Where is the Tea Party on social issues?
 

It seems like the Republicans lost in 2008 based in part on the social agenda that the nation didn't agree with. But, now the Tea Party has found traction with the fiscal conservatives (I think that they have a valid concern), but is being used as a front by the strong social conservatives to get into power once again.

So, is it written anyplace where the tea party movement stands on the environment, guns, abortion, gay marriage, immigration (both legal and guest workers), drug policy, and other social issues? (A few of the basics are here About us :: TeaParty.org , but how will they deal with the consequences of less tax revenue and more guns. I fear it will look like Northern Mexico on their bad days)

Going by what the right-wing radio guys are talking about, it is pretty much an anti-Obama, anti-democrat, anti-liberal agenda. Yet, I can't find any central list of where their platform stands. And the Contract From America http://www.contractfromamerica.com/ only shows that they are against taxes on pollution, which I would rather see a cap policy (rations) and high gas taxes until we are 100% off imported oil. Getting foreign oil is causing too many problems, and those costs aren't being burden by the people using it.

I think a Green Tea Party with fiscal policies to reduce our debt by producing energy here rather than importing it (using a large percentage of renewable power), promoting abortion for couples who aren't ready (and it makes better financial sense), promoting a separation of church and state, you can keep your guns (but it doesn't make you special), getting and keeping people healthy to reduce costs, and a balanced budget at both the Federal, state, and local levels (without having the states undercut each other to promise lower taxes on corporations if they move their business there).

Yes. As far as I can tell, they're against things. There are general principles that inform that against-ness, but I can't really make out anything concrete that they're FOR.

Truth be told I've been to busy over the last year or two to pay attention to politics like I should (really need to get back into it) so I'm not very well versed on the platform of the tea party. However living in a red state I do often run across people who affiliate with it and talking to them I find there seems to be a split on social issues. Keep in mind this is small sample size but from I've found some have the typical Republican stance on social issues while others seem to take a more Libertarian view.

Both just seem to be burned out on the Republican party and want something better/different. Yet the organization is so new it lacks any kind of real leadership it just hasn't been properly defined yet instead surviving more on disgruntled Republicans with a hodgepodge of different ideas ranging from the extreme to very moderate. From what I've gathered they seem a little like the Democrats who jumped ship for Ralph Nader back in the day, you wound up with a group consisting of hardcore Green Party members mixed with disillusioned Democrats who all had different ideas about what they wanted out of a third party.

Of course we all remember what happened there, the left wing votes were split and arguably helped Bush win the election....so will the same be true in 2012 for the right? Sorry, got off topic there.

Anyway I think I'm finding that its just a massive group full of varying ideas who happened to be united by simply being on the right of most issues. It will be interesting to see what they could do if they get their shit together, not that I'd necessarily support them (really depends on how they define themselves) but third parties always fascinate me.

Which will, come November, prove to be the unraveling of the party.

I've said it before, but McCain's choice of Palin as a running mate in '08 killed the GOP as the voice of most conservatives. They've legitimized the fringe, and left the mainstream conservatives hanging out to dry. Now the GOP has no choice but to embrace the fringe, as they've put the Tea Party in the driving seat. And the Tea Party only has one plank in their platform, as Rat pointed out--oppose everything Obama does. That's not the same as offering up alternatives. All anyone running against a Tea Party candidate would have to do to ensure victory in November is challenge the Tea Party candidate to a debate. Rebutting with "nuh-uh" is not going to sway anyone but the most ignorant Tea Party acolytes (of which there are no shortages, in truth). But Tea Party candidates won't accept such a challenge; they'll claim that being asked to explain their position further than the Anti-Obama argument is an attempt by that wily Main Stream Media to orchestrate a "gotcha" moment, and their acolytes will marvel at how wise their candidate is for avoiding the trap, while still not having any idea what their candidate actually stands for.

Yeah I can't believe people thought bringing Palin on board was an automatic clincher for president, the strategy behind that still mystifies me to this day. It was funny as fuck watching that train wreck occur amongst cries of "elections over!!!!" it was even funnier laughing about a month or two later.

Anyway I think the tea party is just too disjointed right now, its easy to hop on board when the whole theme is anti Obama/Democrats but once they truly have to begin defining themselves as a party they're either just going to be GOP light or hard line fringe and I don't think either will help them win an election. The GOP certainly isn't going to step aside for another party and I think when push comes to shove most tea party members will just go back to the Reps while the whole movement dies out... in other words I think this whole thing is just a political fad and something to unify around while the right is out of the picture.

To have a unified stance, there must be leadership.

There is no leadership right now to the tea party movement, regardless of the media trying to find/install one. They want a leader because it's hard to report on an amalgam of viewpoints as opposed to one large message.

The problem is the Tea Party itself is not a group as much as a loose confederacy. Confederacies throughout history (Civil War not withstanding) only survive so long as there is an outside unifier (we all hate X, so lets stick together to defeat X). You have social liberal / fiscal conservatives, you have fiscal liberal / social conservatives (sneaking their way in, regardless of what they preach vs. enact), and all manners in between.

Asking this is like asking what any racial demographic wants... you'll never get an accurate answer.

We can gloss the values of the Tea Party movement by saying "anything anti-Obama," and perhaps that will hit a swath of truths, however, if we attempt an objective look at the movement, we might get a better picture.

It's difficult to have any definitive list of values because there is no central leadership. However, if you consider the Contract from America, it represents a summary of concerns as surveyed by those involved in the movement. Below are the top ten concerns by popularity:
So basically, they want:

1. Every new law to pass a constitutional challenge
2. To stop cap-and-trade
3. A constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget and 2/3 majority for any changes in taxes
4. A streamlined single-rate tax system (a simplified flat tax)
5. A constitutional audit of all federal agencies, letting the functions of those that fail to fall to state or municipal responsibility
6. To limit the growth of federal spending to inflation + percent population growth
7. To repeal the health care legislation
8. To authorize energy exploration and reduce regulation regarding energy creation
9. A moratorium on all earmarks pending a balanced budget and a 2/3 majority
10. To repeal all tax increases and make permanent Bush's temporary tax reductions

I'm not sure if my list is that much more simplified, but there you go.

Generally, they are strict constitutionalists who want to cut/limit spending, cut taxes, and balance the budget.

I apologize if I've oversimplifed matters. I'm just trying to get a perspective.

Those 10 things are 80% fiscal/governmental policy and 20% social (except cap & trade & gov regulated health care). If you listen to conservative radio, they make it seem like tea party candidates have to pass the GOP purity test and be for lowering taxes for the rich and large companies. Some Conservatives Push a ‘Purity Test’ for GOP Candidates - Washington Wire - WSJ Or do they have the positions that Ron Paul has? Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (His ideas would reduce spending and subsidies although there would be effects from them)

It's my understanding that the movement replicates much of the spirit of Ron Paul. The more I think about it the more I see the movement as generally a libertarian movement. Of course, you get your variances depending on people who participate based on their own self-interests. You're going to get conservative libertarians, who have problems with taxation and any spending beyond military and infrastructure, and you're going to get some left-leaning libertarians, who simply want less federal bureaucracy and would rather more power be diffused though state and municipal governments.

I'm speculating at this point, but I'm trying to get a grasp on things.

I suppose you're not going to get anything agreeable on topics such as abortion, the environment, same-sex marriage, and the like, because you're going to have a mix of people on social political issues. Some will say they're anti-abortion and oppose same-sex marriage because they're generally conservative; however, you're going to get those who say the government shouldn't have anything to do with regulating these things and should keep their noses the fuck out of people's lives.

Most would probably oppose government spending on the environment unless it was in the form of tax breaks and credits for businesses who want to optionally participate in certain programs. I'm not entirely sure about that. Just a hunch.

I think you've got a good grasp of it BG, as best I can tell the one thing I've found that unifies the party is wanting to get back to the old ideals held by the GOP before the neocons took over. I've long suspected there is a part of the Republican party that's tired of the religious fundies and extremists that seem to dominate the landscape of the GOP and want to move back to simple ideas of small govt and such (think Barry Goldwater). The Tea Party seems to fill this void rather well or at least could.

The rise in popularity of Libertarian party over the last few elections would certainly support that to some degree, however Ron Paul seems to be a little to extreme for the average voter and the movement really hasn't caught fire. Most conservatives I know (the sane ones) don't really care about social issues all that much, abortion and gay marriage for example mean very little to them, they stick with the GOP because its the lesser of two evils...at least they'll leave me alone and wont tax me to death kind of thing...Perhaps that's the crowd the Tea party will attract if they manage to build any kind leadership or identity. Which I guess would place their stance on social issues as being up to the individual member...

Still trying to get a grasp on what they really are myself.

Well, if my explorations here are any indication, it would seem to me that the Tea Party arose as a reaction to the perception of Obama's governance that would see higher taxes and spending priorities that would make most libertarians and conservatives cringe.

Basically, they're reacting against the government spending money on such initiatives as universal health care and the environment. It would seem that to give Tea Partiers what they want would be to lessen their tax load and balance the budget. But how the budget gets balanced is the big sticking point. It would require passing a series of constitutional audits.

In Canada, we can have higher taxes, higher spending on social programs, and still balance a budget (at least before 2008; however, the balancing of the budget is the goal currently).

It all comes down to values, perception of value, and whether you are willing to pay for things regardless on whether you take advantage directly or indirectly.

Actually I think Canada does a pretty decent job of balancing taxes, social programs and budgeting but I also think Canada has a much more organized govt (at least that's what I gather from talking with my Canadian friends). I think the prevailing idea behind the tea party is that our govt is incapable of getting anything right, they'd just fuck it up beyond repair and leave us with a bigger mess then what we have now...I'm not sure that isn't entirely unfounded either looking at public education for example.

Which is why I think its roots are based in a movement to sort of resurrect the old GOP or better yet old fashioned conservative values of smaller government. Sticking to the point of the thread I'm not sure social issues really factor into that.

Yeah, there's something about American politics that make it almost seem it's always in crisis mode. You don't really get that here. Sure, you get the political outcries (recently it was the decision to get rid of the census long form) here, but you don't tend to have leadership that fucks things up. There is too much accountability at stake.

Do you know what happens here when the government fucks up badly enough? It usually means we go to the polls to pick a new one.

Exactly, you get to call for an election right? We're stuck with it for how ever many years are left on in the term. Bush is a great example of how a President (and his govt) can fuck up beyond reason and still be in pretty much no danger of losing power.

That's why I tend to sympathize with small govt movements here in the states, not because its better but because bad leadership here can potentially do a lot more damage. Think about that from the view of a conservative starring down 4 years of a President like Obama (or conversely a Dem looking at 4 more years of Bush) you can understand the fear that permeates the US sometimes when it comes to politics.

Well, calling for an election depends, as there are restrictions on timing and conditions. As I mentioned, the budget is one such item. If it is unsatisfactory, opposition parties can vote against it and trigger a dissolution of parliament. There are other such items of government that have the same conditions attached to it.

But it's a serious issue, as you don't want an election only to have it blow up in your face. And it's bad policy to force Canadians to vote when it's not really necessary. We take dissolution seriously. Even the Prime Minister can trigger an election.

Because the Tea Party has not addressed where they stand on social issues, we'll have to cobble together an assumption of where they stand. Judging from the attitudes of the de facto leadership of the Tea Party (Beck, Limbaugh, Palin et. al.), here's what I believe a platform of social issues by the Tea Party would look like:

1. Abortion. Forget it. A woman's right to choose dies with any policy made by the Tea Party. It's contrary to the bible thumping rhetoric the Tea Party invokes.

Which brings us to...

2. The separation of church and state. We're a Christian country. If you don't like it, get out.

3. Inner city programs. Won't get a dime if the Tea Party is holding the purse. I hope you like slums.

4. Gay marriage. If you don't think that the Tea Party would try to pass an amendment that says marriage consists of the union between a man and a woman only, you're delusional.

5. Education. If you want to go to college, you better hope you come from a well off family. Federal grants and loans will dry up like a raindrop in the desert.

6. Health care. It wasn't broke in the first place, am I right?

Just skimming the surface, off the top of my head. This is all wild speculation. But the Tea Party hasn't given us anything to go on when it comes to its stance on social issues; all we can do is make a guess based on the prevailing attitudes of the Tea Party talking heads. I don't think any of these assumptions is far off the mark, considering their rhetoric.

I've always wondered exactly how that procedure works BG. So would it be considered bad form to call an election simply because a PM/party is unpopular? In other words is it viewed as a safety net or is that over simplifying everything?

I guess conversely we here in the states do have mid term elections which can help strike some balance, the Republicans could take back Congress this year which would severely limit the power Obama has, cutting 4 years of "damage" down to 2. (I actually don't mind Obama though so its okay from my perspective)

EDIT: Its still hard to say though Fugly. I've met a lot of people who are VERY much into the Tea Party thing who couldn't careless one way or the other about abortion, Christianity or gay marriage. I do think you've nailed it for a lot of them when it comes to Inner city programs, education and health care though.

Ah, but here's the thing. There may be a lot of Tea Party folk who don't care about issues like gay marriage and abortion, but can the Tea Party lose the "God and Country" crowd and still maintain enough members to be viable? Because the Tea Party doesn't hold "rallies", they hold "revivals".

i think i've told this little anecdote here before, but maybe not.
and i wouldn't say this is representative of anything but i found myself on a guest list more than once for parties hosted by the main movers in the tea party movement in this area. i talked to quite a few of them some of whom are running for office, others of whom are learning about grassroots (or astroturf depending on how things pan out) organizing...i was surprised by the diversity of positions. there was no agreement about philosophical or practical matters. what seemed to unite them was an idea that something Very Bad is Happening Out There and while they can't quite tell you what that Bad Thing is they know that Whatever We Are Doing is Part of that Bad Thing. so being against things seemed to follow. another things they had in common (which is different from being united by) is that these are the first political actions for all these people.

i didn't particularly feel like hearing the obama=communism stuff i suspected was coming so made an outline of my politics known. it likely shut things down.

based on this and what i've read though, i don't think there is a particular ideological center....

Indeed they do (despite what I'm saying here, some of the stuff I've seen around me lately is boarderline scary), but seperating from the "God and Country" crowd could be what gives them an identity amongst more grounded conservatives and thrusts them from side show to mainstream. But it really depends on which ideology wins out in the end, will they reject the Palins and Becks or turn into GOP part II?

But again as long as they center their identity around "Obama sucks" its really hard to tell what direction the whole thing moves.

For what it's worth - and I know, not a whole lot... about as much as the other anecdotal appraisals in this thread - every tea partier I've met in my area has been at least apathetic about religion, if not hostile.

(Which is not to say that they've been pro-choice. If that confuses you, then you don't have a very good handle on the issue.)

IF the Tea Party separated itself from the doomsday fundamentalists, racist elements, and xenophobes, I would welcome the Tea Party, or GOP II, or whatever it became known as. (I feel I have to interject--I don't believe being a Tea Party member makes you a fundamentalist, racist or xenophobe; if you ARE a fundamentalist, racist, or xenophobe, though, chances are you are a Tea Party member.) There is nothing wrong with fiscal conservatism; I consider myself a shade to the left of the line, but I can respect the conservative's pragmatism. But if the Tea Party TRULY hopes to make some noise in the elections in November, they have to show WHERE THEY STAND. As you say, "Obama sucks" doesn't cut it. When they define their politics better than that, though, they're going to find a lot of people jumping off the ship, I believe. It's easy to rally people around "I'm pissed"--that's very generic and fits nicely on a sign. It's harder to keep them when you start getting into specifics. And specifics are what is going to be required from the Tea Party come the elections.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 PM ----------

The picture is much, much different here on the buckle of the Bible belt, trust me. A fine example of the discrepancies in the Tea Party's message.

So, uh, wait a second... you guys are telling me that the tea partiers are about as unified and well-defined as... republicans and democrats?

Maybe it looks like a less organized ideology, but I wonder if it only looks that way because they've chosen a less conventional group of core issues. Might their lack of detail/unity on social issues just indicate something about the priority they place on social issues?

Hell, as someone who frequently votes for people on the wrong side of the gay marriage issue, I find it refreshing that the issue doesn't get much play in that arena.

edit: Let's just add, for fun, that every tea partier I've ever met here hates Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, et. al. OR, ALTERNATE ROUTE! Republicans are a party of closeted gay drug users and Democrats support involuntary manslaughter and tax evasion.

It is different here, I grew up in New England and the difference between right and left in both places is staggering...Dems are conservative, Reps are liberal, its like watching CNN on shrooms.

Anyway I agree. Whats always turned me off about the GOP is the fundies, extremists, racists, bigots and everything else. Its like voting for a fiscally conservative govt means you have to sign up for being pro-life, anti-gay, hardcore christian...well you get the picture. I looked long and hard at Ron Paul (like he was going to win anyway) last elections but you know, for all the good ideas he has so much of his platform is just impractical and too outside of the mainstream. I don't think it would really work. There is a lot to be said for a streamlined, well managed, fiscally conservative govt but for god sakes can we leave the BS out of it for once?


EDIT: FoolThemAll, thats what I was wondering earlier in the thread. I think for a lot of people involved with the Tea Party they just don't place a high value on those issues and would rather leave them vague. I agree it would be refreshing.

Social policy trumps fiscal policy in my book. If you balance the books at the expense of the best interests of your citizens, I'm not interested. So, yeah, I've got no interest in the Tea Party if they have no interest in social issues.

I'm sure your fiscally irresponsible government will survive with no major issues and accomplish all your social dreams so long as your playlist consists of "Let's Get Together" on continuous loop.

Easy, sunshine; I'm no fucking hippie. If you'd read any of my posts you'd know that.

You just made the ignore list, dumbass.

I grieve for my loss.

I know where you're coming, but it sometimes I do think important fiscal issues get glossed over for social issues that while are very important don't always have a real impact on all of our daily lives. Almost like one suffers for the sake of the other (usually fiscal issues as social issues tend to be hot button media circus things), while both should have a time and place. It would be refreshing to shift the national debate away from gay marriage/abortion type issues to how to fund the repair of our crumbling infrastructure/stabilize the cost of living type issues.

That's true, Wes--as long as you aren't a gay person who isn't allowed to get married. Then it IS a priority.

I know what you're saying--these issues seem to suck the life and productivity out of legislature and government. But that's why we have legislature and government, to protect and preserve the rights of those citizens.

I'm aware you can't see this - already the loss is manifest - but kindly keep that oversized brush to yourself.

It's not intrinsic in homosexuality that you have to be short-sighted. Which top-ten issues, exactly, should gay people place gay marriage above?

I'll humor you, Huckleberry, just this once.

Their happiness--as in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--that one--should be at the top of the list, especially since it in no way infringes on anyone else.

Back in the hole with you.

Absolutely, and I hope we always give the issue and others time to be debated (or better yet resolved). I just think some very important issues get lost in the din and worse dominate our elections because soulless politicians want to exploit social issues to grab votes (with really no intention of doing anything). Anyway its a balance thing more then anything else for me.

Bad humor, bad.

Should my smoking friends who used to frequent smoking establishments housed entirely by smoke-friendly staff and customers then value an end to private property smoking bans over, for instance, an end to the war in Afghanistan? Liberty that infringes on no one else and all that jazz.

I'll reiterate: you can be homosexual and still have a half-decent sense of perspective. Put away your brush.

This is my view on them as well (at least in Ohio). But you forgot :

7. The Environment. The Earth is big, man and corporations can not effect it. And companies will do the right thing... But it is fine to not conserve oil, the reason it costs so much is it is taxed too much.

Is this really what they wanted to be, or did the original anti-tax movement get hijacked by the talking heads on TV & radio to become their movement?

Wait--did you just equate a person's "right" to light a cigarette in a public place (an inconvenience at worst), to a person's right to have their union with their partner recognized by the government?

Oh, you sad man. I don't even have to reply to you anymore. It's late on a Sunday night, but when the rational folk of TFP get hold of your post tomorrow, they're gonna beat you around like a Fool pinata.

I'd wear pads. Have fun dodging the broomsticks!

You never did. And if you have nothing to say, I'd prefer you didn't.

You couldn't pay me to touch the main topic of this thread, but I can at least answer these questions.

First of all, there's a distinction to be made -- Canada has a multi-party system, with typically 4-5 different parties holding enough seats to be influential at any given time. The two big names are the Liberal party and the Conservative party, but there's also currently the NDP and Bloq Quebecois. Parties occasionally merge, split, or otherwise change, meaning the exact number of parties holding seats can change from one parliament to the next. Because of this, it's possible for a party to have enough support to gain a plurality without holding a majority of the seats in the house (currently 308 total, so 154 for a majority). This is in contrast to the US system where (as I understand it) congress can belong to one or the other of the two parties, but tends not to be divvied up further than that.

Minority governments are inherently unstable -- to my knowledge, there has never been one to successfully complete a 4 year term. The problem is that whole non-confidence thing; a non-confidence motion can be introduced at any time, and if passed will force the government party out of power (this also happens if a budget fails, though that's technically known as a supply failure instead of a non-confidence motion).

If this occurs, there are one of two ways for things to go. The governer general (who represents the queen in Canada) may ask the opposition party to form a new government, if they have enough support. Since the opposition by definition does not hold a plurality, this would require them to form a coalition with another party in order to boost the number of seats they hold. There was recently talk of this happening if the current minority had been defeated, but due to other political maneuvering that we won't get into it didn't. If it had, it would've been the second time in Canada's history. In the vast majority of cases, the entire government is dissolved and reformed through a general election.

Dissolving the government is a big deal. Elections take a lot of time and resources and nothing can be accomplished until they're done. Because of this, non-confidence votes are generally considered to be something of a political checkmate. If it works, the opposition might be able to gain some seats or even take over the government, but if it backfires the government party might gain more power, even shifting into a majority. It's the end game to the political maneuvering.

The result of all of this is that it works out that the Canadian system has a different set of checks and balances. It's notable also that in practical terms we don't have a separate executive branch. Technically the queen is the head of state here (and is represented by the GG for everyday affairs) but in practice the prime minster holds the power. This means that a majority government is a powerful mandate. However, since we don't have term limits either, it's not exactly a carte blanche either -- if a party pisses off the electorate too much, they may wind up out of power for a very long time. Jean Chretien, for example, was prime minister over a majority government for 10 years straight, and retired before being voted out (although there's more to that story that I won't get into here). This period followed Brian Mulroney, who is perhaps one of the least popular PM's in Canada's history and was a conservative. After Chretien retired the Conservatives managed to regain power, but Stephen Harper hasn't been able to secure a majority to date, meaning things have been unstable for the last decade or so.

I'm not really sure what aspect of this causes Canadian politics to be so much more sober than the American equivalent, though I've made the same observation. I suspect it's just a cultural thing, really, and that pointing to one specific aspect of the system isn't going to be accurate.

But that's how it works, anyway.

Interesting, thanks Martian. Its funny, I've spent a lot of time in Canada, have a lot of Canadian friends, a bunch of family in Atlantic Canada and yet the finer points of the political system were always lost on me. Every time I've ever thought to ask about it (how often does it really come up between pals having a beer?) I always gotten very vague and superficial answers so yeah...

...feeling kinda dumb... :D Anyway thanks again, maybe next time I wont be a dumb ass and pick up a book.

I agree it could be cultural although I do wonder if some our somewhat bipolar political swings aren't to blame. In my lifetime its been Carter --> Reagan/Bush ---> Clinton --> W Bush ---> Obama. Not exactly a smooth slide into new leadership. The swing from right to left is often so extreme it leaves the other party feeling alienated, angry for having lost power (or creates a deep chasm between executive and legislative the Clinton years were especially tense in that regard) and voters are left resentful of the other side who lets face it is going to everything they can to ruin what his predecessor had accomplished. But you're right trying to point to one aspect is probably futile.

I'm not so much bothered by the variety of backgrounds/ideas within the movement (as others have said, it's not like ALL Republicans are bible thumpers or ALL Democrats are pro-choice), but it's the lack of leadership and direction. The Tea Party has been around for, what, over a year now? Without a de facto leader or central organizing body, you're now seeing a variety of semi-powerful people rushing in to fill the void (with attempts to bend the party to their personal views). Michelle Bachmann, etc. don't stand for the same things the Tea Party does, but they are pragmatic enough to see that assuming leadership within the new party is politically advantageous for their own careers.

I went to early TEA party events, but have not been recently - primarily because Palin became a prominent figure and if she is going to be the face of the national TEA party, then I'm obviously not a TEA party member.

Having said that, I would say the early iteration was primarily FOR government fiscal responsibility. In simplest terms, don't spend a dollar which you do not have. It's pretty obvious why this would appear to be anti-Obama, since he spent trillions of dollars he didn't have. So, yeah - a negative spin on the movement would look very much like the party of No.

Social issues will inevitably need to be defined if a political party wants to be a viable national identity. I'd say they have not been strongly defined yet in the TEA party.

Personally, I am pro-civil union for everyone. I don't think I should be married in the eyes of the State, as marriage is a convenant with God in my opinion. The State should not acknowledge my covenant with God, but can acknowledge my signed document saying that if I divorce my wife gets half my stuff, and if I get sick, I want her to pull the plug, etc. I believe all tax payers should receive the same benefits from their taxes - and that contract law should be extended to the person of your choice.
For example, I don't have a problem with two spinster sisters signing a civil union contract. The only stipulation I would create is that the contract must exist between two and only two adults, and that one can not enter into another contract without disolving the first one. Besides that, why should I care who you want to give your shit to and who you want to visit you in the hospital?

Politically, I am pro-choice. I would not encourage many people to have abortions, so at a personal level I am (mostly) pro-life. However, that's the beauty of a political landscape which gives a choice - it allows all people to make the personal decision which is right for them. Which is why I believe a choice should exist.

I would legalize Marjiuana tomorrow, if I could. It would be a great crop to have and a great taxable revenue source.

Those are the big three social issues, and where I stand, as an "almost TEA party member". However, I am in the slight minority in the organization, as far as I can tell. I do enjoy the debates with social conservatives on these matters.

This is key, I think. It's also why I don't agree with the Tea Party position. I'm also for fiscal responsibility; however, the Tea Party is specifically against deficit spending, or, perhaps, Keynesian economics in particular.

The idea of being so rigidly against deficit spending seems disastrous to me. Ideally, a government is at the mercy of economic variables over which they have some or no control. The thing to keep in mind is that sometimes you have to borrow money when running operations. Even the best-managed companies do this. To suggest that you never go over budget or that you should never borrow money or that you should spend money in bad times to alleviate some root problems to me is folly.

In Canada, attempts have been made to make balancing budgets mandatory, but come 2008, that seemed a silly thing to do. Basically, if you balance your budget in a down economy, you are going to have to severely cut existing programs, which can have a negative spiraling effect.

In the U.S., this would likely come mainly in the form of either a) hitting the poor, or b) hitting the military budget.

It would make most sense to slash the military budget, and severely. The U.S. is grossly overspending in that area; it's ridiculous. Why isn't the Tea Party going after that? There's a lot of money being sunk into that.

bg-

HUGE difference between having a problem and taking out a loan, and consistently spending $300B to $1.5T more dollars than you can possibly take in. I think that is the difference, at least for me.

If you look at the deficit spending and it's explosion, it corresponds precisely to these people uniting. I was going to TEA party rallies when Bush was in office.

I can't really speak for the TEA party. I'm fine with all forms of spending cuts in the international arena, both in military and foreign aid. Foreign aid should come through US charities, which have always stepped up. There's no need for the federal government to do it.

I agree. This is why I said I support deficit spending and fiscal responsibility. What's going on in government spending in the U.S. is disastrous and can't continue on the same course. However, the Tea Party wants to curb spending in such a severe way that it seems unfeasible without sending shockwaves throughout the country.

There are a number of factors at play. Much of it has to do with the balance of trade and the rise of economies outside of the U.S. It also has to do with special funding for a couple of wars 10 years in. It also has to do with maintaining cold-war defense spending.

Now throw in an aging population and social security and you have a mess.

We certainly do.

One Tea Party candidate is showing her colors.
The Associated Press: AP Exclusive: No gay adoptions, says GOP's Angle

Ya gots ta love hateful radicals.

I like how she wants schools to allow for "publicly acknowledg[ing] the Creator," yet she refuses to acknowledge very real relationships and very real family structures.

But what's her connection to the Tea Party?

She the Tea Party's Chosen one to defeat Ried in Nevada

I think the GOP and the Tea Party folks would be wise to research the effects of Ralph Nader and Ross Perot.

Hatred. The Tea Party's social platform is hatred. They hate the poor (despite the fact many of them are poor), they hate women, they hate non-whites, they hate gays, they hate unions, they hate the environment, they hate government spending that doesn't include warfare, and they hate peace.

Horseshit.
Pure and simple horseshit.

I will ask you, -once- sirrah, to retract that vile slander against friends and family of mine. I am not a Tea Party member (not being a "joiner" anyway), but I know many good people who are. Your caricature is disgusting.

So she's the "Tea Party Nevada" candidate...specifically....

This seems like an exaggeration. I think a lot of Tea Partiers would read this and think, "You've got to be kidding me." It'd be like conservatives calling liberals babykillers. OH, wait....

I wish I was exaggerating, but it's true. I've been to three of these things and it's not some valiant protest about taxes. It's hatred that comes from fear that comes from ignorance and being intentionally frightened by their Republican and Fox News leaders. Anyone that says otherwise is welcome to join me at one of these things so I can actually point it out to them.

Edit:
I'm sorry you're too close to them to see it, but unless every piece of information to come out about the Tea Parties AND my own experiences are somehow wrong, you don't know what you're talking about. You act as if because it's your friends and family somehow I don't have permission to tell the truth. That's absurd.

http://www.plunderbund.com/wp-conten...onkeyspend.jpg
http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/u..._tea_party.jpg
http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/.a/6a00...eff7970b-320wi
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1619161_f520.jpg
http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress...ea-partier.jpg

The Tea Party crowd who are supporters of fiscal responsibility are being sold down the river by the Pied Pipers of the movement. Palin and company are beating the fiscal responsibility drum to get the votes they need, when their real objective is a wholesale reactionary social agenda.

---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 PM ----------

I'm with you, Will. The evidence is right in front of our fucking eyes, and the Tea Party supporters on this board have the fucking gall to cry and say "that's not fair."

Well, FUCK. THAT.

I don't think the members of this board should be required to coddle those that support bigots, homophobes, and hate mongers. Censor me if you feel you must, but I'm not going to play along.

mmm it is a shame Fugly. I don't understand the rights constant need to pander to extremists and hatemongers its really unnecessary, all they're doing is alienating moderate voters and level headed Republicans who would otherwise support them. What choices do we really have left? Democrats and bat shit crazy?

It's beyond my comprehension why nobody is trying to pick up the slack and create a viable third party that presents a real alternative. The timing couldn't be better as approval of either party is below 50% and support of third party candidates seems to be gaining traction with each election. The Tea Party could fill that void, but it seems they're content just being the new GOP only with 50% more wackiness.

I am NOT a Tea Party supporter... but you must be fair in this regard. I recall you yourself disregarding pictures of left wing demonstrators 00-06 as lunatic fringe not representing the movement... I recall Host even claiming they were Republican plants. Hell... if I remember correctly you yourself were part of the fringe of 9/11 conspiracy theorists with the only result was GW masterminded the entire thing.

A retarded racist monkey claim vs. accusation of killing +3,000 people.... I'm sorry but I know which is worse here.

I never ever said GW was responsible for 9/11. Ever. The man can barely eat a pretzel. I saw something that didn't make sense and I asked questions and didn't get satisfactory answers. There was no hate at all involved. There was frustration at times, but never hate.

The problem with assuming the images I posted are somehow just the fringe of the Tea Party is that there's no evidence of that. The anti-war movement was united behind one simple thing: no war in Iraq. That's all that brought us together. It was our singular goal and nothing else mattered. Though some might claim the singular goal of the tea party has something to do with not liking the Bush bailouts or taxation, the reality is that they're not united behind any one thing other than their anger at a whole bunch of things Fox News tells them to be angry at or scared of. It's that directionless (I'm not sure directionless is a word) anger that leads them to just be a hate-movement. I hate Obama because he's a secret Kenyan (a staggering 41% of Republicans think President Obama wasn't born in the US). I hate illegal immigrants. I hate 'abortionists'. I hate socialists. I hate Nanci Pelosi or Harry Reid. I hate gays. You've been to the Tea Party rallies, right? The vast majority of people fall under these statements. The few actual libertarians that showed up at the beginning jumped ship as soon as they realized the thing was morphing into the Fox News corporate rally system.

Show me evidence they're a part of the lunatic fringe.

Edit: And, perhaps most importantly, the anti-war movement was not started nor embraced by any media outlet. it was a real grassroots movement that gained massive support from the people through word of mouth. The protests in 2003 were the largest in human history and were together for a cause that, it turns out, was right. We were lied to by the government about Iraq and we invaded them based on those lies. Despite the fact we ultimately failed, the anti-war movement in the lead up to the invasion in 2003 was righteous and groundbreaking.

Compare that to the Tea Party. The Tea Party's roots can be directly traced to Dave Ramsey on an episode of Fox and Friends in February of 2009. Without his absurd outburst, the thing would have been a few dozen forum members enjoying a day in the park. Because Fox and talk radio picked it up and took the reigns, it became a pseudo-movement. By the time April 15th came around, Fox was playing an active role in organizing the protests (which were about... a lot of stuff, actually, but mainly they were complaining about high taxes even though about half of Tea Partiers pay no federal income taxes). A lot of very angry and ignorant people showed up, along with a few well-meaning libertarians and anarchists, who quickly fled once they realized what was really going on. Now the movement is a joke, an albatross for the GOP. Unlike the anti-war movement, the Tea Party movement has been proven wrong on their major complaints (taxes are actually ,low, not high, the Bush Administration bailed out Wall Street, not President Obama, illegal immigration is actually getting smaller because of American economic problems, they don't actually want a balanced budget, just tax cuts and insane military spending, healthcare legislation hasn't lead to Nazism or socialism or even antidisestablishmentarianism, etc., etc.).

You know how when you frequent RedState you see some interesting and entertaining stuff but not really a worthwhile debate space but, what the hell, let's try getting at some of the nuggets of good conversation and you do for a while but then the more outlandish and dishonest claims and the less pristine moderation reminds you that it's all kinda interesting and entertaining but not really worthwhile?

No. I refuse to support the Tea Party because of it's anti-intellectualism. They turned to supporting politicians which openly brag about being ignorant and assume anyone who actually understands, or strives to understand, complex situations as "elitist".

This is just such a fucking miscaricature it's pathetic. It's like saying the Dems hate the rich (even tho most in the top echelons are), they hate and blame the White WASP man for everything, they make mockeries of "traditional family values" such as monogamous heterosexual marriages and raising their kids with spankings if needed, they hate management, they want gas up to $10 a gallon and force people thru economic blackmail and inaffordability their values, they hate everything the government spends money on except social programs and sending billions upon billions to other countries, they would rather dismantle the military totally and let us be invaded.

There maybe radicals on the far left that believe a few of those but not all of them and if someone here categorized the whole party that way, people would be jumping their shit and telling them how hateful they are.

But it's ok if Willravel categorizes a group of people as hatemongering ultra right wing nuts.

As one who likes what the Tea Party stands for in principle but doesn't like the fact it is basically being used by people like Beck and Levine, i can say that no one I know in the tea party is the hateful person you describe.

Most are people trying to hold onto what they have and are living in fear because BOTH parties care more about power and getting through what they want than the people they are supposedly serving.

They see Marie Antoinette... err Michelle Obama taking trips while millions are losing everything. They see billions of our tax dollars going overseas but then social services here being cut and taxes going up.

The vast majority of tea partiers I know aren't so much worried about gay marriage, abortion and race... but they do care about illegal immigration that is bankrupting states, raising crime rates, taking jobs away, they do care about money spent to promote social issues that the PEOPLE should vote on and not be dictated to accept. They want a government responsible and responsive to the people not special interest groups, lobbyists and the wealthy.

The problem lies not in the tea party values and what it stands for, the problem lies in mischaracterizations like WillRavel's and the media's and the wack jobs using the party to put forth their own agendas.

The problem lies in the fact that this is a grassroots movement that could be very strong and influence elections with a core value of rebuilding America, but is instead lacking leadership strong enough to kick out the Levines and Becks and stand up to the left leaning media that wants to mislabel and scare people away from the party.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

Why does the press seem to want to just show the negative very minute minority, and not show the signs that demonstrate what they truly stand for.

But be part of the hate and continue pushing it, instead of meaningful debate with real members that don't believe in those signs. I wonder how many of those people carrying those signs were plants to push an agenda from people on the left trying to trivialize and mischaracterize the Tea Party.

I will say this, the last picture is one I see as not that negative. I see a lot of the Left trashing our country, and a guy who wants to take pride in it. It's ok for Rev. wright to say God Damn America, but not for this guy to say "Damn Obama"? People on the left were saying far worse about Bush.

But the second sign that probably wasn't meant to get any attention, "End the Federal Reserve Now" is an example of the majority of signs you will see at Tea Party demonstrations.

Pathetic is defending bigots. Every single Tea party I've personally been to as well as countless images from all of the Tea Parties tell a tale not even you can spin. They're people united by fear and hatred. All the lies and false comparisons in the world can't change that. Deal with it.
I don't need to categorize anyone as anything, they do it themselves. Remember Mark Williams, one of the few actual leaders in the Tea Party movement? If you don't, google him. It not that a few bad apples in the Tea Party are racist, it's that a lot of them show up to every single rally and no one at the rallies EVER asks them to leave or disagrees with them.
Which is?
What specifically has Michelle Obama done that's in any way like the characterization of Marie Antoinette? Don't ignore this, I don't like hit-and-run comments like this. If I called Laura Bush an ignorant dilettante, I'd have backed it up so be prepared to do the same.
Why do you so obstinately ignore the obvious? How deep-seated is your cognitive dissonance? These signs are THE NORM. They're at all the rallies and they're never asked to leave. All you're doing by defending them is showing your unabashed bias.

Edit: Sorry, I know I keep editing these after posting them, but I have more to say.

In Philadelphia a week or so ago, there was a 'UniTea' event, a Tea party affiliated event that was supposed to demonstrate the racial diversity of the Tea Party. Guess how many people showed up? Less than 200, including about a dozen media. And almost all of them were white.

Apparently Pan is prone to sucking up catchy sound bites.

Tell us again, Pan, how you are immune to the persuasions of main stream media. The fact is, you'll enlist any rhetoric that supports your position.

You're a hypocrite.

Oh really? Then the liberals have some house cleaning to do to disown people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, etc.

The people in the Tea Party that I know aren't into any of the above. They just want the federal government to keep it's hand out of their wallets.

I for one am fed up with handing over my income to those who are unwilling to work.

I'd love it if you would point out where instances of racism or foolishness done by any of those people were defended by anyone here. Please, I'll wait.

Until then, it's a tu quoque fallacy and it's not going to fly. The Tea Party is a hate group.

I don't see anyone condemning them either. It would take me about a half hour to come back with at least one instance of a bigoted, racist or hateful remark from each of the above.

The Tea Party is a hate group because you say it is? I really don't think so. It probably wouldn't take me too long to find similar remarks from members of some liberal groups as well.

And you are a bigot.

Remember how the Tea Party -has- no leaders, bigot? Or did you conveniantly forget that part in your rush to smear honest people with honest concerns?

Remember, bigot, how Mr. Williams was told, in no uncertain terms, to getthafuckout after his little tirade? By a BLACK Tea Party member, remember!? And remember how many folks stood with that BLACK Tea Party member and supported Mr. William's shunning and ejection!? Or is that all too inconvenient because it blows your bigoted preconception of your opponents as racist Neandertals clean out of the water? Kinda like Baraka's data from a few weeks ago, showing the TP to be 12-20% MINORITY?!

Your entire disgusting, slanderous, libellous, calumnous and utterly unsupported caricature of the Tea Party has been gained by hanging around with leftist "counter-protestors" who spent the whole time jerking each other's dicks and reassuring each other that "those people over there" were nothing but hateful bigoted rightwing fearmongers led on by the nose. I can smell it in every word you type. You never "attended" any TP rallies or actually TALKED TO any TP members: you just hung around sneering from the sidelines with plenty of your leftist supporters present to validate your bigotry and prejudice.

Oh, and by the way, you might want to look up an outfit called crashtheteaparty.com. A fair number of those signs probably -are- from leftist plants (who are quite up-front about their plans), and they're playing you like a fiddle in the tune of KKK.

And I would -dearly- love for -you- to point out where anybody here supported Mark Williams. I would -dearly- love for you to point out where the majority of TP attendees supported such a thing. But you can't, except to point to any marginally non-PC sign (dozens or hundreds of such signs out of tens or hundreds of thousands in total) or placard, indeed anything which portrays Massa Obama in anything other than favorable and totally realistic light, as evidence of racism.

Satire? RACISM!
Play on words? RACISM!
Altered image? RACISM! Jesus H. CHRIST don't you people have anything to contribute other than "you evil RACIST hatemonger you!"???

You're so fucking full of shit your eyes are floating.

I don't hate white people or older people or Republican people or any people. Nothing in what I've said suggests any kind of hatred.
I'm talking about the Tea Party, not honest people with honest concerns.

The Tea Party has leaders. Their names are Beck and Palin and Hannity, but those leaders almost never take an active role in organizing events. For that, there are lower-level leaders like Mark Williams (mostly, the leaders are either talk-radio hosts or racist lunatics). Williams is hardly the exception, though. There's Dale Robertson, the operator of Teaparty.org, who is actually the guy in the picture I posted above with the sign that reads “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.” There's the head of the Springboro Tea Party, Sonny Thomas, who posted on his twitter: “Illegals everywhere today! So many spics makes me feel like a speck. Grrr. Wheres my gun!?” And that's just scratching the surface. I've got a bookmark folder full of these people that I'd be glad to share. The question is: when will you run out of excuses?
He was told to get out by the NAACP first. The Tea Party only kicked him out AFTER the NAACP decided to go after Mark Williams. Did you intentionally leave that part out or were you unaware?
Wait, you're proud that the Tea Party is 12-20% (that's a hell of a margin) non-white? Here's the actual findings of the CNN poll (which isn't scientific):
Source
Ouch.
You've yet to actually demonstrate via verifiable evidence or compelling argument that I'm wrong. All you're doing is attacking me, which is useless in debate. Ad homs are fallacies for a reason.
I've attended several. Here's a post from April 15, 2009 where I actually posted pictures I took myself from the first Tea Party protest I attended. So there you have real, actual, photographic evidence I've been to at least one of these things.

Having not been to to any Tea Parties I have no idea if they're mostly racist or not. I know when Bush was POTUS I didn't agree with much of anything he did after he invaded iraq. Still I would not have attended any event showing him being burned in effigy or dressed up like a monkey. If someone wanted to have an honest discussion regarding options to change the course he set the country on I'd have no problem attending that. And I think that's my problem with the Tea Party folks. I don't think their being honest in their debate. They want to lower taxes. They're tried of the government taking their money. I hate to tell you this but your money's already spent and you I and every other US voter basically let that happen. "Hey let's go to war, spend billions and billions of dollars we don't have and just for good measure let's lower taxes at the same time. The money for the war? Oh, just borrow it." Yeah, that'll work out great. Where were you guys when all this spending was going on? I hear a lot of my friends who agree with the Tea Party state they weren't happy about the spending Bush did. Problem with that is I knew them then and I remember them cheer leading just about everything that guy did. So I call BULL SHIT. Taxes are at there lowest levels since Truman was in office and the Tea party folks have no interest in coming up with realistic solutions to keep us from passing on to our grand children the massive debt we've run up. All I hear is lower my taxes, spend less, I'm tried of paying people not to work. None of that solves the problems we currently face.

Speaks for itself, don't it?

Its nonsense and you know it. Or maybe you don't. Anyway, what it is in my eyes is a nationwide expression of conservative dissatisfaction with what they see as a government gone too far left and if you ask me they have a reason to be pissed what with all the government intervention and policy decision made by the Obama Administration. If its possible for you to read between the lines, exuberant posters and bread and circuses you couldn't miss the ideological point being made. You point out the worst elements and characterize it as defining the mainstream but then where have we seen that before. The ironic thing is you yourself used to be the poster child against stereotyping like this. What you say about this perfectly democratic and healthy process of dissent is akin to saying all muslims are terrorists. Or maybe you're just having a bad day.

Saying it's nonsense is one thing, demonstrating it is another. Plenty of people seem to disagree with me here, but none of them seem willing to show me why. You're welcome, powerclown, to actually demonstrate the Tea Party isn't a hate group. You can disprove the evidence or arguments I've used or you can introduce new ones. I promise I'll read all of them and do my best to objectively consider them. Until then, though, all you're doing is giving me your conclusions. You're not showing your work.

Federal revenue is in the range of $2.5 trillion. If the federal deficit jumps from $400 billion to over $1 trillion, that's a huge step in the wrong direction.

If we do nothing other than cut spending severely, and bring the deficit down, with the goal within a few years to return to surpluses and stay there, that will help solve the long term debt problem.

If we get a significant percentage of the freeloaders that do not pay income taxes, currently in the range of 46% of the US population, then those of us who do pay taxes can have our taxes reduced since more people are paying their share.

I learned years ago that I cannot continually borrow money and borrow my way to prosperity. Neither can Obama.

Again... I hate to point out that I'm a conservative but the Reagan supply-side economics only work in healthy economies. For the last 30 years the middle and lower class have seen 0 sum in income increase... it hasn't even kept up with inflation. The top 10% have seen a 200% increase, the top 1% have seen even more. Why would you try to soak money out of people who have none to spare and not ask for more from whom are simply letting it sit in the bank?

Don't tell me it's about re-investment, every study EVER has shown the reduction in money multiplication the higher up the ladder you go. An extra $2k to those in the lower and middle class are almost immediately spent... where the extra $2k in the upper class simply sits in the bank unused.

You really think the core principle at work here with this tea party movement (the ideological center that organized it, not the fringe window dressing) is hate?

Not dissatisfaction with Obama's policies, but hate?

Hate?

Hate of what?

It's not about how the Tea Party describes itself that matters. I could describe myself as a 9' tall, three-legged albino but that wouldn't make it true. The supposed "principles" of the Tea Party-the bailouts were bad, taxes are bad, socialized medicine is bad-have nothing to do with why they gather and what they actually say at the rallies.

Would you care to post evidence the Tea Party isn't generally a movement based on hatred of minorities, hatred of homosexuals, hatred of abortion, hatred of President Obama, hatred of the poor, etc? Would you care to bring facts to the table?

I don't know. Is it possible that the U.S. is undertaxed? I think many problems would be solved if 1) they brought the tax revenue as a % of GDP up to the OECD average (another 8 or so points), or 2) reduce the military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (2008) (4.3%) to levels of that of, say, Japan (0.9%), Turkey (2.2%), or Mexico (0.5%). But that would mean cutting it in half at least. Or doubling GDP, whatever.... :no: Maybe they could use the military money to develop better efficiencies in the health care system. You know, practical crossovers of technology much like the space program to the military?

It's too bad that the Tea Party seems to want to turn a blind eye to how much the military is costing them. Well, I don't recall them being too concerned anyway. They're more afraid of the "socialist" health care, and not so much concerned about the runaway militarism. How long have the effects of the military industrial complex been in effect now? Are you Americans getting a good bang for your buck?

Of course, you can't put a price on security. It just seems too bad that you have to go broke to pull it off.

Enjoy your $700-billion monster. I hope it doesn't wreck things too much abroad and at home.

And when was it at 400 billion and when did it jump to 1.3 trillion? Who was in charge when that happened? Fiscal conservatives have become an oxymoron. Every time they've had their hand on the checkbook the debt and deficit has increased. Well I think Bush Sr. made solid efforts to keep that from happening, he might have been more level headed. But basically conservatism has become a huge joke, a con pulled on the US tax payer. It's probably best Goldwater is dead, I have no doubt would have a stroke if he saw what has become of his movement.



Ok I'll listen. Tell me what are you going to cut. Where and how much? How are you going to make up for what's already been spent. Most of the talk I've heard on this has been pure fantasy. Hey we'll cut spending and get rid of the fat and we'll all live happily every after. I have yet to hear/read one of these plans that will actually address the huge problems the US is facing. All have been a kin to having a car with three flat tires and deciding the best way to fix that funny noise it's making is it tear apart the dash. Sorry no easy fixes to this mess. No, dressing up like Ben Franklin ring a bell and yelling "no more taxes" will not fix this problem. Chanting "drill baby, drill" won't help either. It a complicated problem and all the real solutions require difficult decisions. Any real solution is almost undoubtedly, at this point, going hurt everyone some how. The neo-cons and the so called fiscal conservatives have left a great big shit sandwich on the table and I hate to say it but we're all going to have to take a bite.

I refuse to see my fellow Americans as free loaders, sorry. Just doesn't wash with what I know of them. Sure to can find some jack wad working the system. But I think by far most Americans are hard working honest people just trying their best in life. I'm more inclined to believe those not pulling their weight are trust fund baby who've been allowed to inherit fortunes tax free. In 2010 with the debt racing for the toilet the estate tax will be -0-. So if you're going to get 40 billion you'll get the whole thing free and clear. You won't have to worry about only having 20-30 billion. Lucky you.


As Seaver points out above, year after year the upper 10% have managed to get more and more while the rest of the country is struggling to stay above water. The idea that America is half full of free loaders is actually kind of offensive if you ask me.


Sure wish Bush and the neo-cons would have figure this out when you did. Might not be in this huge mess if they had.

Will, I hate to call you out, but asking people to prove a negative is bad debate form

It seems to me what you're describing is a movement along the lines of the KKK or a skinhead white supremacist group. This is a mainstream republican, conservative political movement. Now if your calling conservative republicans in general racists and people filled with hate thats one thing, but I think you're using the fringe of the movement to drive your argument which would therefore render it moot.

So which is it? Are you calling mainstream conservatives and republicans racists and people driven by hate or are you referring to the typically boisterous minority within the movement?

Yes it is possible. Not only possible but highly likely I'd say. Honest real solutions at this point include massive cuts to spending including the military, upping the retirement age for everyone to 70-72 and increasing taxes rates by 10-20%.


Part of the problem, in my opinion is we're providing security for everyone. Basically started during the cold war and once the ball got rolling no one even tried to stop it. So now we're it. We're the one super power left. Last man standing so to speak and willing to spend billions to maintain that status.

Are you saying that there are a bunch of nations out there who are freeloading? :eek:

You mean hundreds of billions. The second ranked military, China, spends billions (or tens of billions, if you will).

Sure, we're under-taxed. Even if we didn't have an out of control defense budget, we'd still probably have to raise taxes on someone in order to balance our sheets.
Asking them to question any of the evidence I've posted or question the logic of my case is not. They're refused to remove their argument from appeal to emotion.
I'm calling the Tea Party a group centered on shared hatred. I wish it were as simple as racism, I really do.

FIrst and foremost Will, I love how you pick and choose what to reply to. You even snip out the defenses in my debate. lol.... whatever.

Look that is your view, as someone who has been there and knows some people in the tea party movement and NOT 1 is a bigot, and as a matter of fact there are 2 African Americans that I know personally in it.

I take this personally, because I am defending a GROUP of people ... not a minority that you and the press want to focus on.

You know, I'm done commenting on this.... you want to call them racist and tell me I'm defending bigots.... while you defend people who support Reverend Wright, the New Black Panther Party and Louis Farrakhan... I guess that makes you a reverse racist. BTW which group is worse?

That's quoted from my post that you quoted but somehow cut out.... :thumbsup:

Oh, you're right how many people have lost everything? What's the unemployment rate? And Marie Antoinette.... errrrr Michelle Obama can pay for 50 rooms in an expensive playground for the rich? Sounds like she truly cares about the people suffering here...

They are? Then why did I not see any when I went? And I love the way you need to attack me. I HAVE BEEN TO A FEW...... I HAVE SEEN FIRST HAND....

Almost all were white???? Wait a minute, if this is a racist, bigoted group wouldn't ALL of them have been white or were the blacks beaten down???

Oh wait, they're Uncle Toms because they don't fucking agree with you, Farrakhan, Wright, The New Black Panther Party and the far left.

(And yes, if you are going to say I support bigots and hint that I maybe racist because I defend the Tea Party.... then I'll do the same to you with the fact you defend outright or people who do defend the Farrakhans, Wrights, and NBPP... who are every bit as racist and full of hate as you say the Tea Partiers are.

Google Images is offering a get-out-of-fallacy-free card to its biggest users.

There's what, something like 50 million tea partiers? And one picture equals 1,000 words? All Will has to do is assume each of those words is 'bigot' and he'll only have to call up a measly 50 thousand such damning and irrefutable evidences of hateful tea.

Get thee to a facebookery!

---------- Post added at 04:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 AM ----------

So much for that.

No. Most of the countries on that list are in Europe. Considering the history of Europe over the last 2000 years I wouldn't use Europe as a model of success for anything. I certainly would not view the socialist state model in Europe as a success at all.

The only country on that list that I've seen as a credible economic competitor to the US in the last 40 years is Japan, and Japan's tax rates are lower than US tax rates.

---------- Post added at 08:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 AM ----------

[quote=Tully Mars;2812629]And when was it at 400 billion and when did it jump to 1.3 trillion? Who was in charge when that happened?{/QUOTE]

That happened in the last year of Bush's term, as a result of the bailouts, which should not have been done. If anything, the government/Federal Reserve should have been the credit source of last resort when other credit dried up, and then only to companies which were in financial position to repay the loan.


I'd cut military to what is reasonable for national defense. We don't need bases in places like Korea, Japan, Germany, etc to defend those countries. Let them defend themselves if a threat even exists. If we have bases in other countries that those countries are not substantially funding and which are not critical to US defense, then those bases should be closed.

I'd eliminate all government subsidies. Business succeed or fail on their own.

I'd look at shrinking the size of the government. We don't need a bunch of agencies duplicating each other's work, the latest example being the security agencies.

I'd bring government salaries back in line with salaries in business. There was a news story recently about federal employee's salaries being some 60% higher than equivalent non-federal jobs.

I'd cut the welfare programs significantly. I've read several times now that cost of food stamps is higher than it's ever been and rising. Unless you have a disability and cannot work, there is no reason that I should be supporting you.

Unemployment is limited to 6 months.

I'd send all of the illegal immigrants home.

I'd give the president the line item veto that's been asked for several times. That will help keep Congressional spending in check.


If they are not paying taxes that sure sounds like the definition of freeloading.
.
For money which has already been taxed, the estate tax should be zero.

Yep Bush and the neo-cons spent 8 years writing checks they couldn't cover and it snow balled on them.

On the bail-outs- it always bothered me that when the guys from Wall St. showed up it was "Oh, really! That bad? Crap let me the check book, would like a hand job on your way out the door?" I don't remember any long hearings to even figure out why or how much they should be helped. It seemed like the Feds were willing to just take their word for it.

When the auto makers showed up it was "How the hell did you get here?" Well we're going have to stick a microscope up your ass first, ok?"

I was much more on board with trying to help keep the car makers up and running then bailing out Wall St. At least the automakers create something and I feel like the rust belt really can't take any more hits. The whole area has been hurting for years.

The more we become a nation that doesn't produce anything the larger the problem will get in my opinion. Really what do we make that the rest of the world wants? Seems like we're down to military gear and porn.




Some of that is likely a good move. I don't know enough about it but I think a blanket "Let's close all these overseas bases and save money might come back and bite us in the ass. I mean what happens when NK goes and drops a nuke on SK? But I think we have bases in places we just don't need anymore.

I'd like to see us put an end to this silly war on drugs. It didn't work for booze and it's never going to work for drugs. The amount of money spent on this is crazy.

Of course both of these ideas are going to have "cause and effect." You close huge military bases and end the war on drugs... the people building and supplying these efforts as well as those actively engaged will be out of work. The unemployment rate is around 10%. Doing this with the slash of the pen and without a plan will most certainly add to that rate.

I'd like to see this happen. But again I don't think at this point you can just do it and be done with it. The effect of doing it without fore thought and planning could do more harm then good.

No kidding, just look at how much the the government has expanded on nation security. We have agencies that have no idea what other agencies are doing. It's really insane in my opinion.

You've been doing this for a while now... "I read... There was a story and I heard" It would really be nice if you backed these comment up with a link to a credible source.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'd just like to see the data that supports your claim.

I worked in law enforcement for a long time (over 20 years) and I can tell you in that field the city guy makes less then the county guy and the state guy makes more then them and the Fed make the most (this is all "usually" I'm sure someone somewhere could find a anomaly to this statement.) But you really can't compare law enforcement to private work. But you can compare city to county, county to state and state to Fed.

Again with the "I read." Read where?

Might be true, the unemployment rate is really up there. I've always been a fan of "workfare." Really? You can't find work?" "Ok, fine here's and job doing "x" You want support, you have to work for it."

I don't know just throwing people off unemployment and telling them to fend for themselves might have some pretty negative effects on the economy. Not to mention it might put many families out in the streets. I like not to see more tent cities and soup lines.

I would not be opposed to something like the The Civilian Conservation Corps tried again. "You don't have work? Can't find work? Here, here's a paint brush. There now you have a job and we get some maintenance work done on your public spaces and buildings."


And your plan for doing this? Any idea what this would cost? I think anyone who's looked at this issue seriously and honestly has come to the conclusion that "sending all the illegals home" is just not an honest option at this point. Recently people like Lindsey Graham have proposed realistic solutions to this problem. Every time someone develops a workable, real plan to deal with this problem they get shouted down. Chants of "send them home!' will not solve this problem


Concur, but there would need to be some way of oversight for even that. Giving one person too much power is usually bad.



We just disagree. I again assert I believe most, by far, Americans are not freeloaders.

I disagree. If you did nothing more then being born into a wealthy family you can pony up a portion of your inheritance. Sure maybe you'll end up with a smaller jet or shorter yacht but you'll live.

I'd also put an end to all these off shore shill company that pay no US taxes. "Really? you're running a multi-billion dollar corporation that earns billions of dollars from the US and you run it all out of a PO box in Grand Cayman?" I call bull shit.

what did those people (those who inherited the money) do to earn it?

Nada, zip... nothing. They were born on third base and many act as if they got there by hitting a triple. Fact is they never swung a bat. Just born into the right family at the right time.

Seriously? Japan's problems with national debt are far worse than that of the U.S.

Japan's debt is 192% of GDP (2009), whereas the U.S. national debt is sitting at approximately 91% (2010). The IMF is expecting Japan's debt to hit 250% of GDP by 2015. The IMF's proposed solution for Japan? Increase their consumption tax by 5%.

Just to put that into perspective for you, that would be the equivalent of a U.S. public debt of $25.6 trillion instead of $13.3 trillion. So using GDP as a metric, for the U.S. to be in as bad shape as Japan, the national debt would have to nearly double.

Japan's hardly a model to follow.

GDP vs National Debt by Country

And why would you use 2,000 years of European history to consider a contemporary economic environment? And which socialist model are you talking about?

No... just fucking no. After 8.5 months of searching every God damned day for jobs I finally got one.... making 30% of what I was making before. If I had a house it would have been foreclosed, If I had a car I was making payments on it would have been repo'd.

So you're in support of Government Healthcare?

People aren't unemployed because they are lazy in the current market, and I will help kick out any Republican who says so.

I responded to all of your points. If you'd like me to reiterate, ask away.
I'm glad no one you know in the Tea Party is a bigot, but that's not really what I'm talking about. It's not as simple as bigotry. Sure, some Tea Partiers are obviously bigoted, but the main point I was making is that the movement's commonality is hatred of something. It's not just racial hatred, though. As I said above, for some of them it's hatred of the poor, for some of them it's hatred of abortion, for some of them it's hatred of the president (and not everyone that hates President Obama feels that way because of his race).

How do your friends feel about President Obama? Do they make Marie Antoinette remarks about him and his family, too?
For the hundredth time in this thread, please show me all these people that are telling the racists or haters to leave. Please show me evidence. I'm begging you, prove me wrong.
Tu quoque fallacy, eh?

Why is it that you always center on racial bigotry? I'm not just talking about that, as it's only one part of the Tea Party's problem. Can you speak to the hatred of the poor? Or hatred of a woman's right to choose? Or the xenophobia?

This reads like bullshit. I'm sorry to say it, but it really does. Every Tea Partier, when confronted, pretends their concerns are legitimate (btw, all of the concerns you listed are incorrect. Illegal immigration isn't bankrupting states, crime is low, and the Tea Party works on behalf of special interest groups whether they know it or not, as they're organized and funded by corporate power). I know what the Tea Party likes to think of itself as, but that isn't an accurate reflection of what it really is. As has been pointed out countless times before, there were no Tea Party movements during the Bush administration when Federal spending was out of control, corporate power in Washington was on the steep rise, and the Constitution was being pissed on. The silence on the right was deafening. Not one Tea Party or even vaguely conservative or Republican protest took place. That fact alone removes any and all legitimacy from the movement's supposed goals. In other words, if the Tea Partiers really cared about these things, they'd care about them regardless of who was president. Because that's not the case, the whole movement is revealed as dishonest.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Obama's aren't rich people. Barack Obama just finished paying off his college loans. Community organizers don't make a lot of money, you know. State senators do alright, and Senators do quite well, but that only accounts for the last few years. The idea that the Obamas are aristocrats is absurd and based in fantasy.
I welcome you to rebuke the photographic evidence.
What is it with you and race? It's not JUST racial hatred. It's hatred in general that unites the Tea Party. Some Tea Partiers are racist, some aren't. Jesus, how much more clear do I have to make this?
There's literally no situation in which it's okay for a white person to use the term "Uncle Tom".
This shit again? "Hi, I'm Pan and I'm not a racist. No seriously, I'm not a racist... are you calling me a racist?! HOW DARE YOU INSINUATE I'M A RACIST! I SHOULD RUIN YOUR THREAD!!" No one has called you racist ever on TFP. Cut that shit out.

the tea party is a straight-forward populist neo-fascist movement.

what structures--or appears to---alot of the various (incoherent) things that the tea partiers are freaked out about is some imaginary natural order of things which they for some reason in the main seem to imagine achieves its best expression alongside a captialism that has never existed outside the tiresome fantasies of the free-marketeers.

they like the repressive state because it keeps people in their place.

they hate the redistributive state because, in the tiny shared world of the tea party, the redistrrbutive state takes your shit and gives it to people who deserve it less than you with the result that those people get all uppity.

uppity people further victimize the white petit bourgeois, the ultimate victim of all things modern. judging from the teapartying, this demographic is told that they imagine things would be hunky dory if only if only the bad redistributive state would stop taking their shit. that way the state could go away, unless you need it or like what it does--but hey, coherence isn't at a real premium here, it's all touchy-feely kinda inverted hopey-changey shit: we don't want hope, we don't want change---we want the modern world to go away. and stop taking our shit. and stop encouraging all this uppitness on the part of people who naturally are less than us. you know, less virtuous, less authentic, less American.

is this racist? well, it's an underlying structure behind almost all racisms so it's implicitly racist at every turn--but its not necessarily explicitly so.
whence the Outrage of the folk above who skate along the edges of this nasty unpleasant neo-fascist discourse and get all Outraged when they are called out on it.
they doth protest too much.

You lazy freaking freeloader.. 8 and 1/2 months! How dare you! (I'm joking of course) Really I know so many people who have hit the pavement hard looking for work and it's just no there. Near where I used to live in Oregon there is a paper mill that makes a lot of the paper towels that Costco carries. Not long after I moved south they shut down 1 of the 3 paper machines they were operating. So basically 1/3 of the work force was laid off. I have several friends who walked into work one day and in their time card slot was a notice that as of the next week they would no longer need to report for work. I'm sure it was worded nice but basically "nice knowing ya, next Thursdays make sure you take home all the stuff in your locker as you will not be returning on Friday." One friend in particular sticks out in my mind. 19-20yrs on the job, hired right out of high school. All he's every done is run a paper making machine. Had a kid in college and another ready to head off in a few months. Family health insurance ran out after, I think, three months. His kids are all working low paying jobs, one is trying to stay in school to finish his degree, think he's going half time and working full time (fast food.) Mom's job always was half time with the county head start program. He's now, almost three years later, pumping gas at night and picking shrimp or whatever seafood is currently in season during the day. So far they've manged to keep the house but lost a car and a boat. Surely their credit sucks.

The thought of my tax dollars going to freeloaders like him and you really pisses me off... NOT. No, no I'd much rather pay for cut taxes on the upper 10% because you know they're going to spend what they get to keep and that'll keep everyone working and happy. BULL FUCKING SHIT... it has never worked that way.


Yep the US is really alone in not having some type of national health care. The US is the only country doing it right, right? I don't buy that load of crap either. Hell I live in Mexico and the health care I get here is way better the health care I got in the US. For about $500 I could get in on the IMSS (Mexican national health care) but I buy private insurance that covers just about everything for around 1200 USD a year. For what I get in care and coverage it would likely cost me much closer to 1200 USD a month for the same in the US.

It's time to stop thumping our chests and claiming the US has the best health care in the world and make moves to at least catch up with Cuba. I mean sure the US has great care available... if you have the cash to pay for it. If not- Well fuck you! You freeloading bastard!

Cause that's the America I know a country full of free loading pieces of shit unwilling to work and only interested in sucking off the teat of big government.

I'm going to make this real simple... because I'm beyond pissed.


Did you or did you not direct the highlighted part at me? Yes or no, don't give any fucking but... you are misreading.... fuck the excuses Will... did you or did you not direct the highlighted part at me for defending the Tea Party and as a response to my first post?

But then you say it's not just racial.... but you point out how blacks are very rare... you don't say, blacks, gays, etc... YOU say blacks.
Who's playing the race card? Not, homophobic, not xenophobic, not anti non Christian, not sexists..... the ONLY word YOU use is RACIST.

But did YOU or did YOU not make a point of saying this earlier, I even highlighted it for you?

So, who brought race into it? Who's saying that, "yeah there was a Tea Party and there were very few blacks there"..... That is EXACTLY what you are saying. Don't BS you're way out...

So when I make a rebuttal to THAT SPECIFIC statement, YOU made, I get this

But Will, who brought the race card into it? YOU did. I make a rebuttal to a specific statement YOU MADE... but I'm the one bringing race into it... BULLSHIT. Did you say, "mostly there were white, non gay, no hispanic, males, who come from a lower middle class and down?"

NO, you made a point out of saying only "almost all were white." So, I ask again WHO IS PLAYING THE RACE CARD?

And no one here called W worse? He was fucking compared to Hitler, remember Will? You, Host, a group of us here, myself even all compared and made Hitler references to W.

But that is ok. Comparing Michelle Obama to Marie Antoinette is wrong.

Let's see unemployment rates are how high? And Barack is saying that the economy is in a deeper hole than expected and we have to work harder?

Follow me there? Is that true or not? Do I need to pull a Host and research and put the proof up?

Our government is losing it's tax base and going further and further into debt? True or not?

People are losing their homes, their cars, the banks who have been bailed out are raising credit card rates and fees causing more people financial pain? True or not?

We have reports that say we are losing the middle class and small businesses are barely surviving? true or not?

Now a very basic look at 1790's France, the government was bankrupt, the middle class took the brunt and were taxed to to the brink of bankruptcy, reforms to "help" the people were corrupt and failed miserably. BUT, the King and the court, while the peasants and middle class were losing everything, basically made sure they had the best of everything at the cost of the worker. True or not?

SO as our citizenry is losing everything we have built for 200+ years, and Michelle Obama takes a trip to one of the most exclusive and expensive resorts in Europe, it's not like Marie Antoinette telling us "let them eat cake... I'll do as I wish on their money." ....

And which is it, are the taxpayers paying for this or the Obama's? You say the Obama's, yet, in your own words So are taxpayers? Are lobbyists? who is paying? Ultimately the fact is, it is us the people paying for it with our tax dollars.

To make excuses for that is fucking ignorant. There is no excuse. If and when Obama gets this country back to where people can breathe financially, then maybe a trip like that could be understandable... but when they are talking double dip recession and Obama is telling us to tighten our belts while he and his family do the opposite on OUR tax dollars??? Come on, now Will not even you can be so fucking loyal to the King that you can't make the comparisons.

Standard game when you and your friends here want to change focus. WHERE DID I EVEN COME CLOSE TO SAYING THAT?????????? But when I start making points you can't defend you (etal) bring it up and try to change focus.

So I will reply ONE time to this and we shall not see YOU or me use it again...OK? OK.

And yes, when you rant about how full of hate the Tea Partiers (which like I have said I strongly believe in what they stand for, I just dislike the talking heads trying to control it) are and insinuate or even tell me, (I'll assume it was insinuation) that I defend bigots, I need to defend myself. You are by telling me that because I believe in the movement and that I have gone to a few am full of hatred, that because I defend them, I am a defender of bigots... sooooo what should I do? Allow you to keep making insinuations and when I make a rebuttal, keep getting that pounded down my throat and not be able to say, "Fuck, you I"m not and I get tired of the bullshit where you say I do?"

One thing about the TFP politics and why so many have left is it is ok to insinuate or flat out call people bigots, defender of bigots, believer in a hateful movement, and so on... but when they defend themselves... it's turned and "YOU are not being attacked." BULLSHIT.

You are confusing hate with dissent. Therefore, it is my belief you are speaking from a position of fear, not enlightenment.

You know this comes up a lot, the first family travels and it costs the US tax payers money. Nancy Reagan lived like a queen, redid the entire White House and traveled a lot. At first, if memory serves me correctly, she was really applauded for bringing culture and class back to the White House after the Carter years. The as unemployment rose and the economy started to tank she was criticized for it. She was mainly criticized by the left. The Bush Sr. took office and the left again cried fowl at her expenses... again mostly by the left. Enter Hillary and everything she did was a fucking joke according to the right and she was criticized. Then move on to Laura and her trips with her kids. I recently saw news clips that showed her on safari in Africa. Evidently she went there a couple time, mostly on the tax payers dime. And the left complained. Bush spent nearly as much time in Crawford as he did in the Oval Office. And the left complained. Now the Obamas take vacations and trip and the right is throwing fits.

In my opinion it's all a lot of hot air. In this day in age there's nothing Bush couldn't do from Texas that he couldn't do from the Oval Office. Hell back when the world still ran on telegrams Truman spent weeks, maybe months, in Key West (my kinda guy.) The amount of money spent on the travel of the first family is so little compared to the US budget and the good will they spread by showing up in Africa and Spain is probably worth the cost of their travel. I'd be willing to bet Laura and Michelle both had official business on all of these trips.

We get caught up arguing about such little things and calling names that the big issues never ever get solved.

You're spending your Sunday morning being angry on the internet? Why? I'm not here to be angry, I'm here to discuss.
Dunedan was specifically defending the bigots in the Tea Party. I was specifically addressing that. Are you intentionally trying to change my argument or are you just reading what you want to read? Honestly, what's your problem?
Who keeps bringing up "Farrakhans, Wrights, and NBPP"? You.
I did because part of the Tea Party is racist. Why are you not getting my simple point? The people of the Tea Party have one thing in common: hate. Some of them are racially bigoted, some of them are gender bigoted, some of them hate the poor, some of them hate the president, some of them hate immigrants, etc. etc. Do you understand? The Tea Party itself isn't racist, but part of it is and the rest of it is there because of a shared hatred of something. That's the point.
I've posted tu quoque a few times already, but you don't seem to understand. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions. If you can't actually address my points, don't bother responding.
President Obama is not responsible for the problems in the economy. He's not made every effort I would have to fix things, but even a conservative can see that we're in a hole because of Wall Street and deregulation, not President Obama. How can he be responsible for a recession that started months before he took office? Answer: he can't. You know that as well as anyone, but as Jon Stewart would say, it doesn't fit in your narrative.
True.
True.
True.
And that's when you went off the rails. Aside from the respectable $400k annual salary, President Obama and his family are nothing like the aristocracy in France before the revolution. Ask roachboy. The Obamas don't have the "best of everything", the richest 1% of Americans do. The corporate elite are the aristocracy in the United States, not the guy that's president for 4-8 years. The Obamas don't get the best of everything at the cost of anyone. Never once did I complain that the Bush family was living in the White House or that Bush made $400,000 a year, ever, because that comes with the job. Being president is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, so of course it pays respectably. If the president only made $30,000 a year, it would be unfair.
You're acting like everything suddenly went to shit in January of 2009. Which is dishonest. Hyperbolic "losing everything we have built for 200+ years" crap aside, we started heading downhill in 1980, not 2008.

As for Michelle Obama, she actually has money of her own. Vice President for Community and External Affairs for University of Chicago Hospitals pays about $275k a year, iirc. She's also worked for TreeHouse Foods on the board, which is a salaried position. I don't know where you get this idea that somehow she's spending the state's money on vacations. And if she is spending some of the $400k from the president's salary, what business is it of yours? He's earned that money. He's not spending money from Social Security or pensions, he's spending his salary.

You have a job, right? When you spend money you've earned, do people hassle you for spending company money on things for your personal use? Of course not. That would be absurd.
Okay, you're obviously just trolling now. Calling the democratically elected president a king is stupid. Stop wasting forum space with this shit.
If you're defending the Tea Party as a whole, you are defending bigots because there are bigots doing racist things in the Tea Party. That's not complicated. You're also defending xenophobes, people that hate the poor, people that hate 'abortionists', people that hate the president, people that hate taxes, people that hate Pelosi and Reid, people that hate the federal government, people that hate women, people that hate regulations on the market, and people that hate people like me. It's a collection of different people that hate different things, brought together by Fox News through fear to pool their hatred into an astroturf movement.

aside. on the "marie antoinette" business.

first off it's obviously idiotic but in a funny way.

one of the things that drove alot of 18th century parisian (mostly) people who weren't about louis 16 kinda mad about marie antoinette was that she was austrian. foreign. "not really french"...


it's interesting now to see this same invective surfacing from the tea partiers, a movement that flirts so much with racism.

first there's all that birther stuff. alot of more vile things attached to it.
the unifying feature? the claim that barack obama is not a "real american."

and now michelle obama is not a real american either.

so now they're both ëquivalent insofar as they are both "foreign"
foreign with respect to what?
why "real americans" of course.

it's hard not to see that "real american" in teabagger discourse is code for white.

and the whole of that "real american"/Other business as a displacement.

A few of those people are the unemployed, but I wonder if they counted kids, retired people on a fixed Social Security income, prisoners and the disabled just to make their number bigger as a shock value.

I think they lead happier, less-stressful, and more enjoyable lives. They aren't nearly as paranoid about losing their job, getting more than the next guy, and scamming the system to get away without paying taxes.

And this gets to a bigger economic question, why do we need a 0% unemployment rate with everyone working 50+ hours a week? We have made great advances in technology to eliminate millions of jobs. One farmer can now do the work of dozens a hundred years ago. A solar and wind farm can run with much lower manpower requirements than a coal power plant. Electric vehicles made out of non-rusting parts could eliminate millions of jobs from people repairing and maintaining existing cars to oil drillers and refiners. There will be some jobs temporarily as these things ramp up, but when you look at it as people should work from 25-35 and have enough to retire after 10 years. And in 50 years, when AI and machines do 95% of the jobs (24/7/365), we will need an economic system that allows people to survive without working or 'owning' anything.

I volunteer to work part time for the good of the economy!