The Teabaggers.
There's nothing wrong with questioning your government. It's just all good motivations get manipulated by those with power to push an agenda that may have been unforeseeable by those who begot it with potentially good intentions.
If someone says, Parka'd, they can eat a bag of dicks.
I find it interesting that the 'Baggers were no where to be seen when Bush Jr. misled Congress into an unnecessary war in Iraq that will end up costing the country $3 trillion. Nor did they have anything to say about his $350 billion giveaway in bank bailout funds to his Wall Street cronies with zero accountability. I like how they become fiscally conservative under only the most selective of circumstances.
I don't think they were a formal group then. I'd say the Bush years led to this. And i'm sure there are loads of them who were part of its beginning who would never associate with it now, what with it being the arm and voice of Beck and Palin.
Fearmongering in the worst of ways.
I'm of the opinion that it took 8 years of shit for people to get fed up, and so now it looks like they are simply opposing the Democrats, rather than actually fighting for what they believe it. It's making the rift worse.
It's a statistical measure. 100 is always the mean.
Gee, you caught me ejrathke, it's almost as if you've exposed me as making it up as a sarcastic way to say I think teabaggers are stupid. And I thought I had you all fooled. On top of that jane doesn't think I'm funny? I'm so humbled and defeated by both your superior debate skills, there is simply nothing left for me to do, but bow my head in shame and walk away.
Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative
Fearmongering in the worst of ways.
I pointed this out before, but the Tea Party changes it's platform every few years. I remember back in 2005, when the local Tea Party was pissed off at Bush for his tolerance of "the illegals" (they're takin' our jerbs!). They weren't talking about socialism and the taking of freedoms then. They find something new to bitch about all the time, but now, the Republitards want in on the action because they're a bunch of directionless, leaderless asswipes. Anyone who voted for George W. Bush after that Patriot Act bullshit is being intellectually dishonest when they say their problem with the Obama Administration has to do with the taking of freedoms.
Here's a great open letter to conservatives. The fuel of the current tea party.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/a/m/americandad/2010/03/...
EDIT:
^The fuck? LMAO.
It's a statistical measure. 100 is always the mean.
Gee, you caught me ejrathke, it's almost as if you've exposed me as making it up as a sarcastic way to say I think teabaggers are stupid. And I thought I had you all fooled. On top of that jane doesn't think I'm funny? I'm so humbled and defeated by both your superior debate skills, there is simply nothing left for me to do, but bow my head in shame and walk away.
It's no one's fault that you're neither funny nor clever.
It's a statistical measure. 100 is always the mean.
Gee, you caught me ejrathke, it's almost as if you've exposed me as making it up as a sarcastic way to say I think teabaggers are stupid. And I thought I had you all fooled. On top of that jane doesn't think I'm funny? I'm so humbled and defeated by both your superior debate skills, there is simply nothing left for me to do, but bow my head in shame and walk away.
It's no one's fault that you're neither funny nor clever.
Now that's just hurtful ejrathke , and so witty that it truly puts my Joke to shame. But, please, look past our rough start and give me one more chance, one more chance with an open mind? Fair enough? O.k., here it goes: Two knuckle dragging teabaggers walk into a bar. They notice a pretty lady sitting across the bar eating peanuts. They sit down and begin discussing how "Brobama." is a communist/nazi/socialist/African/muslim/illegal immigrant/baby killer/terrorist/puppy rapist. The woman eating peanuts is so blown away by the stupidity of their theories that she begins choking on a peanut. One of the teabaggers jumps up, runs over, lifts her skirt and licks her right butt cheek. The woman is so startled, she screams and the peanut comes flying out. When the teabagger goes back to his table, the other teabagger says, "You know I heard of that there hind lick maneuver, but I ain't never seen no one do it before." What do you think? Better, at least? Jane? Anyway, whatever the verdict I hope there are no hard feelings, and I mean that, just trying to have some fun.
Sanity is the playground for the unimaginative
That's it, i'm not looking at any more political threads from now on. I'm sorry Alexa.
I agree. They devolve into tripe at no fault of the thread starter.
It's the worst.
I burglar dropped the bag and said, "It wasn't me! I was returning it!"
Since there seems to be some level of displeasure concerning recent subject matter, perhaps we could shift gears just a tad and discuss our colloquial associations with violent organizations.
What was said here was very interesting. The first sentence applauds skepticism. The second sentence has dual/contradictory aspirations.
To be clear, words ought be defined.
society - the collective concept of every individual human being within lines one may draw on a map.
government - a collection of individuals within a society who claim a monopoly on the use of force over a given geographic area.
To have a dual desire for society and government to grow is to support competing interests. To increase the use of force, by expanding the sole agency thereof, is to combat society. Government is, by its nature, anti-social. Society as it is understood is consciously manipulated by government through the threat, and occasional use, of force.
Although government is anti-social by definition, this is not to say one must consider themselves an anarchist just because they they understand how government is properly defined. You can oppose the natural progressions of society and feel everyone would somehow be better off if those natural whims were manipulated, but I've yet to see a government intervention that didn't cause more harm than good overall.
Now let's look at the second clause of the second sentence (is it a clause? part? y'all know what I mean). Through questioning and criticism...I agree, both are good. But how does one question or criticize the government?
"Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes." -Alexander Haig
Do mere questions matter worth a feces if you have to pay them, or be caged...or killed...
As crappy as Wal-Mart can be at times, they've never personally threatened me for not shopping there. Various town/city/state/federal/county officials have personally threatened me with guns on their waists...but it's not a threat cause words on paper obligate me to their subordination.
I'm getting off topic here, but the point is questioning and criticism is good, but really? Does it mean anything when at the end of the day, you're still very much a slave?
End of analysis, but I will comment, yeah, that's why its better to be constructive rather than confrontational, present solutions when you present problems, etc.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Saying government is anti-social is just silly. A well run, just government is the pinnacle of human social achievement.
You intentionally misinterpreted what Caitlin was saying. She was making a distinction between mature political discourse and knee-jerk, uncompromising fundamentalism in which slander and personal attacks are a means of argument. Not that you would understand, most political conversations, including this one, run under the assumption that government can be legitimate. Your discussions regarding government are like Dawkins' regarding religion. Why would I care what Dawkins has to say about the trinity when he thinks that the subject it is a part of, religion, is bunk.
There are no dual/contradictory aspirations in that quote. She never said that we should limit free speech as a solution political discourse that is rude, vulgar, and absurd. If anything, I read it as "don't vote for these filibustering assholes." And that's what publicly questioning government officials you disagree with can lead to. It's one of the wonderful things about democracy. Caitlin's questioning can make others question and the end result in November may be change. So it is "worth a feces."
I've never heard of a plantation where the slaves had the option of electing new leadership. Where they couldn't be punished for questioning authority. Where they had the ability to become involved in management and direct change. Where the owners educated them so they would have the ability to challenge their leadership in the future. You definition of slave and my definition of slave must be vastly different.
At least we all agree that it is better to be constructive than confrontational. 
"[B]eing good is a fearful occupation; men strain at it and sometimes break in two." - Ray Bradbury
.
"We don't want a Government of the People; we want a government of People Like Us."
You can protest a government that you don't feel represents you or your interests, or you can take part, and insure that your voice is heard. Don't disenfranchise yourself, run for office. You can rail against the System, and try to blow it up, or you can realize that you are the system, and effect change.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Saying government is anti-social is just silly.
You did not address my point. Ignoring what I'm saying is not addressing my point.
It's really assholic and condescending to do that, and makes me not want to talk to you.
What is a government? Build the theory from the ground up. You've thrown out a conclusion, now prove it.
I believe I was clear. I said that what she likely meant and what she said were two different things.
Excuse me for believing that words mean something.
Your paradigm will never change if you never open your mind to new ideas. You're openly praising your own ignorance rather than actually addressing my points.
Because you can still analyze the philosophical implications of the pieces of a system of thought. You seem to have an aversion to thinking when you formulate a reason why thinking about a particular thing is stupid.
Government only perpetuates itself. Prove otherwise if you wanna act like its true.
You're talking about chattel slavery, a particular system of slavery. Let's ask Webster for clarification:
1 : drudgery, toil
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding
I'm using #2, and it fits quite well. To the extent that you don't own yourself, you are a slave.
That requires mutual participation in the discussion.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
This makes me think to, what the eff is social achievement? Society doesn't exist, how can it have an achievement?
Only individuals exist. How they cooperate and network to meet each other's needs you can call society, but it's not a person and is dangerous to treat as such.
Think: corporations.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Regarding the "Tea Baggers used N-word-F'word" accusation, I've seen the You Tube videos of that particular incident and there is no "chorus" of people chanting the N-word. In fact, there are no videos that catch on video or audio the use of any of these words. I know people who were there personally, and they also state that it never actually happened. As for "violence". There were several million of them marching not so long ago and there were no riots or other similar events. On the other hand, the recent illegal alien marches in Arizona involved a mob throwing objects at police and shouting "Free Healthcare! You owe us America!" On another event, leftists threw eggs at "Tea Bagger" buses and then accused "Tea Baggers" of violence. Seems to me, the only violent ones lately are the leftists.
Another thing to be wary about. I have seen polls out on the Tea Party movement, and close to 40 percent of them state they have never even VOTED before in their lives or have been involved in politics. This isn't a "right vs left" thing anymore. It's a mainstream movement containing both Democrats and Republicans who are tired of government spending. Even one of my political science professors, a life long leftist, decried the fact that the government was "robbing social security" to pay for its heavy spending and creating new entitelemts when the ones we have ARE F-ING BROKEN! There is a large group of Americans involved here who have never even thought about voting before. Obama's chief claim to fame was the color of his skin. The novelty of voting for the first Black President has run its course. Ye liberals, underestimate these factors at your own peril.
Either the tea party is lying or the Congressmen are lying. We'll never know who shot the first shot at Lexington either! Although, with the reputation the tea party has of being misinformed, loving red meat and having no substance...I am going to take the Congressmen's word instead of yours. I don't remember people saying there was violence at the tea party protests. More like harassment. And lots of old people.
Polls are dumb. One poll says that 24% of the tea party movement believes President Obama is the Anti-Christ.
When I ask a teabagger to get rid of their Medicare they get all upset and confused! We can't privatize entitlements then they wouldn't be entitlements. We need to make the ones we have more efficient and cut waste. Surprisingly, that is very hard to do. The problem with the tea party is that your main ideals are pretty populist. Like decreasing our national debt, we need to find real ways to cut it and not ones that involve getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency because that would be lolz.
I thought his uh, chief claim to fame was one word. CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE. But some people saw it as BLACK BLACK BLACK BLACK. Guess it depends on what kind of person you are. Being the first black President is a historic accomplishment! Stop mocking it and saying it's a novelty, that is lyke...soo un-american.
You're talking about chattel slavery, a particular system of slavery. Let's ask Webster for clarification:
1 : drudgery, toil
2 : submission to a dominating influence
3 a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another b : the practice of slaveholding
I'm using #2, and it fits quite well. To the extent that you don't own yourself, you are a slave.
You are as much as slave as you allow yourself to be.
This makes me think to, what the eff is social achievement? Society doesn't exist, how can it have an achievement?
Only individuals exist. How they cooperate and network to meet each other's needs you can call society, but it's not a person and is dangerous to treat as such.
Think: corporations.
You do know that just because something isn't tangible that it can still exist? Happiness exists. Wind exists. Ideas exist.
Either the tea party is lying or the Congressmen are lying. We'll never know who shot the first shot at Lexington either! Although, with the reputation the tea party has of being misinformed, loving red meat and having no substance...I am going to take the Congressmen's word instead of yours. I don't remember people saying there was violence at the tea party protests. More like harassment. And lots of old people.
A Congressmen lie? Preposterous!
Hahaha
Another thing to be wary about. I have seen polls out on the Tea Party movement, and close to 40 percent of them state they have never even VOTED before in their lives or have been involved in politics. This isn't a "right vs left" thing anymore. It's a mainstream movement containing both Democrats and Republicans who are tired of government spending. Even one of my political science professors, a life long leftist, decried the fact that the government was "robbing social security" to pay for its heavy spending and creating new entitelemts when the ones we have ARE F-ING BROKEN! There is a large group of Americans involved here who have never even thought about voting before. Obama's chief claim to fame was the color of his skin. The novelty of voting for the first Black President has run its course. Ye liberals, underestimate these factors at your own peril.
First of all, eggs aren't "violence". And second, what is the government supposed to do with that money besides spend it? You're just mad they're not spending it on what you want them to spend it on. You guys are just making a bunch of noise and everyone's making fun of you and your silly leaders.
What's your point? That poll is probably accurate.
I am unsure if any of these "entitlements" are even going to benefit me in any way. I'm paying into social security but am I really going to get ANY of that money back when I reach retirement age? Will there even be Medicare at the point in time I am ready to start using it? I keep hearing every now and then certain "dates" when SS is expected to go broke. I hear another estimate about a year later, and all of a sudden its expected to go broke 5 years sooner. What the hell does that say? Meanwhile, people want to EXPAND these same entitlements to greater amounts of people.
I for one am preparing for a life in which I will in NO way benefit from any of these "entitlements". I think, perhaps, we all should do the same rather than hoping that our government somehow solves these problems. Considering the amount of money being spent at this time, it should be obvious that the government isn't interested in these sentiments. They're just bringing the eventual collapse of our current system ever closer.
As for the novelty for voting for the first black President. Yes, it IS a novelty. One of my best friends, a black girl, voted for Obama based PURELY on his skin color. (She told me so!) She knows nothing about his politics and has no interest in learning. When the next election cycle comes in, do you think that voters like her are going to care enough to vote for him a second time? On the other side, we have a resurgence of first time voters pumped with "Obama's a stinking socialist" passion who are guaranteed to come out in force.
First of all, eggs aren't "violence". And second, what is the government supposed to do with that money besides spend it? You're just mad they're not spending it on what you want them to spend it on. You guys are just making a bunch of noise and everyone's making fun of you and your silly leaders.
First of all, what money? The government is spending money it doesn't have. Second of all, do you in your personal life spend whatever money you have just because you have it? I suppose that would be your right to do so; however, does the government have the right to spend OUR money just because it has it? Does the government have a right to put you and me into DEBT? I work full time and go to school full time. My only free time is in the middle of the night like right now. I make **** for money, but yet I'm still paying into FICA a bunch of cash I'm never going to see. I have money floating around out there that's funding someone's pet project and NOT my FICA taxes (I've seen news reports detailing how the government fudges with FICA to "borrow" money). I have money out there I am never going to see again in my life. Sure, people need it. My grandmother needs it. Lots of people depend on it. But how long are they going to get to take advantage of that when the government disrespects the American tax payer and spends worse than a drunken sailor? A drunken sailor, at least, stops when he runs out of money.
By the way, what's with the "you're just mad they're not spending it on what you want"? I don't think it's right to assume that everyone is looking for a handout.
This makes me think to, what the eff is social achievement? Society doesn't exist, how can it have an achievement?
Only individuals exist. How they cooperate and network to meet each other's needs you can call society, but it's not a person and is dangerous to treat as such.
Think: corporations.
You do know that just because something isn't tangible that it can still exist? Happiness exists. Wind exists. Ideas exist.
Society exists to the extent that the concept of society exists. Society can't be claimed to have achievements, just like the wind can't be happy.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
This makes me think to, what the eff is social achievement? Society doesn't exist, how can it have an achievement?
Only individuals exist. How they cooperate and network to meet each other's needs you can call society, but it's not a person and is dangerous to treat as such.
Think: corporations.
You do know that just because something isn't tangible that it can still exist? Happiness exists. Wind exists. Ideas exist.
Society exists to the extent that the concept of society exists. Society can't be claimed to have achievements, just like the wind can't be happy.
So our democracy wasn't an achievement? The Civil Rights Bill wasn't an achievement? Implementing the interstate highway system wasn't an achievement? Extending a helping hand to Haiti when the country was devastated by an earthquake wasn't an achievement? Ghandi peacefully leading India to independence wasn't an achievement? Sewers and skyscrapers, which allow us to sustain our high populations without completely decimating the land, they aren't an achievement? A community homeless shelter supported by volunteers isn't an achievement? Neither is a public education system? The Roman aquifers?
None of those things are achievements? That even if they are they could be accomplished by an individual? Social achievement exists, you're just too much of a cynic to see it.
"[B]eing good is a fearful occupation; men strain at it and sometimes break in two." - Ray Bradbury
What's your point? That poll is probably accurate.
I am unsure if any of these "entitlements" are even going to benefit me in any way. I'm paying into social security but am I really going to get ANY of that money back when I reach retirement age? Will there even be Medicare at the point in time I am ready to start using it? I keep hearing every now and then certain "dates" when SS is expected to go broke. I hear another estimate about a year later, and all of a sudden its expected to go broke 5 years sooner. What the hell does that say? Meanwhile, people want to EXPAND these same entitlements to greater amounts of people.
I for one am preparing for a life in which I will in NO way benefit from any of these "entitlements". I think, perhaps, we all should do the same rather than hoping that our government somehow solves these problems. Considering the amount of money being spent at this time, it should be obvious that the government isn't interested in these sentiments. They're just bringing the eventual collapse of our current system ever closer.
As for the novelty for voting for the first black President. Yes, it IS a novelty. One of my best friends, a black girl, voted for Obama based PURELY on his skin color. (She told me so!) She knows nothing about his politics and has no interest in learning. When the next election cycle comes in, do you think that voters like her are going to care enough to vote for him a second time? On the other side, we have a resurgence of first time voters pumped with "Obama's a stinking socialist" passion who are guaranteed to come out in force.
Just because these entitlements have been stretched to the limit and are going broke isn't a reason to get rid of them, it is a reason to reform them and make them more efficient. I don't know how you could live life in America with not benefiting from the government. I mean, you drive on the roads, use public services, etc. You should live with Giggan! The Tea Party is not the majority, and it'll never be. The Tea Party has worked their magic in local conventions, like Maine who has a new platform that global warming is a myth. Having regressive politics doesn't get you anywhere.
Your black friend is lame!
Society exists to the extent that the concept of society exists. Society can't be claimed to have achievements, just like the wind can't be happy.
So our democracy wasn't an achievement?
Right there is the problem. "Our" democracy, what does that mean? I don't 'have' a democracy, in no way can myself be said to possess or control anything having to do with the governmental structure which claims dominion over me.
It's the lens you view the world through. I respect that fact that you choose to view humanity as a blob of an organism rather than only seeing individuals voluntarily cooperating as I do. I'm pointing out that realistically, society does not exist. There is no entity 'society' which has any existence apart from the individuals who compose it. Thus, saying that 'society' achieved something is to say that the individuals within that society have achieved something. But this is a generalization when it pays to be more specific - who gained what?
This is where you make the twist...and actually misrepresent me by not understanding me.
I didn't say specific goals of individuals are not achievements, all I said was that non-existent concepts cannot be credited with actions. Individuals act, not 'people'...
I hope you get where I'm going with this, its very easy to define any of these words a different way and give everything I'm saying 10 meanings. When I say 'exist', I mean exist in tangible form. Individuals do, 'people' don't. No new entity is formed when individuals get together and claim to be an entity. The claim is just a placeholder for a non-existent concept.
You a fan of global warming? If it wasn't for the gov't incentivizing everyone have a car, which is not sustainable, and building roads where public transit were required to cover the cost of their tracks, there would never have been a proliferation of fossil fuel industries*.
*I should say to the level we see today.
We could have a great thread on how gov't roads of any sort, and especially the highway system, end up effing things up economically, like everything gubmint does for a simple reason:
If people wanted to do that shit with their money, they'd do it. Government using force to get them to do something different does not make people act any more intelligently.
Why is Haiti poor as f**k right now? There a government behind that, or is that 'just how "capitalism" (whatever that is) works'?
Props to Gandhi and those who stood against the British. However, I had nothing to do with it, claim no credit, and neither should you.
You're collective speak gets quite silly here...what do you or I have to do with sewers and skyscrapers? I don't build them. Do you? Is this your way of claiming credit? What makes you call them 'our'?
Bureaucrats shut down voluntary homeless shelters all the time for stupid reasons. Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.
Government education sucks. To all the people stuck in poverty who get nothing from government schools, tell this to them.
If it happened before I was born, come on.
I never said that.
Or individuals. There's no natural law against pluralizing.
Perhaps God exists, but I'm just too much of a realist to bask in his glory.
Please spare me of the dismissive labels. Or at least tell me how I'm qualifying for them without strawmanning me.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Just because these entitlements have been stretched to the limit and are going broke isn't a reason to get rid of them, it is a reason to reform them and make them more efficient. I don't know how you could live life in America with not benefiting from the government. I mean, you drive on the roads, use public services, etc. You should live with Giggan! The Tea Party is not the majority, and it'll never be. The Tea Party has worked their magic in local conventions, like Maine who has a new platform that global warming is a myth. Having regressive politics doesn't get you anywhere.
Your black friend is lame!
It remains to be seen who is the majority. Considering the amount of soon to be "first time voters" and their zeal, all indications point to a major upset come next election cycle. Whatever the case, only the next election will prove the point one way or another.
Also, I don't think that just because I drive on a road gives the government the right to confiscate my property to "spread the wealth" via entitelements. As a free citizen, I have absolute rights to my life, liberty and property. I cannot have any of these things taken from me without a due process of law. If the government can take whatever it wants from me and the American people at will, I cease to have any rights. The power of government is limited and must remain so.
What is so great about the entitlement programs we have? Social Security was good for my grandmother. However, how successful can it be when the system is going to collapse for you and me? The only "solutions" they have is to raise the retirement age... and just what are we getting anyway? Social security isn't enough money to live on. Instead of people preparing themselves throughout their lives for an eventual retirement, people have been led to believe that the government will cradle their old bodies when the time comes to finally stop working. However, we now know this is a lie. The government is NOT going to be there and never could be there indefinitely for us. A lot of people who are expecting handouts are going to come to a rude awakening real soon. They're going to find out that there isn't enough money in the world to fund their lifestyles or pet projects. Oh, hey, I didn't live my life right or I made mistakes and now I'm going to die in poverty? Oh well. S*** happens. An old quote from William Buckley that explains the meaning of "Don't immanentize the Eschaton!" just about sums up our attempts at solving all these problems:
“Eschaton means, roughly, the final things in the order of time; immanentize means, roughly, to cause to inhere in time. So that to immanentize the eschaton is to cause to inhere in the worldly experience and subject to human dominion that which is beyond time and therefore extraworldly. To attempt such a thing is to deny the transcendence of God; to assume that Utopia is for this world.”
Whenever someone trumps out the "I have a black friend card", I immediately assume they are a liar and not only do they not have a black friend, they don't have a black associate.
But let's make the assumption you do in fact have a black friend. Even if she voted for Obama simply because he's black; who gives a shit? According to a 'poll' you quoted 40% of Tea Party people have never voted in an election. I would argue they are no more qualified to have a political opinion than your supposed friend.
The bulk of the Tea Party people don't have a damn clue about how anything works. They want lower taxes, even though they are historically in a lower tax bracket than many times in the past. They don't want socialized medicine, even though that wasn't even on the table. Hell, they seem to think that socialism is the same thing as fascism.
I don't doubt that some of them are smart people. But when I see them on the road with their ridiculous signs, the only thing I see is middle-aged and up white people, and a gaggle of their children who are not old enough to vote, let alone have any idea what the sign they are holding means. What I personally see is, a bunch of people who are scared that white people are rapidly becoming the minority and that the number of practicing Christians lowers every year.
That said, I do like the fact that the Tea Party is going to do nothing more than siphon away votes from Republican candidates. Much like Nadar did to the Democrats.
But let's make the assumption you do in fact have a black friend. Even if she voted for Obama simply because he's black; who gives a shit? According to a 'poll' you quoted 40% of Tea Party people have never voted in an election. I would argue they are no more qualified to have a political opinion than your supposed friend.
The bulk of the Tea Party people don't have a damn clue about how anything works. They want lower taxes, even though they are historically in a lower tax bracket than many times in the past. They don't want socialized medicine, even though that wasn't even on the table. Hell, they seem to think that socialism is the same thing as fascism.
I don't doubt that some of them are smart people. But when I see them on the road with their ridiculous signs, the only thing I see is middle-aged and up white people, and a gaggle of their children who are not old enough to vote, let alone have any idea what the sign they are holding means. What I personally see is, a bunch of people who are scared that white people are rapidly becoming the minority and that the number of practicing Christians lowers every year.
That said, I do like the fact that the Tea Party is going to do nothing more than siphon away votes from Republican candidates. Much like Nadar did to the Democrats.
Woah, you just made me rethink my entire life. Not only do I have a black friend. I have several. In fact, not only do I have black friends but I myself *gasp* am a Hispanic! *OMG* Not only am I hispanic but I also have *gasp* a half brother who is part Apache indian! *gasp* And here I thought I was a racist sexist homophobic "tea bagging" Whitey!... Oh, wait a minute, I just realized my black friend is also A WOMAN. *OMG* ANOTHER MINORITY GROUP.
My comment that she voted for him only because Obama is black is suffecient in that my point was that such a voter is not expected to return the next time around. In other words, the "passion" people had the first time, especially those new voters, will not likely return. The passion right now exists on the other side where the "first time voters" have come back to oppose Obama. In other words, it is a dark omen for him.
Socialized healthcare is on the table insomuch that Obama stated he supported a single payer system and claimed that such a healthcare law would provide a "opening" from which it could be inflicted upon the country. I also am in the "lower tax bracket". In fact, I only pay my payroll and State taxes and nothing more. I get big refunds in the mail which is quite nice. The problem, however, is that my employers ARE subject to tax. And when their operating expenses exceed my value as an employee, WHO DO YOU THINK GETS SCREWED? The business? The government? Or ME? Verizon and a bunch of other companies reported that they stood to lose MILLIONS because of changes in the healthcare law. All of a sudden, where I work, where we used to be hiring CONSTANTLY, my employers are not hiring anymore and 5 people have been fired for doing things that have been against the rules but never enforced with that level of seriousness. While you live in dreamland with George Norry, I live in a world where losing my job can mean homelessness or the end of my education. After the government has unemployed me, will there be enough money for the government to feed, cloth and educate me? NOT FOREVER BUDDY. Keep dreaming also about the Tea Party "siphoning" votes from the Republicans. It will not be that easy.
As for socialism and fascism... They are not so different. Fascism is socialism with a facade of capitalism. It is indirect socialism at best, a "third way" supposedly superior over both capitalism and socialism but only leads to the same old absolute control over people's lives.
Wow, so you're the one guy that they keep taking pictures of to prove that the 'party' isn't entirely composed of racist white people. That is kind of cool. Nice to meet you!
Obama did have a lot of first time voters. There is no question about that. However, he also had an overwhelmingly large amount of new and young voters. Young people are a huge demo that, as the last election proved, can quickly and easily change an election. Will some of them not vote next time? No doubt. But the same is easily said for that 40% of Tea Party people you brought up.
Personally, I wish we had a single payer health care system. I'm also self-employed, and pay for my own health insurance. Frankly, if I had to pay a higher tax rate to be guaranteed health care that could not drop me if something bad happens, I would be HAPPY to. Instead, I currently get the privilege to pay a shitty company month after month hoping that something bad enough doesn't happen to me so I don't get dropped and bankrupt myself.
I really don't see how anyone can actually think our current system is any good at all. There are certain things that should not be privatized. Health care is, in my opinion, one of them.
I also don't give a fuck what corporations stand to 'lose' for having to offer their employees decent health coverage. Especially when the gap between their executives and their employees widens year after year.
The problem, as I see it is, that the Tea Party people seriously think that someday, they'll all be making $5 million a year. And they of course don't want to pay the tax that the rich 'pay'. The fact is, at best they'll get promoted to floor manager, or some other disposable middle-management position and spend the rest of their lives in mediocrity. Of course, Americans have a damn hard time accepting the truth. Of course, we're all too fucking greedy... But that is a cultural issue more than anything else.
Obama did have a lot of first time voters. There is no question about that. However, he also had an overwhelmingly large amount of new and young voters. Young people are a huge demo that, as the last election proved, can quickly and easily change an election. Will some of them not vote next time? No doubt. But the same is easily said for that 40% of Tea Party people you brought up.
Personally, I wish we had a single payer health care system. I'm also self-employed, and pay for my own health insurance. Frankly, if I had to pay a higher tax rate to be guaranteed health care that could not drop me if something bad happens, I would be HAPPY to. Instead, I currently get the privilege to pay a shitty company month after month hoping that something bad enough doesn't happen to me so I don't get dropped and bankrupt myself.
I really don't see how anyone can actually think our current system is any good at all. There are certain things that should not be privatized. Health care is, in my opinion, one of them.
I also don't give a fuck what corporations stand to 'lose' for having to offer their employees decent health coverage. Especially when the gap between their executives and their employees widens year after year.
The problem, as I see it is, that the Tea Party people seriously think that someday, they'll all be making $5 million a year. And they of course don't want to pay the tax that the rich 'pay'. The fact is, at best they'll get promoted to floor manager, or some other disposable middle-management position and spend the rest of their lives in mediocrity. Of course, Americans have a damn hard time accepting the truth. Of course, we're all too fucking greedy... But that is a cultural issue more than anything else.
Corporations are bastards. On the other hand, it is not only corporations who are going to suffer. Small business as well, and the people who these corporations and small businesses employ. If our other entitlements teach us anything, it is that the American people do not have enough money to fund them forever. There comes a point when the government and people consume more than they produce. There comes a point when nature will reassert itself against our unnatural lifestyles. We are already on that path, and when we have to settle for poverty, do not say "Well, we're all too greedy anyway".
You're talking about people who have sex with turtles, aren't you? They weird me out, too.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Or individuals. There's no natural law against pluralizing.
Well, individuals working together for the benefit of the group as a whole = SOCIETY. Do individuals work together for the benefit of the group as a whole? Yes. Hence we live in a society.
Do an colonies not exist? Only individual ants? Do mathematics not exist? How about aesthetics?
I didn't say specific goals of individuals are not achievements, all I said was that non-existent concepts cannot be credited with actions. Individuals act, not 'people'...
If you cannot look at humans as a collective entity it doesn't mean that humans, as a collective entity, don't exist. It means you're too narrow minded to look at things from a more broad perspective. When I said humans built the Roman aquifers you took exception because you weren't there. But I never claimed that YOU built a Roman aquifer. Your species did. And the lifestyles we live today are built on top of the achievements of our ancestors.
Social achievement in all of the examples I provided are things that could not be accomplished by one individual or even a group of individuals had they not been socially organized. Social hierarchies made those achievements possible.
Society (people)
|
v
Cultures (smaller groups of people)
|
v
Families (even smaller groups of people)
|
v
Individuals (You and I)
As you see, we belong to the social hierarchy. Perhaps neither of us had anything to do with any of society's achievements ever. So what? A bench player for Michigan's football team is still a Wolverine. He's a member of the same team Fielding Yost coached 100 years ago. He's not credited with winning those championships under Yost, but he is credited with being on a team with a championship history. If Michigan were to win the Big Ten Championship this year and that bench player never took part in a single play in an actual game, he still belongs to a championship team. Because in football, much like in government, individual achievement is absolutely necessary. But unless it is collectively organized, individual achievement is bupkis. By filling his role in the practice squad, that bench player has contributed to the championship. By doing our jobs and paying our taxes and being civically active we contribute to the achievements of our government.
Saying society doesn't exist is like saying football teams don't exist. Team is to football players as society is to citizens. This non-existant concept of "team" cannot be credited with achievements? My Wolverines beg to differ. Reductio ad absurdum.
"[B]eing good is a fearful occupation; men strain at it and sometimes break in two." - Ray Bradbury
When a bunch of individuals enrich themselves in a collective manner, they're still a bunch of individuals enriching themselves. The society concept is one you want to incorporate, not me. But have fun being a member of the collective, if that's your thing.
And you said, 'our ancestors'. While it is common in English to refer to distant relatives as 'my ancestor' or 'our ancestors'. I'm not fond of this because it implies ownership over the past by the present, and I think it does a bit on the ego of the living entity claiming the past as though it is their own.
The aquifers were not a 'social achievement' if I get my water from a well, it's just technology that helps some people and not others.
You keep wanting to incorporate this fictional 'society' concept into a realistic understanding of human action. It just doesn't exist. And as for your hierarchy thing, I don't accept it. I don't care what sort of system you want to impose over me, because I definitely do not want it if I can't say 'no, thank you' to it.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Obama did have a lot of first time voters. There is no question about that. However, he also had an overwhelmingly large amount of new and young voters. Young people are a huge demo that, as the last election proved, can quickly and easily change an election. Will some of them not vote next time? No doubt. But the same is easily said for that 40% of Tea Party people you brought up.
Personally, I wish we had a single payer health care system. I'm also self-employed, and pay for my own health insurance. Frankly, if I had to pay a higher tax rate to be guaranteed health care that could not drop me if something bad happens, I would be HAPPY to. Instead, I currently get the privilege to pay a shitty company month after month hoping that something bad enough doesn't happen to me so I don't get dropped and bankrupt myself.
I really don't see how anyone can actually think our current system is any good at all. There are certain things that should not be privatized. Health care is, in my opinion, one of them.
I also don't give a fuck what corporations stand to 'lose' for having to offer their employees decent health coverage. Especially when the gap between their executives and their employees widens year after year.
The problem, as I see it is, that the Tea Party people seriously think that someday, they'll all be making $5 million a year. And they of course don't want to pay the tax that the rich 'pay'. The fact is, at best they'll get promoted to floor manager, or some other disposable middle-management position and spend the rest of their lives in mediocrity. Of course, Americans have a damn hard time accepting the truth. Of course, we're all too fucking greedy... But that is a cultural issue more than anything else.
Corporations are bastards. On the other hand, it is not only corporations who are going to suffer. Small business as well, and the people who these corporations and small businesses employ. If our other entitlements teach us anything, it is that the American people do not have enough money to fund them forever. There comes a point when the government and people consume more than they produce. There comes a point when nature will reassert itself against our unnatural lifestyles. We are already on that path, and when we have to settle for poverty, do not say "Well, we're all too greedy anyway".
Corporations are eating the American middle class alive. That is why more people are suffering and can't afford much. Health Care is just as vital to our society as education. We can't have a productive society if babies that are born with a condition can't get health insurance, and children who's parents decide to rid Thomas Jefferson from text books cannot learn the history of our country. Divisive politics and giant corporations deciding the future of our country is a step to doomsday! At least with government; we can be individuals and vote for someone we believe fits our ideals.
I don't think the purpose of our democracy is to shun and ignore the less fortunate and concentrate on the privileged. The problem with our never ending national debt is that we are a nation where working on a budget is unimaginable. We spend billions on foreign aid and defense, if we were to cut those budgets we would be in a better shape financially. If we didn't let corporations move jobs overseas and China taking our manufacturing jobs, we would have a better job market! If we didn't deregulate the market and rescind tough regulations on corporations, we would not have had the "almost depression, recession", and if our politicians weren't owned by lobbyists; they would actually care and solve our problems.
We can't have a productive society if...
You can't have a productive anything that doesn't exist. God!
LOL!
Yeah, Giggan really lost me on that one.
LOOKS LIKE US "TEABAGGERS" WERE RIGHT YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS! LMFAO!
brobama goes on vacation instead of Arlingon National Cemetary, (FUCK THE MILITARY!). illegal, unconstitutional bans on media coverage of the Gulf Spill, (FUCK AMERICA). brother bama goes golfing during Gulf Spill Crisis,(FUCK THE WORLD!). Jesse Kennedy, you are obviously unaware of just how evil our politicians and government can be or exactly what a Teabagger is.
I'm a Teabagger! That means that i will take my balls & pop em in YOUR mouth & down your throat because you are a bitch and because i'm just sick enough to do it for the laughs! you're outta your league but nice try bitch.
i aint here to live, i'm just here to dream
You are crude and offensive.
.