name dropping, just that I don't like old rich selfish people barring my girlfriend's dad from having it. Maybe that makes me a jerk but I have to watch him die because someone else wants to be taxed less, but still play golf or whatever random thing they do with their excess money. I just watched a bunch of news guys argueing over the difference between socialism and communism to the point where I became confused myself.
Communism, in really simple terms, refers to a state controlled economy, where the means of production (farm land, factories etc) are owned by the state. Contrary to popular myth, the individual can still own private property, and different people can earn different amounts based on how valuable they are. But there would be no private enterprise, all business would be state owned.
Socialism refers to a wide variety of beliefs, all of which argue to a greater or lesser extent in government involvement redistributing wealth. Every developed nation on Earth, including the US, is socialist, as they all have programs such as welfare and progressive taxes. A nation without some measure of socialism isn’t actually sustainable for very long.
It doesn’t make any sense to charge someone else with being socialist for arguing for progressive social reform (such as universal healthcare) as it’s very unlikely the attacker himself rejects all socialism. Its safe to assume they don’t know what they’re talking about, or don’t care they’re spouting nonsense.
I think within 10 years we won't have dems versus pubs we'll have socialists versus populists,
It’s important to remember a populist is someone who frames the political debate in terms of the people vs the elites (obviously taking the side of the people). There are few politicians that aren’t populists. Whether you cast the elites as the wealthy, as government, or as the Illuminati, populism has been political gold for centuries.
But people hardly ever admit to being populists, unless they’re Glenn Beck and they don’t know what the word means.
sebster wrote:Communism, in really simple terms, refers to a state controlled economy, where the means of production (farm land, factories etc) are owned by the state. Contrary to popular myth, the individual can still own private property, and different people can earn different amounts based on how valuable they are. But there would be no private enterprise, all business would be state owned.
Are you sure about this? My understanding of it is that what you are describing as Communism is really (idealized) Marxist socialism. "Communism" being a post-socialist stateless society where the means of production are owned by the people directly.
Socialism refers to a wide variety of beliefs, all of which argue to a greater or lesser extent in government involvement redistributing wealth. Every developed nation on Earth, including the US, is socialist, as they all have programs such as welfare and progressive taxes. A nation without some measure of socialism isn’t actually sustainable for very long.
To say that every nation is socialist because it contains some socialism is misleading; the word isn't usually used that way, or at least it isn't to my knowledge. It would be like saying that every person is old, because every person has aged to some degree; or that an orangish-yellow paint is red because it contains red pigment (pun unintended). Whether or not a nation is socialist becomes a matter of degree, rather than a fact.
It doesn’t make any sense to charge someone else with being socialist for arguing for progressive social reform (such as universal healthcare) as it’s very unlikely the attacker himself rejects all socialism. Its safe to assume they don’t know what they’re talking about, or don’t care they’re spouting nonsense.
This too, I disagree with. Socialist is a matter of degree here as well, and to accuse someone of socialism isn't to accuse them of ever favoring any sort of socialization, but rather of favoring a great degree of socialization.
Of course, the issue with calling someone a socialist in the United States is that there's no debate over the merits of "socialism"; socialism has become so synonymous with evil (or at least huge inefficiency) that instead of judging the merits of a socialist policy, the merits of the policy are judged, and it then becomes "socialist" if found wanting. Which leads to a lot of running around and pointing fingers, and (probably) a lot of annoyance by those who still call themselves socialists.
To say that every nation is socialist because it contains some socialism is misleading; the word isn't usually used that way, or at least it isn't to my knowledge. It would be like saying that every person is old, because every person has aged to some degree; or that an orangish-yellow paint is red because it contains red pigment (pun unintended). Whether or not a nation is socialist becomes a matter of degree, rather than a fact.
When taken outside of an absolute context the term socialism loses all meaning. It's not a term that withstands varying degrees. Note that everyone using it in modern times uses it wrong and typically either derisively or faux philosophically. It's modern use is little different than that of populisms, the difference however is that socialism actually had a meaning.
Socialist is a matter of degree here as well, and to accuse someone of socialism isn't to accuse them of ever favoring any sort of socialization, but rather of favoring a great degree of socialization.
Relative terminology when used in a derisive aspect is a race to the bottom with little substance or meaning. A serial killer could refer to a conservative as a socialist (to kill without purpose for ones self is purely against the ideals of socalism) but that doesn't mean the comment makes sense. Not all words should be relative, and the common usage of a term, while pervasive, is not always correct, nor should it be defended as such.
And I like the sound of the nukes melting down. Now that's karma. Millions would die their much deserved excruciating deaths. With fewer people, this world would be a better place.
BaronIveagh wrote:Who's white? Or even middle class?
And I like the sound of the nukes melting down. Now that's karma. Millions would die their much deserved excruciating deaths. With fewer people, this world would be a better place.
You know you have complete control over at least one of those lives. You could do your part.
I want to join the Optimist party.
What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?
ShumaGorath wrote:When taken outside of an absolute context the term socialism loses all meaning. It's not a term that withstands varying degrees. Note that everyone using it in modern times uses it wrong and typically either derisively or faux philosophically. It's modern use is little different than that of populisms, the difference however is that socialism actually had a meaning.
Relative terminology when used in a derisive aspect is a race to the bottom with little substance or meaning. A serial killer could refer to a conservative as a socialist (to kill without purpose for ones self is purely against the ideals of socalism) but that doesn't mean the comment makes sense. Not all words should be relative, and the common usage of a term, while pervasive, is not always correct, nor should it be defended as such.
I'm actually making a distinction between three uses of the word, not two. The first being its applicable to anything that's not the most extreme form of anarcho-capitalism (and even that is up for debate, as there's not going to be universal consensus over what "true", 100% anarcho-capitalism would even entail), the second being applicable to a subjectively large amount of government control in the economy, and the third being necessarily an evil or ineffective policy.
As you pointed out, the third definition is a poor one. I maintain that the first is no better, though; it encompasses nearly everything, and means that the word "socialist" is nearly meaningless. There are many people who consider themselves socialists, and most of them wouldn't support a society where nearly everything is privately owned (but with a sliver of public intervention; the occasional fire department or something). The second definition isn't going to tell you absolute facts, any more than "old" is going to tell you a person's age, but it gives an idea of where something broadly falls, which is more than can be said of either other definition.
I maintain that the first is no better, though; it encompasses nearly everything, and means that the word "socialist" is nearly meaningless.
Bingo. The terms true meaning is essentially a meaningless expression likened to that of "governance for the people". The term socialism outside of the context of direct comparisons between political theory or theorists is by definition and nature subverting or caustic. The term has only a useful relative meaning, and it's only use is to lambast or iconify. It's not a word that should be used commonly if at all.
The second definition isn't going to tell you absolute facts, any more than "old" is going to tell you a person's age, but it gives an idea of where something broadly falls, which is more than can be said of either other definition.
Except by common use and logical statement the "Second definition" isn't any more descriptive than the first or third outside of what is directly inferred by the speaker at the time given the audience and the place. Comparing two social things within a socialist government within a socialist country on a socialist planet isn't helped when your saying that "One is more socialist than the other". Most languages on this planet are pretty broad and there are vastly better terms to use. Definition number two is prototypically a polite version of definition number three.
ShumaGorath wrote:Bingo. The terms true meaning is essentially a meaningless expression likened to that of "governance for the people". The term socialism outside of the context of direct comparisons between political theory or theorists is by definition and nature subverting or caustic. The term has only a useful relative meaning, and it's only use is to lambast or iconify. It's not a word that should be used commonly if at all.
You're never going to get a hard grasp on "conservative", "liberal", progressive", or "capitalist" either. But that's the nature of using single words to describe complex ideas. If replaced the words with something else the same problems would reappear.
You can say that people should thus abandon the practice entirely, but I don't think that's going to happen. It's a necessary evil, caused by the lack of time people have to extrapolate on their beliefs and the lack of effort people will put into understanding complex ideas.
Except by common use and logical statement the "Second definition" isn't any more descriptive than the first two outside of what is directly inferred by the speaker at the time given the audience and the place. Comparing two social things within a socialist government within a socialist country on a socialist planet isn't helped when your saying that "One is more socialist than the other". Most languages on this planet are pretty broad and there are vastly better terms to use. Definition number two is prototypically a polite version of definition number three.
What's wrong with things needing context to be meaningful? A word that requires context to be understood is better than a word that doesn't describe anything to begin with. The second definition's relation to the third is caused by a dislike of things being in relation to the government, but this isn't going to change as the word used to describe the concept does.
What's wrong with things needing context to be meaningful?
If a term is dependent entirely on context than it is fluid and has no meaning, becoming an somatic icon representing a current idea or descriptive device rather than a functional phrase. The word "Ow" requires about as much context as socialism, and has roughly the same level of accurate description and use.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Are you sure about this? My understanding of it is that what you are describing as Communism is really (idealized) Marxist socialism. "Communism" being a post-socialist stateless society where the means of production are owned by the people directly.
Yep. Oddly enough, any theoretical Communist nation would look a lot like an Anarchist fantasy land.
ShumaGorath wrote:If a term is dependent entirely on context than it is fluid and has no meaning, becoming an somatic icon representing a current idea or descriptive device rather than a functional phrase. The word "Ow" requires about as much context as socialism, and has roughly the same level of accurate description and use.
Every word requires context to some extent; after all, words don't have truly objective meaning. If no one speaks english they're not going to know what a dog is, nor are they going know what one is if they generally speak english but have no experience with dogs in any capacity (this would be quite strange, but you see the point I'm trying to make).
But to repeat myself, what makes socialism so far gone that it can no longer be used meaningfully, in contrast to conservatism, liberalism, progressivism, and capitalism? There are a dozen permutations of these words, and I'd be willing to say that liberalism and conservatism especially are applicable to a wider range of (often contradicting) ideas than socialism is. Capitalism has many of the same problems as socialism itself, due to it being frequently used as the antonym.
ShumaGorath wrote:
If a term is dependent entirely on context than it is fluid and has no meaning, becoming an somatic icon representing a current idea or descriptive device rather than a functional phrase. The word "Ow" requires about as much context as socialism, and has roughly the same level of accurate description and use.
Socialism is fluid, and has little meaning. About the most academic agreement you'll generate with respect to its definition is "not capitalist", and even that is only due to the fact that it was founded as reaction to industrial capitalism. That's what happens when you use an individual term to reference a body of knowledge, rather than a specific phenomenon.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Are you sure about this? My understanding of it is that what you are describing as Communism is really (idealized) Marxist socialism. "Communism" being a post-socialist stateless society where the means of production are owned by the people directly.
I was looking at the term as a descriptor of real world governments. There’s never been a society per the end-state of classical communism, so it isn’t a very useful descriptor, a better definition is one that fits those governments that have self-identified as socialist or have been generally recognised as communist. That, to me, is a state where the means of production (or at least the majority of the means of production) are state controlled.
To say that every nation is socialist because it contains some socialism is misleading; the word isn't usually used that way, or at least it isn't to my knowledge. It would be like saying that every person is old, because every person has aged to some degree; or that an orangish-yellow paint is red because it contains red pigment (pun unintended). Whether or not a nation is socialist becomes a matter of degree, rather than a fact.
It isn’t misleading, as long you understand that every person is old, but some are older than others. Similarly, every government has socialist elements, but some have more socialism than others. Similarly, the developed nations of the world are also capitalist, but some are more capitalist than others.
This too, I disagree with. Socialist is a matter of degree here as well, and to accuse someone of socialism isn't to accuse them of ever favoring any sort of socialization, but rather of favoring a great degree of socialization.
Which is why the charge is nonsense. When everyone is on a sliding scale, it doesn’t make any sense to charge someone with being on a different from themselves. ‘You favour a greater degree of socialism than me, and your level of socialism is self-evidently the amount that takes socialism from being acceptable to the amount that destroys freedom and democracy’… is, well, a nonsense argument.
Of course, the issue with calling someone a socialist in the United States is that there's no debate over the merits of "socialism"; socialism has become so synonymous with evil (or at least huge inefficiency) that instead of judging the merits of a socialist policy, the merits of the policy are judged, and it then becomes "socialist" if found wanting. Which leads to a lot of running around and pointing fingers, and (probably) a lot of annoyance by those who still call themselves socialists.
sebster wrote:I was looking at the term as a descriptor of real world governments. There’s never been a society per the end-state of classical communism, so it isn’t a very useful descriptor, a better definition is one that fits those governments that have self-identified as socialist or have been generally recognised as communist. That, to me, is a state where the means of production (or at least the majority of the means of production) are state controlled.
All right, fair enough.
It isn’t misleading, as long you understand that every person is old, but some are older than others. Similarly, every government has socialist elements, but some have more socialism than others. Similarly, the developed nations of the world are also capitalist, but some are more capitalist than others.
Statements that are true but misleading are rarely misleading when further elaborated upon.
Which is why the charge is nonsense. When everyone is on a sliding scale, it doesn’t make any sense to charge someone with being on a different from themselves. ‘You favour a greater degree of socialism than me, and your level of socialism is self-evidently the amount that takes socialism from being acceptable to the amount that destroys freedom and democracy’… is, well, a nonsense argument.
Well now you're jumping to the "socialism = bad" definition. I doubt most socialists would consider their ideology to be inherently bad, just as I also doubt that most socialists would consider "socialism" to include far-right governments that have a bare minimum of government intervention.
Even if we follow your logic, though, must we then not ask ourselves by what bright line test we can decide if a nation is a democracy, a police state, a wealthy nation, a poor nation, a nation with a long history, or any other sort of sort of descriptor that gives a very generalized idea of what you're trying to express?
Statements that are true but misleading are rarely misleading when further elaborated upon.
I have never, in my life, seen any government mouthpiece "elaborate" after saying something is socialist.
Well now you're jumping to the "socialism = bad" definition. I doubt most socialists would consider their ideology to be inherently bad, just as I also doubt that most socialists would consider "socialism" to include far-right governments that have a bare minimum of government intervention.
ShumaGorath wrote:I have never, in my life, seen any government mouthpiece "elaborate" after saying something is socialist.
I haven't seen much effort made for describing political ideologies in general; or at least, not for political ideologies they're not espousing themselves.
I think you misinterpreted what he was saying.
How so? I mean, I know sebster doesn't think that socialism is inherently evil. But I'm not saying it is either.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I haven't seen much effort made for describing political ideologies in general; or at least, not for political ideologies they're not espousing themselves.
That's the point, isn't it? Politicians aren't political scientists, they're political operatives. Their project isn't descriptive, but manipulative.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Statements that are true but misleading are rarely misleading when further elaborated upon.
Touché
Well now you're jumping to the "socialism = bad" definition. I doubt most socialists would consider their ideology to be inherently bad, just as I also doubt that most socialists would consider "socialism" to include far-right governments that have a bare minimum of government intervention.
I’m not jumping to that conclusion about social, but I certainly expect most people calling someone else socialist to believe it to be true.
Oh, and don’t get me started on people who call themselves socialist and expect people to know what they actually believe. The Socialist party at the local university is poles apart from, say, the Social Democrat Party of Germany.
Even if we follow your logic, though, must we then not ask ourselves by what bright line test we can decide if a nation is a democracy, a police state, a wealthy nation, a poor nation, a nation with a long history, or any other sort of sort of descriptor that gives a very generalized idea of what you're trying to express?
Do we? Can’t we just accept that every nation has elements of democracy, elements of a police state, elements of poverty, elements of wealth and all the rest. We can set about describing those characteristics in real terms, and not by assigning random definitions and seeing who does and doesn’t the arbitrary cut-off?
sebster wrote:Oh, and don’t get me started on people who call themselves socialist and expect people to know what they actually believe. The Socialist party at the local university is poles apart from, say, the Social Democrat Party of Germany.
I see what you mean; however, I think I'm going to get a better guess of what a self-proclaimed socialist thinks than a self-proclaimed liberal or conservative, much less someone declared a liberal or conservative by their opponents.
Do we? Can’t we just accept that every nation has elements of democracy, elements of a police state, elements of poverty, elements of wealth and all the rest. We can set about describing those characteristics in real terms, and not by assigning random definitions and seeing who does and doesn’t the arbitrary cut-off?
We can, a lot of time. If we're trying to discuss something in depth we're probably beholden to, or at least to otherwise define contestable terms.
However, there are plenty of times where it's simply quite inefficient to say that a country has a per capita GDP roughly equivalent to 7% of that of the United States, and easier to just call it an impoverished country.
sebster wrote:Oh, and don’t get me started on people who call themselves socialist and expect people to know what they actually believe. The Socialist party at the local university is poles apart from, say, the Social Democrat Party of Germany.
I see what you mean; however, I think I'm going to get a better guess of what a self-proclaimed socialist thinks than a self-proclaimed liberal or conservative, much less someone declared a liberal or conservative by their opponents.
I think that’s an illusion created by the fact that the word Socialism has not historically been used as much in discussing the internal politics of the US as the words Liberal and Conservative. I think it’s just the fact that you’ve seen it used less that makes it seem like it’s a more specific term, when it really isn’t.
Socialism has previously more been a demonized term applied to Communist countries or Communist-supporters, back when we were at odds with the Soviet Union. Now it’s being applied primarily as a pejorative in US political debate, I suspect for two reasons- a) because it’s generally understood to be an antonym of Capitalism, and b) because Communist has gone out of style. Even when I've known people who called themselves Socialists, it usually just meant that they opposed some parts of Capitalism, without being really descriptive.
Orkeosaurus wrote:
Do we? Can’t we just accept that every nation has elements of democracy, elements of a police state, elements of poverty, elements of wealth and all the rest. We can set about describing those characteristics in real terms, and not by assigning random definitions and seeing who does and doesn’t the arbitrary cut-off?
We can, a lot of time. If we're trying to discuss something in depth we're probably beholden to, or at least to otherwise define contestable terms.
However, there are plenty of times where it's simply quite inefficient to say that a country has a per capita GDP roughly equivalent to 7% of that of the United States, and easier to just call it an impoverished country.
Sure, but a big part of the problem in this country seems to be that post of what passes for political discourse, at least in the public arena, is nothing BUT these generalizations and superficialities. We have to require better, more in-depth thought of ourselves. And where politicians and pundits fail to display it, we should call them out on that. Not accept it as a necessary evil.
Mannahnin wrote:I think that’s an illusion created by the fact that the word Socialism has not historically been used as much in discussing the internal politics of the US as the words Liberal and Conservative. I think it’s just the fact that you’ve seen it used less that makes it seem like it’s a more specific term, when it really isn’t.
I disagree. For one, I'm not as close to mainstream American politics as some people seem to think. For another, I'm not saying that socialism need be more specific than the other ideological terms, merely that it's not any more vague than they are.
What's a liberal? Both Adam Smith and Joseph Stalin, according to some common definitions of the term. Is the Libertarian Party conservative? Some will say they're one of the most conservative parties there is, but they propose radical change. Socialist, much like capitalist, is at least narrowed a little bit by the emphasis being on economic matters.
Socialism has previously more been a demonized term applied to Communist countries or Communist-supporters, back when we were at odds with the Soviet Union. Now it’s being applied primarily as a pejorative in US political debate, I suspect for two reasons- a) because it’s generally understood to be an antonym of Capitalism, and b) because Communist has gone out of style. Even when I've known people who called themselves Socialists, it usually just meant that they opposed some parts of Capitalism, without being really descriptive.
Of course. But just as socialism is made vague by its use as the opposite of capitalism, capitalism has been made vague by its use as the opposite of socialism.
Sure, but a big part of the problem in this country seems to be that post of what passes for political discourse, at least in the public arena, is nothing BUT these generalizations and superficialities. We have to require better, more in-depth thought of ourselves. And where politicians and pundits fail to display it, we should call them out on that. Not accept it as a necessary evil.
That the use of the words in vague or misleading ways isn't a necessary evil is not to say that the use of the words in any context isn't a necessary evil. Would you say that if in a speech Obama mentioned impoverished countries he was likely trying to manipulate the public through the use of vague, subjective terminology? There are times when that happens, certainly, but there are plenty of times when it doesn't.
I just don’t think that there is any meaningful political view or platform which can be accurately summarized by a single word. If I call myself a Liberal, I may mean the dictionary definition, or I may be referring to a particular party of a given country, which has a huge amount of specific policies and history which may or may not bear any resemblance to the word’s dictionary definition. Same with Conservative and Socialist. Unless I use the word in a very simplistic and limited way, it’s never really going to be accurate.
Mannahnin wrote:I just don’t think that there is any meaningful political view or platform which can be accurately summarized by a single word. If I call myself a Liberal, I may mean the dictionary definition, or I may be referring to a particular party of a given country, which has a huge amount of specific policies and history which may or may not bear any resemblance to the word’s dictionary definition. Same with Conservative and Socialist. Unless I use the word in a very simplistic and limited way, it’s never really going to be accurate.
Isn't that the point though? Words like liberal, conservative, or libertarian aren't meant to summarize the political views of an individual, but rather place people within a larger political or intellectual project. In academia this amounts to little more than an exercise in record keeping; no reputable author would ever refer to some monolithic form of liberal thought in anything beyond the broadest terms. In public debate its a matter of broad affiliation and sympathy, an emotive concept rather than an intellectual one; likely exacerbated in the United States by the presence of only two significant parties.
Of course. And when I use the term liberal to describe myself, I mean it in a broad sense, and as a statement of opposition to people who use the word as an insult.
My point is that you can't tell much of anything meaningful about someone's specific politics from the word Socialist, any more than you can with Liberal or Conservative.
My point is that you can't tell much of anything meaningful about someone's specific politics from the word Socialist, any more than you can with Liberal or Conservative.
Except wherein broad swathes of the population self identify as conservative or liberal while socialist has been essentially demonized and transfigured into a broad brush insult used to not express a descriptor for a groups viewpoints, but to rather express a value statement of difference of belief as compared to standard conservative mantra. Liberal and conservative are given weight as terms by the identification of parties and groups by those terms, socialism does not have that form of mass soft legitimacy. Lberal and Conservative imply a certain set of viewpoints concerning things like abortion, military expense, law enforcement, and foreign policy.
Socialist and socialism implies nothing except perhaps "not conservative".
Don’t know if I fully agree with that, though. You do have some folks (particularly people who admire aspects of European governments) who say they agree with some Socialist ideas, or that we could use a bit more of it.
And Liberal is also used more as a pejorative in public dialogue than a self-descriptor, as far as I can see. Part of why some people started using the word Progressive, no?
Semanticism? Isn't that really what its about? Then I guess we are all Semanticists and socialism is just a wimpier more obvious word for whatever 'society' wants. Society wants things that are often incongruous to its members. Religion is probably a good example. If everybody thinks its cool to cut out your virgin daughter's heart or something, well, except for your daughter who's heart is at stake (vampire pun unintended), then where do you stand? Go with what the people want or go with what your daughter wants? Facts are facts and all the "-isms" in the world can't change wrong into right, or change the ugliness of human nature to take advantage of what is beneficial at the expense of what is correct.
Semanticism? Isn't that really what its about? Then I guess we are all Semanticists and socialism is just a wimpier more obvious word for whatever 'society' wants. Society wants things that are often incongruous to its members. Religion is probably a good example. If everybody thinks its cool to cut out your virgin daughter's heart or something, well, except for your daughter who's heart is at stake (vampire pun unintended), then where do you stand? Go with what the people want or go with what your daughter wants? Facts are facts and all the "-isms" in the world can't change wrong into right, or change the ugliness of human nature to take advantage of what is beneficial at the expense of what is correct.
Do you hold your breath than type as much as possible before having to exhale? Most of these posts seem to lack direction or forethought.
Guitardian wrote:Semanticism? Isn't that really what its about? Then I guess we are all Semanticists and socialism is just a wimpier more obvious word for whatever 'society' wants. Society wants things that are often incongruous to its members.
Society can't really 'want' anything, as it doesn't have feelings in the sense that an individual does. Multiple people can desire a thing, and that can be made manifest as social pressure, but that's a phenomenon which is wholly distinct from desire.
But no, socialism doesn't have a whole lot to do with social pressure; except in the sense that its broad ideological category which deals with the proper governmental reaction to it.
Guitardian wrote:
Religion is probably a good example. If everybody thinks its cool to cut out your virgin daughter's heart or something, well, except for your daughter who's heart is at stake (vampire pun unintended), then where do you stand? Go with what the people want or go with what your daughter wants?
There is a long history of people sacrificing themselves in the name of religion (among other things), one which continues to this day.
Guitardian wrote:
Facts are facts and all the "-isms" in the world can't change wrong into right, or change the ugliness of human nature to take advantage of what is beneficial at the expense of what is correct.
Actually, right and wrong have changed frequently throughout human history. About the only universal truth has been "don't do bad things without cause".
and don't create the cause in the first place would be a nice addendum, but then we start having to section things off again, like who wants your daughters heart on a plate for the sun god, versus those who do not. Dumbasses can think whatever they want, often with the support of other dumbasses in a majority. We still all live in a world wher dumb decisions and dumb people raised in dub circumstances make decisions that affect our lives, whether monetarily or legally or ethically we all suffer each other's shortcomings.
(And yeah I exhaled this time knock it off 'raging-ork-dreadnough-whos-name-I-can't-bother-to-cut-paste-edit-in-here') jerk previous poster guy your flaming is annoying to the level of stronger language than 'jerk' it starts with a B and ends in having to scratch. I thought personal attacks were frowned upon. Maybe society outvoted me, which allows you to attack me because you are too pigass dumb to get the meaning of my analogy. Well sucks for you, and for me for having to inhabit the same planet as you. I wish people could take some responsibility to solve why they just suck for everyone else, but hey we're all in a fishbowl together.
Don't attack me again please, I contribute analogies and personal thoughts about things where I can when find relevance in the connection (which doesn't mean you will), and all you contribute was "that's stupid". Well maybe that's just how the world works. The insightful are often overlooked by the shortsighted and reactive, who get to tell us off or makes the rules etc. Pick a side, huh? But quit being a jerk in your responses to things I say I didn't do that to you... oh wait... maybe because you are RIGHT and I am WRONG? Raise your flags in the name of dumb jerks, because they outnumber us... join the dumb jerk party! We even made Tshirts! with your face on them I might add.
and yeah I exhaled. Im sorry this keyboard is older than most warhammer players so I try not to backspace and stuff. What you read is what you get because I can't really edit well, and therefore don't bother because that's just how it is.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Doesn't every political movement include elements of the National Socialist party?
Yes, but usually they're more subtle. I saw one teabagger rally where they showed up with their jack boots and silver runes on. Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Limbaugh.
Shuma, if you don't know what 'the button' is or what the National Socialist Party is, please excuse yourself from this discussion. It's for grownups.
Ah. I'm an elected auditor. I go around and investigate other elected officials for corruption. I then call the cops and hand over the information for them to be arrested.
BaronIveagh wrote:Ah. I'm an elected auditor. I go around and investigate other elected officials for corruption. I then call the cops and hand over the information for them to be arrested.
That doesn't really put you much closer to the button.
Achem: "My fellow Americans, I am THE candidate for the people! See this long list of crooked politicians I have brought in, saving you, the people, millions of dollars and cleaning up our political system! Now I am running for [insert higher office here] so that I can bring honesty and accountability to [insert state/national capitol here]! I urge everyone who wants sanity in government to vote for me this November!"
It's a job I thoroughly enjoy. It's fun to see the powerful and influential cower before you.
Achem: "My fellow Americans, I am THE candidate for the people! See this long list of crooked politicians I have brought in, saving you, the people, millions of dollars and cleaning up our political system! Now I am running for [insert higher office here] so that I can bring honesty and accountability to [insert state/national capitol here]! I urge everyone who wants sanity in government to vote for me this November!"
What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?
Achem: "My fellow Americans, I am THE candidate for the people! See this long list of crooked politicians I have brought in, saving you, the people, millions of dollars and cleaning up our political system! Now I am running for [insert higher office here] so that I can bring honesty and accountability to [insert state/national capitol here]! I urge everyone who wants sanity in government to vote for me this November!"
What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?
I intend to create a manufactured incident where North Korea launches a nuclear weapon at China, hopefully blowing up Beijing and plunging China into Civil War. I will the retaliate by using our nuclear surplus from the cold war to create a new sea where north korea once was, and name it after myself.
I feel that hash interrogation methods are best left to wiser heads then my own, and there for have asked the Vatican to select a council lead by the sitting head of the Inquisition to determine if our methods are too harsh or inhumane in any way.
I feel that being a man, I no right to have an opinion on abortion. I will therefor select a panel of women to discuss the issue and send me their findings. I anticipate they will reach a conclusion sometime before I leave office.
I intend to create a manufactured incident where North Korea launches a nuclear weapon at China, hopefully blowing up Beijing and plunging China into Civil War. I will the retaliate by using our nuclear surplus from the cold war to create a new sea where north korea once was, and name it after myself.
How do you respond to allegations that the entire worlds nuclear arsenal would not be capable of causing such an earth rift, and that your administration is manufacturing science for political gain?
I feel that hash interrogation methods are best left to wiser heads then my own, and there for have asked the Vatican to select a council lead by the sitting head of the Inquisition to determine if our methods are too harsh or inhumane in any way.
How do you respond to the allegations that the inquisition has not existed for centuries, and that your administration is manufacturing organizations for political gain?
I feel that being a man, I no right to have an opinion on abortion. I will therefor select a panel of women to discuss the issue and send me their findings. I anticipate they will reach a conclusion sometime before I leave office.
ShumaGorath wrote:
How do you respond to allegations that the entire worlds nuclear arsenal would not be capable of causing such an earth rift, and that your administration is manufacturing science for political gain?
Actually, there have been past proposals to do just that as a means by which it would be possible to dig a new canal to replace the Panama Canal through Nicaragua. Next Question.
ShumaGorath wrote:
How do you respond to the allegations that the inquisition has not existed for centuries, and that your administration is manufacturing organizations for political gain?
The Inquisition actually continues to exist to this day. However, that name has since been changed to The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, formerly headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, before his elevation to the Papacy as Pope Benedict. It does in fact still exist, and the title of Grand Inquisitor is an acceptable alternate title for the prefect thereof. It is not unknown for the agents of said to be refereed to as Inquisitors within the church. Next Question.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Will this be a bi partisan commission?
Bi partisen, bi sexual, and any other bi I can squeeze into it to make sure they don't agree on anything.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I see what you mean; however, I think I'm going to get a better guess of what a self-proclaimed socialist thinks than a self-proclaimed liberal or conservative, much less someone declared a liberal or conservative by their opponents.
This might be a product of differing politics. Here liberal means something very specific (a strong belief in free markets and generally conservative social policy, funnily enough) whereas socialism is much fuzzier.
We can, a lot of time. If we're trying to discuss something in depth we're probably beholden to, or at least to otherwise define contestable terms.
However, there are plenty of times where it's simply quite inefficient to say that a country has a per capita GDP roughly equivalent to 7% of that of the United States, and easier to just call it an impoverished country.
Shorthand is great, as long as everyone has a decent understanding of the underlying complexities. The problem is, I think, that we use shorthand almost exclusively and few people know there's real complexity underneath. For instance, you mention a country might have a GDP per capita of 7% of the US, but what's the form of that poverty? Poverty takes on many different forms and not all of them can be solved with the same methods - the issues in a resource poor but more or less politically stable nation like Bangladesh are wholly different to the issues in a country with abundant resources but a terrible government like Zimbabwe.
sebster wrote:This might be a product of differing politics. Here liberal means something very specific (a strong belief in free markets and generally conservative social policy, funnily enough) whereas socialism is much fuzzier.
That's probably part of the issue. According to many Americans, socialism is actually a subset of liberalism, which leads to it being quite an extensive ideology indeed.
Shorthand is great, as long as everyone has a decent understanding of the underlying complexities. The problem is, I think, that we use shorthand almost exclusively and few people know there's real complexity underneath. For instance, you mention a country might have a GDP per capita of 7% of the US, but what's the form of that poverty? Poverty takes on many different forms and not all of them can be solved with the same methods - the issues in a resource poor but more or less politically stable nation like Bangladesh are wholly different to the issues in a country with abundant resources but a terrible government like Zimbabwe.
Orkeosaurus wrote:That's probably part of the issue. According to many Americans, socialism is actually a subset of liberalism, which leads to it being quite an extensive ideology indeed.
That's what happens when you have to monolithic parties occupying opposite ends of the political spectrum. The largest component of the Democratic Party is made up of proponents of social liberalism, with smaller (and louder) elements left over from the 60's that run the full socialist gamut (Marxist, Frankfurt School, etc.). So at least to the extent that the partisan debate serves to confuse the issue, and define the argument, that statement isn't incorrect.
Orkeosaurus wrote:That's probably part of the issue. According to many Americans, socialism is actually a subset of liberalism, which leads to it being quite an extensive ideology indeed.
That seems more like liberal is being used as a synonym for left, when by my reckoning liberal and socialism are seperate (and very vague) sub-categories of the very vague category of leftwing politics.
Wrexasaur wrote:This years word is actually 'progressive'.
Phase one.) Say word a thousand times a month, using at least a dozen talking heads.
Phase two.) ???
Phase three.) Profit!
I think it's more like
Phase 1) Notice the other side has villified your old word and that people don't use it anymore. In many cases people don't really know what to call themselves now that liberal has been turned into an attack phrase.
Phase 2) Invent a new word. Progressive has a nice ring to it, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out some thinktank somewhere put it through market research.
Phase 3) Get everyone to start identifying with 'progressive'.
Phase 4) Notice the other side has villified your old word and that people don't use it anymore. In many cases people don't really know what to call themselves now that progressive has been turned into an attack phrase.
Orkeosaurus wrote:That's probably part of the issue. According to many Americans, socialism is actually a subset of liberalism, which leads to it being quite an extensive ideology indeed.
That's what happens when you have to monolithic parties occupying opposite ends of the political spectrum. The largest component of the Democratic Party is made up of proponents of social liberalism, with smaller (and louder) elements left over from the 60's that run the full socialist gamut (Marxist, Frankfurt School, etc.). So at least to the extent that the partisan debate serves to confuse the issue, and define the argument, that statement isn't incorrect.
A full spectrum of political beliefs involves everything from communism to extreme monarchy (divine right of kings.)
The situation in America, and most western countries, is better described a continuum defined at its limits by the most extreme parties which have a realistic chance of getting members elected. In France these are Le Pen on the right and the Communists on the left.
US politics is essentially defined by two uber parties who do not have much clear water between them. As has been said in Britain, the Republicans are a bit like our Conservatives, and the Democrats are a bit like our Conservatives.
The Tea Party movement represents a section of dissatisfied public opinion on the extreme right of the Republicans (as far as I can see.) It hasn't yet qualified as a party and will need to develop policies to address all the concerns of modern government before it can do so.
Guitardian wrote:and don't create the cause in the first place would be a nice addendum, but then we start having to section things off again, like who wants your daughters heart on a plate for the sun god, versus those who do not. Dumbasses can think whatever they want, often with the support of other dumbasses in a majority. We still all live in a world wher dumb decisions and dumb people raised in dub circumstances make decisions that affect our lives, whether monetarily or legally or ethically we all suffer each other's shortcomings.
(And yeah I exhaled this time knock it off 'raging-ork-dreadnough-whos-name-I-can't-bother-to-cut-paste-edit-in-here') jerk previous poster guy your flaming is annoying to the level of stronger language than 'jerk' it starts with a B and ends in having to scratch. I thought personal attacks were frowned upon. Maybe society outvoted me, which allows you to attack me because you are too pigass dumb to get the meaning of my analogy. Well sucks for you, and for me for having to inhabit the same planet as you. I wish people could take some responsibility to solve why they just suck for everyone else, but hey we're all in a fishbowl together.
Don't attack me again please, I contribute analogies and personal thoughts about things where I can when find relevance in the connection (which doesn't mean you will), and all you contribute was "that's stupid". Well maybe that's just how the world works. The insightful are often overlooked by the shortsighted and reactive, who get to tell us off or makes the rules etc. Pick a side, huh? But quit being a jerk in your responses to things I say I didn't do that to you... oh wait... maybe because you are RIGHT and I am WRONG? Raise your flags in the name of dumb jerks, because they outnumber us... join the dumb jerk party! We even made Tshirts! with your face on them I might add.
and yeah I exhaled. Im sorry this keyboard is older than most warhammer players so I try not to backspace and stuff. What you read is what you get because I can't really edit well, and therefore don't bother because that's just how it is.
If I could figure out what you just said, I'd probably have to suspend you for attacking other posters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Achem: "My fellow Americans, I am THE candidate for the people! See this long list of crooked politicians I have brought in, saving you, the people, millions of dollars and cleaning up our political system! Now I am running for [insert higher office here] so that I can bring honesty and accountability to [insert state/national capitol here]! I urge everyone who wants sanity in government to vote for me this November!"
What's your parties stance on abortion and harsh interrogation methods? Also how does your party plan to deal with a nuclear north korea?
I intend to create a manufactured incident where North Korea launches a nuclear weapon at China, hopefully blowing up Beijing and plunging China into Civil War. I will the retaliate by using our nuclear surplus from the cold war to create a new sea where north korea once was, and name it after myself.
I feel that hash interrogation methods are best left to wiser heads then my own, and there for have asked the Vatican to select a council lead by the sitting head of the Inquisition to determine if our methods are too harsh or inhumane in any way.
I feel that being a man, I no right to have an opinion on abortion. I will therefor select a panel of women to discuss the issue and send me their findings. I anticipate they will reach a conclusion sometime before I leave office.
Baroniveagh for President! Change we can believe in!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
That seems more like liberal is being used as a synonym for left, when by my reckoning liberal and socialism are seperate (and very vague) sub-categories of the very vague category of leftwing politics.
You are correct Sebbie (prepares to shove head in oven for agreeing with Sebbie one too many times).
sebster wrote:That seems more like liberal is being used as a synonym for left, when by my reckoning liberal and socialism are seperate (and very vague) sub-categories of the very vague category of leftwing politics.
Yep. Liberal is most commonly used to mean anything leftish; however it's sometimes used to refer to economically right wing ideologies, especially if they also involve less personal restrictions (this is sometimes referred to as "classical liberalism", which is in the same ballpark as libertarianism). Milton Friedman, for example, self-identified as a liberal, despite being one of the biggest names in right wing economics. (Come to think of, the Australian definition may be the only one not used.)
Frazzled wrote:If I could figure out what you just said, I'd probably have to suspend you for attacking other posters.
He doesn't like Shuma.
Mannahnin wrote:Sebster has won this thread about four times, though dogma has scored a few points as well.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Yep. Liberal is most commonly used to mean anything leftish; however it's sometimes used to refer to economically right wing ideologies, especially if they also involve less personal restrictions (this is sometimes referred to as "classical liberalism", which is in the same ballpark as libertarianism). Milton Friedman, for example, self-identified as a liberal, despite being one of the biggest names in right wing economics. (Come to think of, the Australian definition may be the only one not used.)
It doesn't help matters that, from the standpoint of political theory, everyone involved in the core of the US political debate is a liberal; ie. values liberty. The differences arise when considering how best to obtain, secure, and expand that liberty. Broadly, this has lead to a conflict between social liberals, and classical liberals as respectively embodied by the Democratic and Republican parties. Obviously there are exceptions to this; the most recent one being the domination of the Republican Party by neoconservatism, which has more in common with social liberalism than classical, though it rhetorically pretends to the latter.
I think the biggest issue is taxes. No matter what issues come up about the bible or gun ownership (which oddly enough have many crossover members), really what people are upset about is the fact that the government takes their money - supposedly for the greater good. If the greater good is taking your money in order to alleviate some of the ailments of society (which are usually the fault of Society anyway) or if it's about not taking your money, so you can do what you think best with it (my beef with golfers for instance) is really what it's about. Throw in the 'black' thing and some dumb folks get even more ired. Throw in the fact that a lot of military people who either support the war or just support their own military ego also get considered is why a lot of politicians feel a need to pander to that element. Throw in a dash of oregano and so on and you get pizza!
The more special interest nutjobs take a hand in being vocal, the more contradictory special interests there are, and it eventually becomes a game of roulette of which political player bet on the most annoyingly vocal (and voting, unfortunately) group of special interest nutjobs gets them into office. It's hard to run on a gun-control platform and at the same time support a war, as a for-instance, or be pro-life but also pro-death-penalty and pro-gun, it sort of trumps the pro-life part. But the pro-life part is meant to appeal to bible-thumpers, the pro-death is meant to appeal to rich old paranoids, and the pro-gun is meant for all the people who live in the country... although those groups overlap, they are still entirely individual issues being addressed, which makes a mess of the whole 'party' system.
Hey I'll be president for food. Nobody can argue with food. Until the pro-anorexic interest groups starts raising their flags with the backing of a bunch of tall scrawney models to fund it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh yeah... and no I don't hate Shuma, just got mad at being personally insulted for my odd way of typing.
I meant to be in agreement with you, I was more referring to Shuma's posts.
.............
