Sean Penn: Commit tea partyers, Ted Cruz ‘by executive order’

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.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Well, we all love the sounds of our own voice and love to tell people what we think.

Judging by those stats legoburner put up in the DCM forum, some of you really, really really love it.

**d-usa**

Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Well, we all love the sounds of our own voice and love to tell people what we think.

Judging by those stats legoburner put up in the DCM forum, some of you really, really really love it.

What's your point?

**motyak**

d-usa wrote:
Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Well, we all love the sounds of our own voice and love to tell people what we think.

Judging by those stats legoburner put up in the DCM forum, some of you really, really really love it.

What's your point?

That some people have posted a lot on dakka I'd assume...

**d-usa**

Well, I couldn't tell if he was agreeing with me or making one of his usual snide remarks.

I know we post alot, and that was pretty much my point. We all like to share what we think using the means we have available. Guys like Sean Penn do the same.

Of course reach and audience doesn't mean that people will agree with you.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
Well, we all love the sounds of our own voice and love to tell people what we think.

We have the fancy OT on DakkaDakka, and we say what we think because we have a platform here and people will listen to what we have to say.

Celebrities are no different, they just have a different platform than us.

The mystery isn't so much why people put in front of a microphone will sound off even when they have no idea what they're talking about, the mystery is more why people listen.

**d-usa**

sebster wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Well, we all love the sounds of our own voice and love to tell people what we think.

We have the fancy OT on DakkaDakka, and we say what we think because we have a platform here and people will listen to what we have to say.

Celebrities are no different, they just have a different platform than us.

The mystery isn't so much why people put in front of a microphone will sound off even when they have no idea what they're talking about, the mystery is more why people listen.

Because they matter!

**AlexHolker**

d-usa wrote:
Because they matter!

Wrong Sean.

**d-usa**

AlexHolker wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Because they matter!

Wrong Sean.

You know how hard it is to find pictures of any Sean!

I take what I can get

**MeanGreenStompa**

The Tea Party is a very mixed group of various angry folks with different axes they want to grind all brought together.

I've spoken with some really smart, decent seeming folks at the ground level, same as I've developed some good amount of sympathy with much of what constitutes Libertarianism, again, though, when you get to the upper echelons there seems to be an increasing number of people who are nuts, birthers, theocracy activists, racists, nietzschean Rand idealists etc.

The movement seems to have a terrible habit of putting forward it's noisiest and most outlandish people, not it's smartest or capable of playing well with others.

**scarletsquig**

As far as I'm familiar with the history of it, isn't the tea party some sort of british-hating group that destroyed our tea to annoy us? (good idea btw, caffeine withdrawal is one of the few things that can send us into a blind rage).

If so, why aren't they friends with Obama? He hates us too after we killed his grandpa (and the fact that we basically have our own version of the republicans in power right now doesn't help).

It's all very amusing to watch, no idea wth is going on with your healthcare though, apparently its now free but you still have to pay a ton of money for it?

**Seaward**

scarletsquig wrote:
As far as I'm familiar with the history of it, isn't the tea party some sort of british-hating group that destroyed our tea to annoy us? (good idea btw, caffeine withdrawal is one of the few things that can send us into a blind rage).

It's a populist political movement that sprung up in the wake of the 2008 election.

As Wikipedia puts it,

The Tea Party generally focuses on government reform. Among its goals are limiting the size of the federal government, reducing government spending, lowering the national debt and opposing tax increases. To this end, Tea Party groups have protested the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), stimulus programs such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act), cap and trade, health care reform such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, also known simply as the Affordable Care Act or "Obamacare") and perceived attacks by the federal government on their 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th Amendment rights. Tea Party groups have also voiced support for right to work legislation as well as tighter border security, and opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants. On the federal health care reform law, they began to work at the state level to nullify the law, after the republican party lost seats in congress and the Presidency in the 2012 elections. It has also mobilized locally against the United Nations Agenda 21. They have protested the IRS for controversial treatment of groups with "tea party" in their names. They have formed Super PACs to support candidates sympathetic to their goals and have opposed what they call the "Republican establishment" candidates.

It's also worth noting that it's a decentralized, local movement, so one Tea Party group in one state might have priorities completely different from a group in another. Some do not get involved at all with social issues, for example, and some do.

**Maddermax**

scarletsquig wrote:
As far as I'm familiar with the history of it, isn't the tea party some sort of british-hating group that destroyed our tea to annoy us? (good idea btw, caffeine withdrawal is one of the few things that can send us into a blind rage).

If so, why aren't they friends with Obama? He hates us too after we killed his grandpa (and the fact that we basically have our own version of the republicans in power right now doesn't help).

It's all very amusing to watch, no idea wth is going on with your healthcare though, apparently its now free but you still have to pay a ton of money for it?

No, their healthcare reform was actually just a private insurance reform, they still have no universal healthcare system like England, Australia or Canada have. Plus, one big part of the law, the expansion of Medicaide (which provides basic health insurance to low income earners for free) has been shot through as half the states refused to implement it, even though it was 90% paid for by the federal government, so that'll leave several million without any form of insurance, in the same pickle they were in before. So it'll help some people, but it's generally not a huge change.

As for the Tea Party, they're just Republicans, albeit highly ideological ones who generally want to slash taxes and government spending severely, mainly by removing or privatizing most government benefits programs (like medicare, medicaide, food subsidies for low income earners and social security).

**Seaward**

Maddermax wrote:
it was 90% paid for by the federal government,

Nope.

Maddermax wrote:
removing...most government benefits programs (like medicare, medicaide, food subsidies for low income earners and social security).

Even just seeing it in text, it's still glorious.

**Maddermax**

Seaward wrote:
Maddermax wrote:
it was 90% paid for by the federal government,

Nope.

You should take this to the Obamacare thread if you want to argue the point, but you are, again, incorrect.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government will pay the entire cost of expanding state Medicaid programs for three years beginning Jan. 1, and 90 percent or more in subsequent years.

Seaward wrote:
Maddermax wrote:
removing...most government benefits programs (like medicare, medicaide, food subsidies for low income earners and social security).

Even just seeing it in text, it's still glorious.

To put this in perspective for the British, it's basically like advocating the removal of the NHS, old age pension and all individual benefits, whatever they may be. It is a very strong view point, not generally seen outside the US, though hardly deserving of being forcibly commited (though I have a feeling Michelle Bachmann might be at some point, for reasons unrelated to her ideology

).

**Seaward**

Maddermax wrote:
You should take this to the Obamacare thread if you want to argue the point, but you are, again, incorrect.

Hey, you're the one who brought it up. And no, the 90% subsidy only covers people who are newly eligible - it will not, for example, cover those already eligible who have not yet enrolled, but will now due to health reform.

And the problem with it even if it did do as you believe it would do is that that money has to come from somewhere. People refer to the federal government's money as though it's just going to sprout from the ground. The whole thing isn't sustainable.

**kronk**

I love actors and actresses that comment on politics as much as I love actors and actresses that comment on sports, porn stars that comment on fashion, and race car drivers that comment on brands of disposable enemas.

**Ahtman**

kronk wrote:
I love actors and actresses that comment on politics as much as I love actors and actresses that comment on sports, porn stars that comment on fashion, and race car drivers that comment on brands of disposable enemas.

Well we are all just some yahoos on the internet and we comment on that stuff all the time. I imagine a lot of the reason they ask actors, and especially those like Sean Penn, is because they are hoping for some juicy soundbite like this.

**kronk**

Ahtman wrote:

Well we are all just some yahoos on the internet and we comment on that stuff all the time.

I'm mother fething kronk, king of the dorks, lord of the losers. My mom says I'm special.

**Ouze**

motyak wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Seaward wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Well, we all love the sounds of our own voice and love to tell people what we think.

Judging by those stats legoburner put up in the DCM forum, some of you really, really really love it.

What's your point?

That some people have posted a lot on dakka I'd assume...

In which people who participate on an internet discussion forum are put down by other people on an internet forum; for participating on that internet forum.

It's actually sort of impressive how far people will go to drop their above the fray, too cool for school one liners, really.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
In which people who participate on an internet discussion forum are put down by other people on an internet forum; for participating on that internet forum.

It's actually sort of impressive how far people will go to drop their above the fray, too cool for school one liners, really.

You're reading way too much into it. I'd suggest a little less projection.

**Frazzled**

juraigamer wrote:
He does have a point about the tea party being mentally derp.

In the 70s in the USSR, the Soviets routinely sent dissidents to insane asylums. After all, they clearly had to be nuts no?

**juraigamer**

Frazzled wrote:
juraigamer wrote:
He does have a point about the tea party being mentally derp.

In the 70s in the USSR, the Soviets routinely sent dissidents to insane asylums. After all, they clearly had to be nuts no?

I wasn't aware being angry in russia was common. You gotta band together with each other or those polar bears will get you.

**sebster**

d-usa wrote:
Because they matter!

And that might be longest role Sean Bean has had where he didn't die. Outside of Sharpe, of course

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The movement seems to have a terrible habit of putting forward it's noisiest and most outlandish people, not it's smartest or capable of playing well with others.

That's the nature of angry politics, isn't it? The most angry are the most likely to be placed in leadership positions.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
and race car drivers that comment on brands of disposable enemas.

Race car drivers probably know a thing or two about enemas. I mean, they have to have some way of making sure they don't have to gak during a race.