mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 19, 2013 14:09:47 GMT -5
Tell ya what, paul ... that's just not true. You may see it that way, but there are a whole raft of people in this country who are just as American as you are, and care just as much about this country as you do, and those people are not affiliated with the TEA party and don't care to be. Those who don't agree with you and the TEA party are just as important, as intelligent, as involved, and as informed as you are. If you want to pull a hand-to-head full-blown Theda Bara, you go right ahead, but don't put down the good people who march to a different drummer than you do in the process. You just ain't all that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:00:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 14:11:13 GMT -5
"EVER."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 14:18:44 GMT -5
May we infer that you have no real objection to the idea that there can be RATIONAL people who care about the country and what is happening to it? And if not, why defend the Tea Party? And we can use other adjectives. Would you prefer "foolish", "moronic," or (even a perhaps strained definition of) "quixotic?" Those fit.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 14:21:59 GMT -5
Then we're dead. Of stubbornness and stupidity.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,971
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Oct 19, 2013 14:27:44 GMT -5
Stated as a opinion, we can only disagree or agree with it. Now had he stated it as fact, well its easily arguably incorrect. There are tons of people involved politically whether through the primary parties, the fringe partys, the Tea Party and OWS. The latter two both IMO birthed by the lack of satisfaction with the status quo. Unfortuantely IMO, both movements lost clarity and became less effective.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:00:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 15:00:55 GMT -5
I can only appeal to the politically-minded here: Don't buy into the "Tea Party is Crazy" propaganda. They're reckless, yes. They're certainly not perfect. But they obviously care about your country, see what's happening to it, and magazine covers like the above are the proof that they make Bloomberg and Debt Inc. extremely uncomfortable. To be honest, I wonder a bit about that. They made DF and I uneasy with tactics that imminently threatened the entire nation. Then when the ACA demand wasn't going to fly, they kept threatening with no clear goal for a while, except "to win." All of that might even be forgiven by me (lots of sh!t gets pulled in politics by all sides), except that they pulled a drastic action like shutting down the government, threatening the nation as a whole with default, didn't have a backup demand at the ready, couldn't stop their own members from bailing, and then got tackled before the bus with all of us on it went over a cliff. In the process, they not only hurt themselves, they helped their opponents' causes because most people do not like to be threatened. Basic strategic knowledge. That's... not a level of planning I'd want to trust my well being with on the global stage. DF and I do also talk to Tea Party members on a pretty regular basis. We're in OK, and shuttle to TX for interfacing with corporate. DF's dad is also a Tea Party member in the CA Bay Area, and an avid Ditto Head. In speaking with Tea Party base members, both of us doubt that a large percentage of them are actually committed to trimming the deficit. The message when chatting is often pretty clearly "cut everything except what affects me and my friends." They're nice people usually. They don't want their friends to suffer. It's the ambiguous "others" who can bite it and take program cuts. DF's dad nearly flipped out at the idea that SS and Medicare might be trimmed. He's relying on both entirely in old age, since he's always been very low income. I dunno. DF and I are both moderates. We just don't see the Tea Party leadership or a decent number of their base members as truly willing and strategically able to reduce spending. Their rallies do have some amazing informal social convictions though. We overheard a big one while DF was getting his visa for the KSA, and they have gatherings at the local bookstore. DF's dad tells us every time we meet about how gays are rotting society, and then wonders why his openly gay brother doesn't come to family functions. The dad just denies that his brother is gay, and actually believes it I think. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/undecided.png)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 19, 2013 15:06:01 GMT -5
Then we're dead. Of stubbornness and stupidity. precisely. the TEA Party is a die or die movement.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 15:48:46 GMT -5
I said a couple weeks ago that I would consider it a concerted effort to act against the American people and the American system of government. I wouldn't have a problem seeing them tried for treason.
And why is it that whenever you see an outrageously stupid, uninformed, bigoted, or scientifically-inaccurate comment made by a politician, it is overwhelmingly likely to be from someone for whom they append the "TEA-Party-backed" descriptor?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 19, 2013 16:29:07 GMT -5
Simple, to get TEA party backing you have to be a moron and anti-science. If you elect morons that actively distrust all science to office they're going to say really stupid, uninformed, and blatantly scientifically false things all the time.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Oct 19, 2013 16:40:26 GMT -5
The entire economic premise in the OP is, IMO, wrong, not surprising considering the source. Problably won't have much time to argue my two cents but I'll through it out there anyway. The FED was about to taper bond buying, but because the TP were the ones that essentially shut down the govt, the FRB had no choice but to stay its course. So by the OP's rational, "debt inc." should love the TP. To prove China is losing faith in the US, using the example of China selling short term debt at super low interest rates, to buy long term investments in the US that will only appreciate if the US continues to prospers is, in fact, an oxymoron. The 85 billion in bonds isn't for fun or because "debt inc." is prospering from all this debt. It's so that US bond auctions are oversubscribed, keeping interest low, which has helped the housing market recover. Most of the interest on the 45 billion a month is less than 3%, and of course Virg, you neglect to bring up the fact that since the crisis the FRB has returned billions, hundreds of billions, in interest to the UST. Lastly, the 45 billion the FRB is spending on bonds would have been sold on the open market because US expenses exceed revenue. It would have also been sold at a much higher interest rate, in some cases maybe double what it's currently at.(Think short term debt with negative interest rates) This means that since the crisis instead of hundreds of billions being returned to the UST, aka the US taxpayer, they could have paid it to foreign nationals or "debt inc.", as it were. Virgil, if your point is that the US needs politicians that get the fact that the budget needs to be balanced, I agree. Using poor economic examples, based on concepts from people with a poor economic forecasting track records, was not the way to get the point across, Virg..... How about? ALL of these dumb arse American politicians need to get it, at some point UST debt won't be the be all end all of secured govt bonds, 20 trillion in debt is plenty enough to roll over in the bond market for decades to come. Even Dallas FED prez Fisher, who is a hawk, has said that thanks to the US politicians creating economic uncertainty in the US economy, it's hard to argue for tapering. That would be my summary anyway. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/cool.png)
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 17:04:24 GMT -5
Simple, to get TEA party backing you have to be a moron and anti-science. If you elect morons that actively distrust all science to office they're going to say really stupid, uninformed, and blatantly scientifically false things all the time.
Yes, the question was rhetorical. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2013 17:50:21 GMT -5
The TEA Party is all that's left of America politically. It's really a do-or-die movement. Or is it a Suicide Cult? It's a cult if we lose, a society of geniuses if we win.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:00:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 18:33:31 GMT -5
It's a cult if we lose, a society of geniuses if we win. Win or lose, crackpots and cranks are crackpots and cranks. At this point in time, most Americans reject the prospect of allowing the kooks to load us all aboard their crazy train.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 19:26:24 GMT -5
I'd actually like to be able to give them a little credit. The three main principles when they started were, as I recall: 1. Smaller government 2. Fiscal responsibility 3. Free markets
(I'm not sure on that last one, so somebody please correct me if I have erred.) But I and many others could support that.
The problem was that they needed to get a bigger voice and so took on all comers who wanted to attach to them. And there were a lot of disparate groups who attached themselves to the movement. Racists, anarchists, religious fundamentalists, anti-government conspiracy theorists.... All of whom were shouting to get their voices heard. And since the movement itself had no coherent leadership or voice, the groups were co-opted by those outsiders.
The Republican Party grasped onto them as well, since most of those people wanting to identify as Tea Party held one or more basic Republican beliefs. The Party leaders thought they could control the Tea Party, because they believed (mistakenly) that the Tea-partiers were actually interested in governing and would help the GOP do that. Not at all. They do not care at all about actually governing, and for that reason (and their devotion to blind ideology at the expense of anything else) the GOP cannot control them.
I have long thought that we should have a moderate, centrist third-party and that that would go a long way to improving our government. Let the Democrats and Republicans be the left and right sides of the spectrum and have a group in the middle to counter those two. A party that concentrated on fiscal conservatism and social freedoms would have tremendous support in this country.
I have revised that. The Republicans and the Tea Party should split. The Tea Party has been co-opted by the far-right nuts, so let them have it. Let the Republicans move back to where they were historically. They would likely pick up a bunch of independents and could probably be the middle-ground. What we have now is not only unworkable, but disgusting. Congress deserves their extremely low ratings, and it is the Tea-Party Republicans who have caused it.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 19, 2013 20:29:27 GMT -5
The moderate Republicans would have to let go of some social planks, which the TEA party would be happy to pick up, in order to draw in independents. I'm not voting for anyone who vows to overturn Roe v. Wade, ever. I don't give a damn if they're personally against abortion, but that fight was lost over four decades ago and it's time to let it go. They can be against abortion personally, and choose to never get one, but the second they say their litmus test for assigning Supreme Court justices is whether or not they'd overturn Roe v. Wade they'll never get my vote for President. Ditto for gay marriage. They can decline all wedding invites from their gay family members and friends, but when it comes to governance, I want a live and let live attitude. Or, at the very least, it's a none of the federal government's damn business attitude. They lost the middle on social issues not fiscal ones, which is why the Dems have been kicking their butts lately.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 20:45:42 GMT -5
Yes, and I should have made that clearer. Social liberal, fiscal conservative.
I would still prefer to abolish the two we have now and start over. I would think maybe five more tightly-focused parties that can put out a coherent message of who and what they actually are and believe, instead of the two behemoths we have now who bastardize themselves by trying to include too many disparate groups. Because none would likely gain anywhere close to a majority, the assumption is that they would have to work together and that ideas would succeed or fail based more on their quality as ideas. I know, it's idealistic....
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 19, 2013 20:48:24 GMT -5
It happens in other countries... kind of. My understanding is that most of them with several parties still end up with the big two that control most everything, and the others are more fringe that stand on principle and don't really accomplish anything.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 19, 2013 22:05:01 GMT -5
May we infer that you have no real objection to the idea that there can be RATIONAL people who care about the country and what is happening to it? And if not, why defend the Tea Party? And we can use other adjectives. Would you prefer "foolish", "moronic," or (even a perhaps strained definition of) "quixotic?" Those fit. Can you accept the possibility that the TEA Party is not only not crazy, but also not reckless, or irrational- but principled, and purposeful in their actions. I find the treatment of the TEA Party a whole lot like the treatment of Reagan and the entire "Reagan coalition" early on. A lot of people at a lot of crow for a long time for that. And Reagan was almost Obamaesque in his retribution. Long before he himself ever got the nomination, or his massive landslide victories over Carter and Mondale- he was able to successfully sweep aside Rockefeller. I'm actually curious- genuinely curious exactly what the thought process is that goes into some of these anti-TEA Party posts? They are all (to me, and in my opinion) completely thoughtless, they are a regurgitation of attacks by the losing side- and make no mistake, the GOP establishment is on the ropes. Their plan- and it is equally as rational and purposeful- is to get rid of the GOP's conservative base. They would rather not have us. They're ashamed of us, and we aren't good for them in terms of the DC cocktail party circuit. But rather than see what the TEA Party is really about, see what the GOP establishment is about and to fail to be able to come here and have a rational discussion about what's really happening, examine it in detail, put it into an actual historical context that at least has had a brush with reality- if not steeped in it- is impossible. It's impossible frankly because posts like yours, TG- I can tune into any number of Democrat and liberal media outlets, I can turn on the Sunday talk shows tomorrow- which I predict (and don't doubt me on this- ever) will be a skewering of the TEA Party-- and all of it conventional wisdom, no original thought, no real examination of the issues, not even a realistic deconstruction of the supposed tactical difference between the establishment's supposed ideas for dismantling ObamaCare vs. the TEA Party- which if you really look at it is far more absurd- win elections, when we're finally in control of everything, then we'll deal with it. When the fuck exactly does that ever happen? The only reason we got this piece of shit is because the Democrats scrambled to ram it through for the ten minutes they were in charge before being thrown out in the TEAnami of 2010. But let's say winning elections is the GOP establishment plan- let's look at the rationality of that. They're idea is to appease Democrats, and hope that what? They can attract independents by making nice with the people destroying this country as it was founded, they can attract hispanics, and mexicans in particular by going along with a broad brush amnesty plan, opposing meaningful voter reforms that ensure the integrity of the electoral process by requiring people to prove they are who they say they are, they live where they say they live, and they're only voting ONCE? Romney won independents- by double digits, so that didn't help. Romney could have gotten an across-the-board 73% of the Hispanic / Mexican vote and still lost. So, that didn't - and will not help. So, even their namby-pamby let's just wait until we win elections approach is wrong because they can't win elections. What if...and this is largely supported by data...what if the GOP's electoral victory problem was easily solved? What if it was so simple it would boggle the mind? What if all they had to do was rouse their principled, conservative base of White middle class TEA Party and like-minded conservatives-- something they've failed to do since Bush 41 in 1988; and what if the demographics actually favored the GOP (and amnesty would fuck that up royally by overwhelming the system with people who in reality are criminals and should not vote- but who will undoubtedly be put on a path to vote, if they don't commit voter fraud outright)? See, we don't want to have a discussion of the actual issues. We don't want to see that the TEA Party is actually fighting for something- because the fact of the matter is that if you don't say Republican, and you don't say TEA Party, but you just go down the line on issues- conservatives win every issue. Every issue. It's not even close. Most issues are AT LEAST a 70% - 30% margin- except for the issues that poll closer to 85% - 15%. Conservatives would win, if we ever had the balls to fight it out, even the abortion issue. It's not a tough sell- most people are predisposed to the pro-life position and abortion still has a significant stigma attached to it. Reasonable restrictions could be implemented overnight with broad-based popular support. We could win on the tax code. We could win on immigration reform. We could win on ObamaCare. But to win, you gotta be in the fight. Tell me- what does the GOP stand for? The establishment types that just caved? What do they really stand for? The establishment that wants to roll over and pee on immigration? The GOP stands for nothing. It's Democrat lite. As a result, their conservative base is increasingly disgusted- and I think they're going to be in for a bit of a shock the next few years as they get hit where it hurts: the money. There aren't enough deep pockets to keep either party in the black. They need the donations coming in, and I think the GOP just guaranteed virtually NO donations from grassroots, and no activism for the next four to six years- while simultaneously inviting expensive and politically devastating primary challenges in race after race. McCain may as well retire. Boehner is finished. Graham is the only one hanging on- and that's because he' got no opposition (currently). Ultimately this thing comes to a head- and the TEA Party wins. I think people are mistaken when they say we're crazy and we're reckless or that we're irrational. We are far more enthusiastic, far better prepared to fight for our liberty, and we aren't in it for the money or invitations to cocktail parties- and the people that are will fade when the heat is on, and the TEA Party is bringing the heat. This isn't a one battle deal. I've said it before- I'll say it again: The TEA Party's victory at Trenton is coming. It's going to be a political earthquake. I have a friend that argues that it already took place: it was 2010, and it was so much deeper than the national election- it had roots. Nation-wide libertarian and TEA Party candidates are slogging it out in primaries and winning in general elections- they're winning county seats, state rep seats, dog catcher positions-- the kind of local foundation needed to start systemic reforms rolling. I wouldn't dare to predict when, but a massive change in politics is coming- a huge, ground-up lurch to the right has happened, is underway, and will come into view before too long. I believe I mentioned in another post that ALL- and I mean ALL the intellectual firepower in political discourse these days is on the right. The Democrats are left to soundbites, media ambush tactics, and political games and rhetoric. They cannot stand the heat of a full on political fight- and that's the leadership the TEA Party is contributing to the country, and I think both parties are correct to be utterly terrified by it.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Oct 19, 2013 22:36:38 GMT -5
Yeah, that's one possibility. Or, anyone with the TEA party tag is about to get their asses handed to them in 2014 except in very very red districts. We'll know in about a year.
If nothing else it'll be really interesting to see if a real rift opens up on the conservative side and splits the party. The rhetoric is there right now, but we'll see if it materializes in the primaries and big money. I don't know when was the last time a major party in America split, but it should be interesting to see if it happens. The unfortunate thing for conservatives of course would be that if it does happen it probably guarantees a growing Democrat majority in the Senate, possibly a slim majority in the House, and should give whoever the Dems pick for 2016 a good shot at the presidency.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:00:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 22:55:31 GMT -5
In reply to post #77: The manic expositions of Delusions of Grandeur, by their members, aren't helping the TEA party at all. EVER.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,971
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Oct 19, 2013 22:58:16 GMT -5
![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahright.png) If the senate race was a harbinger, I doubt any district I vote for will go Tpub. For the rural counties in the southern half of the state I have no idea, but I think the shutdown damaged any Tea Party candidate except their most rabid fans. Interestingly, here in the latter half of November I have a whole one political mail piece and it is pro-moderate and anti-Tea party.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 23:01:52 GMT -5
No. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
They wanted to make a statement against the ACA. Fine. But 41 votes? To the exclusion of almost everything else they could and should have been working on? To shut down the government? To bring the nation to the brink of default? To damage so many American citizens and cost so many dollars? To make us an object of derision worldwide? To make credible the idea among other nations that the U.S. should no longer be the dominant economy or the dollar the reserve currency? No. Not a chance. And particularly when it was known well in advance by anyone with a measurable IQ that there was zero chance of success. No.
Look, I'd like to be for them. I'm in favor of smaller government and fiscal responsibility. But that is not who they are. That is who they want to claim they are, but it is not who they ARE. And if there is a single TEA-party backed politician who is NOT a nut, they haven't made the news yet. Their lineup would likely read like a Who's Who list of Congress' dumbest people. And Lord knows you can't recognize one. A picture of Palin comparing her to the Statue of Liberty as your avatar? A mindless twit who couldn't even manage to finish her term as governor? No.
I am a moderate independent. I don't like either party very much. They both have some good and some bad. What I do want though is for whichever party does win an election to do their best to do what is right for the country and the American people. Yes, I am disappointed a lot. But whatever disappointment I feel at the hands of the major parties would be exponentially worse if a group that supported such idiots as the TEA Party does ever got any real power.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 19, 2013 23:08:54 GMT -5
I've got a couple of friends who are staunch conservatives. When the TEA party first started to gain traction, they were very excited about it and I know they participated in local and regional TEA party activities. According to one of them, she and her husband have been quite disenchanted with the movement for some time now, and are pretty embarrassed at recent events. I don't know how the other friend is taking it all, as he and his wife are abroad. Most folks around here are conservatives, and what I hear is not pro-TEA party. Most just don't like what it's become. It started out with a good, solid stance. If it had stayed with that stance, it could have drawn the support of a lot of folks that now only want to be as far from it as possible. It's a shame, really. Another really good idea usurped by those who would corrupt it for their own purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:00:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 23:13:52 GMT -5
The First "accomplishment" of the TEA Partiers, in 1773: It was they who spurred the colonists to split from their mother England and enable the creation of the Congress we all know and love today. The Tea Party gave us the very Congress they despise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 25, 2024 19:00:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 23:38:44 GMT -5
"Be very careful what you for... lest your wish come true."
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,266
|
Post by tallguy on Oct 19, 2013 23:52:02 GMT -5
Even if all of that is correct (and I'm really not interested in debating it) it means little to nothing in terms of what our laws should be. You claim to be Christian, and while I have seen absolutely no supporting evidence for that claim in any of your posts or opinions over the years, let's stipulate for the purpose of discussion that that is true.
The thing that you ignore is that, while those beliefs are a wonderful way to govern your own life and behavior, they are a terrible way to set policy in a pluralistic society that values individual liberties. This country was founded by people seeking the freedom to worship as they saw fit. One of our highest ideals is that we have the right to think as we like. We have the right to live pretty much as we like, as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same. Individual liberties are paramount in our society.
In that context, social conservatives are un-American. They do not believe in individual liberties for everyone. They believe in liberties only for those like themselves. They choose time after time to attempt to proscribe behavior that affects them not at all, for the simple reason that they don't like it, and they go through tortuous reasoning to justify the attempt.
On abortion, for example, I am not personally in favor of abortion. I am fortunate in that I have never been touched by it in any way that I am aware of, but I have no right or standing to dictate to anyone else what their choice should be. (And by the way, there are reasonable restrictions in place now. The objection to the far-right is that they are attempting to put in unreasonable restrictions.) On gay marriage, as long as nobody tries to force me to be in one, I'm okay with it. I would personally prefer that it not be called marriage, but the more important point is that the rights accruing as a result be exactly the same no matter what it's called. If the laws cannot be easily changed to do that, then go ahead and call it marriage. I don't care enough to worry about it. It doesn't affect me at all. Any number of things are the same way. I don't have the right to object to someone else's choices just because I don't like them. Our laws need to be set up to allow different choices in the name of the same freedoms for others that we so loudly demand for ourselves. And it cannot matter what either you or I think about it individually. If it does, then our societal ideals mean nothing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2013 0:04:45 GMT -5
It's a cult if we lose, a society of geniuses if we win. if everyone else loses, who will give you your trophy?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2013 0:08:02 GMT -5
The moderate Republicans would have to let go of some social planks, which the TEA party would be happy to pick up, in order to draw in independents. I'm not voting for anyone who vows to overturn Roe v. Wade, ever. I don't give a damn if they're personally against abortion, but that fight was lost over four decades ago and it's time to let it go. They can be against abortion personally, and choose to never get one, but the second they say their litmus test for assigning Supreme Court justices is whether or not they'd overturn Roe v. Wade they'll never get my vote for President. Ditto for gay marriage. They can decline all wedding invites from their gay family members and friends, but when it comes to governance, I want a live and let live attitude. Or, at the very least, it's a none of the federal government's damn business attitude. They lost the middle on social issues not fiscal ones, which is why the Dems have been kicking their butts lately. the problem with the TP is coherence. they love to talk about getting government off their backs, but 60% of self identified TP members are getting federal benefits. when you talk about cutting those benefits, they say no. when you talk about gutting defense, they say no. so, what they REALLY want is everyone who gets federal benefits OTHER THAN THEM to get cut off. their whole argument makes no sense. like i have said before, with the TP, we basically have a bunch of people carrying water for those that would drown them.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2013 0:10:54 GMT -5
Yeah, that's one possibility. Or, anyone with the TEA party tag is about to get their asses handed to them in 2014 except in very very red districts. We'll know in about a year. If nothing else it'll be really interesting to see if a real rift opens up on the conservative side and splits the party. The rhetoric is there right now, but we'll see if it materializes in the primaries and big money. I don't know when was the last time a major party in America split, but it should be interesting to see if it happens. The unfortunate thing for conservatives of course would be that if it does happen it probably guarantees a growing Democrat majority in the Senate, possibly a slim majority in the House, and should give whoever the Dems pick for 2016 a good shot at the presidency. i give the TP about an 80% chance of going the way of the Blue Dogs, and about a 20% chance of splitting off. i give them a 0% chance of running the party.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,447
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 20, 2013 0:13:28 GMT -5
No. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/grin.png)
They wanted to make a statement against the ACA. Fine. But 41 votes? To the exclusion of almost everything else they could and should have been working on? To shut down the government? To bring the nation to the brink of default? To damage so many American citizens and cost so many dollars? To make us an object of derision worldwide? To make credible the idea among other nations that the U.S. should no longer be the dominant economy or the dollar the reserve currency? No. Not a chance. And particularly when it was known well in advance by anyone with a measurable IQ that there was zero chance of success. No. here is my biggest gripe against the TP. most of them came into office saying, yes, they would repeal ObamaCare (which was really an insane claim, given the political situation). however, they also ran, like most Republicans on Job Creation. pop quiz: how many jobs bills has the GOP class of 2012 introduced?
|
|