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.

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Dogma: Does his response qualify now?

Maybe the last part, but he qualified it well by stating that it would be either wrong, or impractical. It read like "I really, really don't like you". Excessive tolerance is simply apathy, so long as someone isn't out in the streets physically beating, or actively disrupting, others I'd say they're not behaving in an intolerant manner. Obviously civility is important too, but one can be tolerant without being civil.

Agreed.

dogma wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:@Dogma: Does his response qualify now?

Maybe the last part, but he qualified it well by stating that it would be either wrong, or impractical. It read like "I really, really don't like you". Excessive tolerance is simply apathy, so long as someone isn't out in the streets physically beating others I'd say they're not behaving in an intolerant manner. Obviously civility is important too, but one can be tolerant without being civil.

Do I actually have to attack them to be intolerant of them? I am intolerant of them. They're idiots who should be beaten. I mean, I understand that I qualified it well, but I really am intolerant of them. It's like how I'm intolerant of terrorists or having my arm on fire. Being intolerant of something doesn't imply a value judgement of the intolerant or what is being intolerated (its a word now), what qualifies both is the reality. They are a group of ill educated reactionary tools who are basically just being fanned by Fox to increase ratings and give legitimacy to their brand of populist gak that they've been piping out for a while. What does a brother have to do to be intolerant of something these days?

intolerant |inˈtälərənt|
adjective
not tolerant of others' views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own : he was intolerant of ignorance.

The sticking point here, and I think is what is confusing is that I'm justifiably intolerant of them.

ShumaGorath wrote:As for removing pork, good luck. No president in history has managed to avoid it, and most dictators are swimming in it, thats not a political stance.

Yeah, that's a non-starter. Stating that you want to remove unnecessary expenditures is nice, but it doesn't really mean anything. What constitutes unnecessary in a representative system? I would have more empathy for the position if they stated that they wanted tighter controls on the discretionary component of the federal budget, though that has its own issues (who administers those controls?).

ShumaGorath wrote:
This, much like number 3 doesn't seem to come to terms with how global economies work. Laissez faire economies don't work. They never have. The entire history of trade and business and global economics is predicated on the fact that guild labor brought about a conspiracy against the public within business. Expecting companies to provide compassion for their workers, without requiring it, is like asking a hungry dog not to eat a slab of meat on the ground, but just watching it quietly. Exploitation in the third world should tell you immediately that this isn't a particularly good plan, and the globalized business doesn't exactly care about it's workers health at all levels, and a quick history lesson in the industrial revolution should tell you that it never did.

Yep, agreed. The idea that we should abandon welfare altogether is the only glaringly ridiculous one in the list.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I hate it when people say "they like music". This is basically the political stance version of "I like music".

Yeah. Its particularly amusing that We the People is considered to be some kind of collective consciousness with only one voice.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Correct, now define excessive, because the tea party members have never lived in a country that had "excessive tax burdens".

Yep.

8 ) The American public at large is ignorant of the purpose of government, the founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. As a result, they allow politicians to sell them false hope and "rights" and "entitlements" that are not guaranteed by the Constitution. By educating the American people on the foundations of our history, we hope to bring sanity to the election and legislative processes.

I take back what I said before, this is another glaringly ridiculous premise. There are rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but they are generally quite vague. Entitlements are generally a mechanism for ensuring those vaguely defined rights. The entitlements themselves aren't guaranteed, but all that means is that the rights granted by the Constitution can be expounded in different ways.

Does the Tea Party aim to repeal the legislation which enables limited liability companies?

Kilkrazy wrote:Does the Tea Party aim to repeal the legislation which enables limited liability companies?

They've never thought about it.

I can tell you where I live & work, there are quite a few tea party folk. Most of the ones I know are conspiracy types that think obama is a secret muslim/communist/ferener, who is going to take away their guns. They also seem to have a secret love affair of Glen Beck.

Needless to say I'm not especially fond of their views.

GG

I got invited to one this Summer by a fellow gamer with whom I was debating politics IRL. I politely declined.