|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years.
I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party.
|
On October 22 2013 22:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 21:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:On October 22 2013 20:59 coverpunch wrote:On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On October 22 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:47 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:18 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote:
Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties. By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things. Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved. What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board. EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new. I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years. Unless you're an establictshed politician, going independent is political suicide. Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives. Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican. How many actual Republicans do you know? Exactly. This is the question that none will answer, since any honest response will not reflect with flattery upon our independence of mind or character. Extending this question to the category of the Tea Party, the same conclusions can be drawn. What we all know of the Tea Party is an unreal, received caricature, and it is distance, rather than familiarity which vitiates our collective sneers. There may be libertarians creeping in to this forum, and their very proximity will be a presence which will divide their enemies. Some enemies will be content with the easy instrument of sarcasm to ridicule a preposterous ideology, others will feel compelled to engage closely, and discern the valid from the fallacious, curious to preen apart the morass and discover where the heresy had struck its roots. Yet no one here as far as I know, has here admitted to being a tea party member. To the collective community it seems hardly fathomable that such creatures should exist at all. Their existence for us is almost on the level of ghouls or daemons; in the apparition of some wild and malevolent force, more metaphysical than substantial. Those lessons we all learned in kindergarten about not bullying those unable to fight back has not extended itself to officially unprotected categories of people. As far as Doublemint's engagement with Wegandi goes, it shows the efficacy, almost complete triumph of the United Front principle, where a person discovers his own ideology by identifying his enemies. Ah, how many times have I been misunderstood, because of the elementary psychological habit that if you are against me, you are the same thing as that which I am against. A Third Force? Those succeed but in messianic ages. That is why the "moderates" deride the non-conformists as possessing the zealotry of a religious cult. Naturally they do, their faults are but the natural consequence of your own! Sorry but how is the Tea-Party "unable to fight back"? It's mostly their responsibility that the US government was not functioning for two weeks which did cost the US economy a few billion dollars in the process. Just because a group of people is outnumbered doesn't mean they're victims or should be labeled as such. And people aren't opposing the Tea-Party because they're their "ideological enemies", most people oppose the Tea-Party because very little of what they propose has an actually factual basis. Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers'. You don't need to be a hardcore socialist to believe that, you just need to open your eyes and look around. For what i care Tea Party supporters could start debating whether electricity is a good thing or not next week, from my standpoint it wouldn't sound more ridiculous than the debates they're already having. And the Tea-Party comes very close to a religious cult. They turn away from empirical evidence, are willing to do whatever they want to get what they think is right although it's potentially harmful to other people, and have a general apathy against the 'establishment'. And reading your post, being 'conformist' nearly sounds like an insult. You don't have a more sophisticated opinion just because everyone disagrees with you. In fact that may be a sign that what you're arguing may be wrong. Being moderate on topics that cover millions of people and that need to have some kind of general consensus is a very reasonable thing to do.
So...you just proved his point of twisting the Tea Party into a caricature that looks very much like a straw man. Nobody representing the Tea Party has characterized the welfare state as evil. Ineffective and wasteful, yes. But not evil.
It's hard to even address criticism of the Tea Party as similar to a religious cult. It appears you don't want to be convinced or see any evidence for or against that position, you've already made up your mind.
|
On October 22 2013 22:50 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 22:18 Nyxisto wrote:On October 22 2013 21:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:On October 22 2013 20:59 coverpunch wrote:On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On October 22 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:47 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:18 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote:
Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties. By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things. Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved. What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board. EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new. I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years. Unless you're an establictshed politician, going independent is political suicide. Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives. Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican. How many actual Republicans do you know? Exactly. This is the question that none will answer, since any honest response will not reflect with flattery upon our independence of mind or character. Extending this question to the category of the Tea Party, the same conclusions can be drawn. What we all know of the Tea Party is an unreal, received caricature, and it is distance, rather than familiarity which vitiates our collective sneers. There may be libertarians creeping in to this forum, and their very proximity will be a presence which will divide their enemies. Some enemies will be content with the easy instrument of sarcasm to ridicule a preposterous ideology, others will feel compelled to engage closely, and discern the valid from the fallacious, curious to preen apart the morass and discover where the heresy had struck its roots. Yet no one here as far as I know, has here admitted to being a tea party member. To the collective community it seems hardly fathomable that such creatures should exist at all. Their existence for us is almost on the level of ghouls or daemons; in the apparition of some wild and malevolent force, more metaphysical than substantial. Those lessons we all learned in kindergarten about not bullying those unable to fight back has not extended itself to officially unprotected categories of people. As far as Doublemint's engagement with Wegandi goes, it shows the efficacy, almost complete triumph of the United Front principle, where a person discovers his own ideology by identifying his enemies. Ah, how many times have I been misunderstood, because of the elementary psychological habit that if you are against me, you are the same thing as that which I am against. A Third Force? Those succeed but in messianic ages. That is why the "moderates" deride the non-conformists as possessing the zealotry of a religious cult. Naturally they do, their faults are but the natural consequence of your own! Sorry but how is the Tea-Party "unable to fight back"? It's mostly their responsibility that the US government was not functioning for two weeks which did cost the US economy a few billion dollars in the process. Just because a group of people is outnumbered doesn't mean they're victims or should be labeled as such. And people aren't opposing the Tea-Party because they're their "ideological enemies", most people oppose the Tea-Party because very little of what they propose has an actually factual basis. Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers'. You don't need to be a hardcore socialist to believe that, you just need to open your eyes and look around. For what i care Tea Party supporters could start debating whether electricity is a good thing or not next week, from my standpoint it wouldn't sound more ridiculous than the debates they're already having. And the Tea-Party comes very close to a religious cult. They turn away from empirical evidence, are willing to do whatever they want to get what they think is right although it's potentially harmful to other people, and have a general apathy against the 'establishment'. And reading your post, being 'conformist' nearly sounds like an insult. You don't have a more sophisticated opinion just because everyone disagrees with you. In fact that may be a sign that what you're arguing may be wrong. Being moderate on topics that cover millions of people and that need to have some kind of general consensus is a very reasonable thing to do. So...you just proved his point of twisting the Tea Party into a caricature that looks very much like a straw man. Nobody representing the Tea Party has characterized the welfare state as evil. Ineffective and wasteful, yes. But not evil. It's hard to even address criticism of the Tea Party as similar to a religious cult. It appears you don't want to be convinced or see any evidence for or against that position, you've already made up your mind.
Uhm, yes, evil. Hell, they've compared obamacare to slavery over and over again.
You're not paying attention.
|
On October 22 2013 22:50 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 22:18 Nyxisto wrote:On October 22 2013 21:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:On October 22 2013 20:59 coverpunch wrote:On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On October 22 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:47 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:18 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote:
Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties. By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things. Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved. What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board. EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new. I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years. Unless you're an establictshed politician, going independent is political suicide. Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives. Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican. How many actual Republicans do you know? Exactly. This is the question that none will answer, since any honest response will not reflect with flattery upon our independence of mind or character. Extending this question to the category of the Tea Party, the same conclusions can be drawn. What we all know of the Tea Party is an unreal, received caricature, and it is distance, rather than familiarity which vitiates our collective sneers. There may be libertarians creeping in to this forum, and their very proximity will be a presence which will divide their enemies. Some enemies will be content with the easy instrument of sarcasm to ridicule a preposterous ideology, others will feel compelled to engage closely, and discern the valid from the fallacious, curious to preen apart the morass and discover where the heresy had struck its roots. Yet no one here as far as I know, has here admitted to being a tea party member. To the collective community it seems hardly fathomable that such creatures should exist at all. Their existence for us is almost on the level of ghouls or daemons; in the apparition of some wild and malevolent force, more metaphysical than substantial. Those lessons we all learned in kindergarten about not bullying those unable to fight back has not extended itself to officially unprotected categories of people. As far as Doublemint's engagement with Wegandi goes, it shows the efficacy, almost complete triumph of the United Front principle, where a person discovers his own ideology by identifying his enemies. Ah, how many times have I been misunderstood, because of the elementary psychological habit that if you are against me, you are the same thing as that which I am against. A Third Force? Those succeed but in messianic ages. That is why the "moderates" deride the non-conformists as possessing the zealotry of a religious cult. Naturally they do, their faults are but the natural consequence of your own! Sorry but how is the Tea-Party "unable to fight back"? It's mostly their responsibility that the US government was not functioning for two weeks which did cost the US economy a few billion dollars in the process. Just because a group of people is outnumbered doesn't mean they're victims or should be labeled as such. And people aren't opposing the Tea-Party because they're their "ideological enemies", most people oppose the Tea-Party because very little of what they propose has an actually factual basis. Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers'. You don't need to be a hardcore socialist to believe that, you just need to open your eyes and look around. For what i care Tea Party supporters could start debating whether electricity is a good thing or not next week, from my standpoint it wouldn't sound more ridiculous than the debates they're already having. And the Tea-Party comes very close to a religious cult. They turn away from empirical evidence, are willing to do whatever they want to get what they think is right although it's potentially harmful to other people, and have a general apathy against the 'establishment'. And reading your post, being 'conformist' nearly sounds like an insult. You don't have a more sophisticated opinion just because everyone disagrees with you. In fact that may be a sign that what you're arguing may be wrong. Being moderate on topics that cover millions of people and that need to have some kind of general consensus is a very reasonable thing to do. So...you just proved his point of twisting the Tea Party into a caricature that looks very much like a straw man. Nobody representing the Tea Party has characterized the welfare state as evil. Ineffective and wasteful, yes. But not evil. It's hard to even address criticism of the Tea Party as similar to a religious cult. It appears you don't want to be convinced or see any evidence for or against that position, you've already made up your mind.
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BjW1avGcuos/TD0oQQm2hSI/AAAAAAAACkA/2zgBcM30SgE/s640/Iowa+tea+party+billboard.jpg)
?
(well my statement only holds true as long as you consider Hitler or Lenin evil, i'll give you that)
Edit: (Or you disagree that the Iowa Tea Party actually represents the Tea Party in some way)
|
United States43902 Posts
On October 22 2013 22:50 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 22:18 Nyxisto wrote:On October 22 2013 21:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:On October 22 2013 20:59 coverpunch wrote:On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On October 22 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:47 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:18 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote:
Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties. By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things. Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved. What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board. EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new. I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years. Unless you're an establictshed politician, going independent is political suicide. Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives. Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican. How many actual Republicans do you know? Exactly. This is the question that none will answer, since any honest response will not reflect with flattery upon our independence of mind or character. Extending this question to the category of the Tea Party, the same conclusions can be drawn. What we all know of the Tea Party is an unreal, received caricature, and it is distance, rather than familiarity which vitiates our collective sneers. There may be libertarians creeping in to this forum, and their very proximity will be a presence which will divide their enemies. Some enemies will be content with the easy instrument of sarcasm to ridicule a preposterous ideology, others will feel compelled to engage closely, and discern the valid from the fallacious, curious to preen apart the morass and discover where the heresy had struck its roots. Yet no one here as far as I know, has here admitted to being a tea party member. To the collective community it seems hardly fathomable that such creatures should exist at all. Their existence for us is almost on the level of ghouls or daemons; in the apparition of some wild and malevolent force, more metaphysical than substantial. Those lessons we all learned in kindergarten about not bullying those unable to fight back has not extended itself to officially unprotected categories of people. As far as Doublemint's engagement with Wegandi goes, it shows the efficacy, almost complete triumph of the United Front principle, where a person discovers his own ideology by identifying his enemies. Ah, how many times have I been misunderstood, because of the elementary psychological habit that if you are against me, you are the same thing as that which I am against. A Third Force? Those succeed but in messianic ages. That is why the "moderates" deride the non-conformists as possessing the zealotry of a religious cult. Naturally they do, their faults are but the natural consequence of your own! Sorry but how is the Tea-Party "unable to fight back"? It's mostly their responsibility that the US government was not functioning for two weeks which did cost the US economy a few billion dollars in the process. Just because a group of people is outnumbered doesn't mean they're victims or should be labeled as such. And people aren't opposing the Tea-Party because they're their "ideological enemies", most people oppose the Tea-Party because very little of what they propose has an actually factual basis. Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers'. You don't need to be a hardcore socialist to believe that, you just need to open your eyes and look around. For what i care Tea Party supporters could start debating whether electricity is a good thing or not next week, from my standpoint it wouldn't sound more ridiculous than the debates they're already having. And the Tea-Party comes very close to a religious cult. They turn away from empirical evidence, are willing to do whatever they want to get what they think is right although it's potentially harmful to other people, and have a general apathy against the 'establishment'. And reading your post, being 'conformist' nearly sounds like an insult. You don't have a more sophisticated opinion just because everyone disagrees with you. In fact that may be a sign that what you're arguing may be wrong. Being moderate on topics that cover millions of people and that need to have some kind of general consensus is a very reasonable thing to do. So...you just proved his point of twisting the Tea Party into a caricature that looks very much like a straw man. Nobody representing the Tea Party has characterized the welfare state as evil. Ineffective and wasteful, yes. But not evil. It's hard to even address criticism of the Tea Party as similar to a religious cult. It appears you don't want to be convinced or see any evidence for or against that position, you've already made up your mind.
They view it as compulsory redistribution of wealth to the idle, theft by the poor using the state as a weapon in order to avoid having to work. To them the solution to the problems facing a great many people pretty much amount to not being poor and if you're already poor then you deserve whatever happens because it's probably your fault and if you weren't sufficiently punished for being poor then other people wouldn't learn. That punishing the poor for being poor is righteous because anything else breeds complacency and entices people who would otherwise work into choosing to be poor. The Tea Party needs no twisting to be a straw man, in pretty much every other civilised nation in the world they wouldn't poll 1%. The fact that it exists at all is American exceptionalism hard at work, you're Earth's very own little special snowflake.
|
Show me an example of someone saying:
Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers'
The billboard doesn't even say that. President Obama is not the welfare state and even if he was, it doesn't imply in any way that he's turning citizens into lazy thinkers.
|
On October 22 2013 23:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 22:50 coverpunch wrote:On October 22 2013 22:18 Nyxisto wrote:On October 22 2013 21:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:On October 22 2013 20:59 coverpunch wrote:On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On October 22 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:47 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:18 B_Type13X2 wrote:
[quote]
By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things.
Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved. What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board. EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new. I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years. Unless you're an establictshed politician, going independent is political suicide. Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives. Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican. How many actual Republicans do you know? Exactly. This is the question that none will answer, since any honest response will not reflect with flattery upon our independence of mind or character. Extending this question to the category of the Tea Party, the same conclusions can be drawn. What we all know of the Tea Party is an unreal, received caricature, and it is distance, rather than familiarity which vitiates our collective sneers. There may be libertarians creeping in to this forum, and their very proximity will be a presence which will divide their enemies. Some enemies will be content with the easy instrument of sarcasm to ridicule a preposterous ideology, others will feel compelled to engage closely, and discern the valid from the fallacious, curious to preen apart the morass and discover where the heresy had struck its roots. Yet no one here as far as I know, has here admitted to being a tea party member. To the collective community it seems hardly fathomable that such creatures should exist at all. Their existence for us is almost on the level of ghouls or daemons; in the apparition of some wild and malevolent force, more metaphysical than substantial. Those lessons we all learned in kindergarten about not bullying those unable to fight back has not extended itself to officially unprotected categories of people. As far as Doublemint's engagement with Wegandi goes, it shows the efficacy, almost complete triumph of the United Front principle, where a person discovers his own ideology by identifying his enemies. Ah, how many times have I been misunderstood, because of the elementary psychological habit that if you are against me, you are the same thing as that which I am against. A Third Force? Those succeed but in messianic ages. That is why the "moderates" deride the non-conformists as possessing the zealotry of a religious cult. Naturally they do, their faults are but the natural consequence of your own! Sorry but how is the Tea-Party "unable to fight back"? It's mostly their responsibility that the US government was not functioning for two weeks which did cost the US economy a few billion dollars in the process. Just because a group of people is outnumbered doesn't mean they're victims or should be labeled as such. And people aren't opposing the Tea-Party because they're their "ideological enemies", most people oppose the Tea-Party because very little of what they propose has an actually factual basis. Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers'. You don't need to be a hardcore socialist to believe that, you just need to open your eyes and look around. For what i care Tea Party supporters could start debating whether electricity is a good thing or not next week, from my standpoint it wouldn't sound more ridiculous than the debates they're already having. And the Tea-Party comes very close to a religious cult. They turn away from empirical evidence, are willing to do whatever they want to get what they think is right although it's potentially harmful to other people, and have a general apathy against the 'establishment'. And reading your post, being 'conformist' nearly sounds like an insult. You don't have a more sophisticated opinion just because everyone disagrees with you. In fact that may be a sign that what you're arguing may be wrong. Being moderate on topics that cover millions of people and that need to have some kind of general consensus is a very reasonable thing to do. So...you just proved his point of twisting the Tea Party into a caricature that looks very much like a straw man. Nobody representing the Tea Party has characterized the welfare state as evil. Ineffective and wasteful, yes. But not evil. It's hard to even address criticism of the Tea Party as similar to a religious cult. It appears you don't want to be convinced or see any evidence for or against that position, you've already made up your mind. They view it as compulsory redistribution of wealth to the idle, theft by the poor using the state as a weapon in order to avoid having to work. To them the solution to the problems facing a great many people pretty much amount to not being poor and if you're already poor then you deserve whatever happens because it's probably your fault and if you weren't sufficiently punished for being poor then other people wouldn't learn. That punishing the poor for being poor is righteous because anything else breeds complacency and entices people who would otherwise work into choosing to be poor. The Tea Party needs no twisting to be a straw man, in pretty much every other civilised nation in the world they wouldn't poll 1%. The fact that it exists at all is American exceptionalism hard at work, you're Earth's very own little special snowflake.
Uh, source?
|
|
|
On October 22 2013 23:10 coverpunch wrote:Show me an example of someone saying: Show nested quote +Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers'
Sorry , i just showed you a billboard on which the Tea-Party states that Obama equals Hitler and that democratic socialism (which isn't what the democrats are representing anyway ) equals Marxism/Leninism or national socialism.
If you seriously think this isn't enough evidence or that i need to show you more of that you are either a giant troll or should talk to a doctor.
|
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America.
|
On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party.
So what do you do when your party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible.
You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two.
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America.
The idea of the current US as a welfare state is somewhat confusing.
|
On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two.
There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party.
|
On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America.
Yes, but that's different from calling it evil or some of the other ugly statements being attributed to the Tea Party.
To use an opposite example, many anti-war liberals may think the military-industrial complex is also a very large problem for the United States and be very unhappy with it. That doesn't mean anti-war Democrats think US soldiers are baby killers and are thus to be opposed at every turn.
In fairness, nobody since 2001 has listened to anti-war Democrats and I suppose lots of people are hoping the Tea Party would just shut up too.
|
On October 22 2013 23:31 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:10 coverpunch wrote:Show me an example of someone saying: Welfare states aren't evil and don't turn their citizens into 'lazy thinkers' Sorry , i just showed you a billboard on which the Tea-Party states that Obama equals Hitler and that democratic socialism (which isn't what the democrats are representing anyway ) equals Marxism/Leninism or national socialism. If you seriously think this isn't enough evidence or that i need to show you more of that you are either a giant troll or should talk to a doctor.
And your original statement was that the Tea Party thinks the welfare state is evil. I was hoping you'd have explicit proof of that somewhere. The billboard only shows that the Tea Party isn't afraid of taking cheap shots. Too bad.
|
On October 22 2013 23:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:41 Squat wrote:On October 22 2013 22:44 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 22:12 DoubleReed wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious that xDaunt can't imagine non-partisan people getting fed up with parties.
Also, the Republican Party has gone massively further right than Reagan, leader of comprehensive immigration reform and raising taxes. Republicans of old never tried to restrict womens health like they have in the last few years. Never has the reactionary, conspiracy theorist wing of the party been this powerful and be at the forefront of politics. There was massive outcry against Medicare reform, but nothing like this suggestion of being such an existential threat.
Hell, even Milton Friedman is too left wing for the Republicans now, because he advocated lots of monetary policy. And that has become highly contentious over the years, so they've essentially discarded Friedman for Hayek. (Ironically, Friedman described Hayek as a caricature of conservativism, symbolic of what has happened to the whole party)
The biggest thing is that the Republicans have given the crazies a significant voice, as I keep showing. Bachman, West, Paul, Cruz, Ryan, etc. etc. And the democrats have been dragged along with them, because of false equivocations and a corporate media.
Seriously, do I need to continue this point? I've been demonstrating this and giving lots of examples this whole thread. Republicans have gone way off the deep end in recent years. I never said that people won't get fed up with political parties and partisan politics. What I said is that it is silly to think that hordes of politicians will leave their political party and go independent, because you can't survive politically without a party behind you. Obviously, voters go independent all of the time, because they don't have to be tied to a party. So what do you do when you party and your constituents become a ball and chain, preventing you from making any real progress? If your ambition as a politician is only to secure reelection in the local area, then pandering to the extreme makes sense. If any real national ambitions exist, the two are incompatible. You are essentially describing a catch 22, can't survive without the party, can't win national elections with the party. How about just making a new one then? The divide between the Tea Party fringe and the people still living in reality with the rest of us is rather large at this point. It may be large enough that the difference between the tea party and the republicans would be better served by making it a clear, distinct choice between the two. There are two possibilities. One, a new party is formed. Two, the original party is changed from the inside-out. Both forces are presently at work within the republican party.
Interesting, I would very much like to follow this development. Either way, it would be quite the massive overhaul in the US political scene.
Also, assuming the party is thoroughly revamped rather than split, how do you see it panning out? A thorough capitulation to the extreme right, or essentially purging the party of it's most ardent base?
|
On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America.
Doesn't everyone agree on this? Are there people who think the system is working as intended?? I don't think this is only a Tea Party tenet, I thought the disagreements were on the solutions to these problems (reforming and expanding vs. abolishing the welfare state).
|
On October 22 2013 14:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 09:25 Souma wrote:Forget the Vitter amendment. Rand Paul wants to make sure that Congress can’t ever again write laws with provisions specific to lawmakers. The Kentucky freshman Republican has introduced a constitutional amendment that would preclude senators and congressmen from passing laws that don’t apply equally to U.S. citizens and Congress, the executive branch and the Supreme Court. The amendment is aimed squarely at Obamacare provisions specific to members of Congress and their staffs that became a central point of contention during the government shutdown. Under Obamacare, Capitol Hill aides and lawmakers are required to enter the law’s health exchanges and a summertime ruling from the Office of Personnel Management ensured they will continue to receive federal employer contributions to help pay for insurance on the exchanges. A number of lawmakers, specifically Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), have been pushing for the end to those contributions, arguing they amount to a Washington exemption from Obamacare. Vitter has drafted legislative language that would eliminate these subsidies and tried to attach the measure to an energy efficiency bill and pushed for it to be included in the government funding bill last week. Paul seeks to go a step further and amend the Constitution so that “Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress,” the executive branch including the president and vice president as well as the Supreme Court. Paul told the Daily Caller in September that the amendment would take specific aim at Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, whose swing vote upheld the constitutionality of much of the Affordable Care Act. “If he likes Obamacare so much, I’m going to give him an amendment that gives Obamacare to Justice Roberts,” Paul told the publication. Amending the Constitution is no easy task, requiring super majorities in both chambers of Congress before going to the states for ratification. And Paul in particular will face the immense burden of trying to convince lawmakers that they should no longer have the authority to make laws governing Congress. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/rand-paul-constitutional-amendment-98625.html?hp=f3 Rand Paul is deeply confused. So he wants to force Congress to be treated the same as everyone else under all laws passed by Congress. But then should Congress be forced on the Obamacare exchanges? Paul says yes. But everyone else with an employer does not need to be on the Obamacare exchanges. So if he wants Congress to be treated like everyone else, why should Congress be forced onto the exchanges, unlike everyone else? Contradiction.
Rand Paul is a dirty tea bagger! Ugh, I hate him!
|
On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America.
No, that's conservatives. Tea Party says its evil and the equivalent of slavery.
Which was what the discussion was actually about, if anyone cared to notice. But to be fair, intellectual honesty was never xDaunt's strong suit.
|
On October 22 2013 20:59 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 14:55 aksfjh wrote:On October 22 2013 13:53 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:47 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:30 xDaunt wrote:On October 22 2013 13:18 B_Type13X2 wrote:On October 22 2013 13:08 xDaunt wrote:
Doesn't sound like that guy was much of a republican to begin with if that's his stated reason for switching parties. By that logic do you need to be an asshole to be a republican? It's safer to say he was more of a centrist but chose the republican party. I used to be liberal in Alberta up in Canada but found myself moving more towards the conservative side of things when the Liberals in my country allied themselves with the NDP who were much more socialistic (not saying that's bad.) But it didn't align with me anymore politically as a centrist with more right wing leanings on business related things. Not to hijack but it's very hard to peg moderate individuals by party lines, because the Democrats of today would have been the republican's of the 80's that's how far the Republican's have moved. What I am saying is that I doubt that that is the sole/real reason why he left. I don't know the guy, but I bet he's rather liberal across the board. EDIT: Seriously, what kind of person wakes up one day and suddenly discovers that he's in a party full of assholes and bigots and then announces that he's leaving because of it? It's not like the republican stance on gay marriage is anything new. I don't know, maybe the gay marriage thing wasn't that big to him when he got into politics it could be that they've moved further away from him on a bunch of issues and the government shutdown concentrating on Obamacare may have been the last straw for him. It wouldn't be surprising to me to see more moderate republicans becoming independent or liberal candidates in the future. Its funny really because Obamacare was actually Dolecare Circa 1996, it just shows how far a party can move in 10 years. Unless you're an established politician, going independent is political suicide. Also, I don't get where all this crap about how far the republican party has moved is coming from. Take it from a republican -- the party's platform has barely changed since Reagan, particularly on social issues. What has changed is the electorate, and liberals have taken over the democrat party. The "conservative democrat" is basically extinct. There are still plenty of liberal republicans out there to go along with the hardline conservatives. Um, no. I have never before met or seen a "liberal Republican" since I started loosely following politics in 2006, with the exception of Olympia Snowe. About the closest you can get to one is the derogatory RINO term, but that is used to disown somebody in the party rather than show that they are ACTUALLY a liberal Republican. How many actual Republicans do you know?
I live in Texas. Grew up in Dallas county and Collin county. It would be more accurate to say that I know far fewer Democrats than Republicans.
|
On October 22 2013 23:43 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2013 23:31 xDaunt wrote:
One of the key tenets of the Tea Party is definitely that the welfare state as presently constituted is the root of many social problems in America. Yes, but that's different from calling it evil or some of the other ugly statements being attributed to the Tea Party. To use an opposite example, many anti-war liberals may think the military-industrial complex is also a very large problem for the United States and be very unhappy with it. That doesn't mean anti-war Democrats think US soldiers are baby killers and are thus to be opposed at every turn. In fairness, nobody since 2001 has listened to anti-war Democrats and I suppose lots of people are hoping the Tea Party would just shut up too.
In fairness, there's plenty of extreme rhetoric to go around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
