The TeaParty movement dissected (newsweek article)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

I was referring more to the leadership position you claim to have been elected too.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Orkeosaurus**

That sounds like a good job for an anarchist.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**Orkeosaurus**

Yay! Save us money!

**ShumaGorath**

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?

**Orkeosaurus**

FREE MOVIES!

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**ShumaGorath**

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.

Will this be a bi partisan commission?

**BaronIveagh**

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.

**sebster**

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.

**Orkeosaurus**

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.

That sounds like a fair assessment.

**dogma**

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.

**sebster**

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**

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!

**sebster**

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.

and so on...

**Kilkrazy**

dogma wrote:
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.

**Frazzled**

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).

**Mannahnin**

Sebster has won this thread about four times, though dogma has scored a few points as well.

Guitardian is slumping in my "funniest poster" standings, getting bitter and hostile toward others rather than bringing the funneh. :(

**Orkeosaurus**

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.

And what am I, chopped liver?!

**ShumaGorath**

He doesn't like Shuma.

:Shock:

**dogma**

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.

**Guitardian**

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.