On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote: There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
Her previous positions are real though. That's enough to go by at least.
we've had senators involved with the KKK. i dont see how this is worse
Then go make a topic about them, lol.
We're here talking about the supposed Tea Party momentum leading up to November.
I love when people this absolutely unqualified and stupid get nominated for races. It's fun to watch their campaigns crumble miserably under waves of sheer incompetence, and then to see them get ROFLstomped in general elections by any candidate who can prove he has the intelligence to chew gum and walk at the same time
The fact that she won the primary in her state as the clear underdog really scares me. I don't even know what will happen with America anymore. I may be thinking negatively but the fact that the Tea Party is gaining movement can only mean that America is heading in a worse direction.
On September 17 2010 13:13 Number41 wrote: Anti-Masturbation: stupid policy
Pro-Government Health Care: stupid policy
If you are conservative or independent, you can ignore one of those stupid policies but not the other.
"I know this tea party woman can't put my **** back in my pants; but I know what Nancy Pelosi DID to my health insurance rates."
It's all in the mindset, and the lesser of two evils.
Yeah mandating health insurance for 32 million people is just like saying you will burn in hell for eternity if you touch your no-no parts. Lesser of two evils for sure!!!
On September 17 2010 13:04 [NyC]HoBbes wrote: I love when people this absolutely unqualified and stupid get nominated for races. It's fun to watch their campaigns crumble miserably under waves of sheer incompetence, and then to see them get ROFLstomped in general elections by any candidate who can prove he has the intelligence to chew gum and walk at the same time
So, how does one become qualified to become a senator? A governor? A president? Is there a school I can go to that teaches these things?
To me it sounds like you want a ruling class and not a government by the people, for the people.
On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote: Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.
(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)
Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.
Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).
Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.
Even by this standard, Obama is not a socialist compared to a RADICAL MARXIST like Richard Nixon.
The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame.
On September 17 2010 13:13 Number41 wrote: Anti-Masturbation: stupid policy
Pro-Government Health Care: stupid policy
If you are conservative or independent, you can ignore one of those stupid policies but not the other.
"I know this tea party woman can't put my **** back in my pants; but I know what Nancy Pelosi DID to my health insurance rates."
It's all in the mindset, and the lesser of two evils.
Yeah mandating health insurance for 32 million people is just like saying you will burn in hell for eternity if you touch your no-no parts. Lesser of two evils for sure!!!
Exactly, I've touched my parts since she said that am I am better off. But putting me 2k behind in insurance adjustments sucks.
On September 17 2010 13:22 Jenbu wrote: The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame.
This.
I'm having a hard time understanding where the distaste of the Tea Party comes from. If the Tea Party was strongly against one side or another then I would understand. Seeing as the Tea Party has overthrown plenty of R's... I'm not getting it.
Is it a misunderstanding of what a libertarian is or are people typically against freedoms?
She did not grow up as a strict Catholic, but rather came to a turning point during college after she found herself drinking excessively and engaging in sexual relationships with men whom she lacked a strong emotional connection to.[4] (She would later say of this period, "I know what it's like to live a life without principle."[13]) She became increasingly interested in both politics and religion.[9] She became an evangelical Christian, began preaching sexual abstinence and joined the College Republicans.[4]
It seems her views on what the general public should do might just be an extreme reaction to her own, personal lifestyle of which she rebelled against during the years many of us manifest our idea of the world.
On September 17 2010 13:22 Jenbu wrote: The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame.
Agreed. I don't have much of a problem w/ the libertarians, but the social conservatives scare the sh#t out of me. $20 says she was in favor of the whole Qur'an burning thing too.
On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote: Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.
(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)
Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.
Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).
Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.
Even by this standard, Obama is not a socialist compared to a RADICAL MARXIST like Richard Nixon.
This is the most accurate statement. Policies enacted under Nixon include and are not limited to:
Withdrawing from Vietnam (hippie!) Increase of Social Security and Medicare from 6.8% to 8.9% (socialist!) The Economic Stabiliziation Act, allowing the government to freeze and control any and ALL prices (socialist!) Elimination of the Gold Standard (fascist!) National Environmental Policy Act (hippe!) Clean Air Act (hippie!) OSHA (socialist hippie!) Equal Rights Amendment (uber hippie!) On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income. WOAH WHAT A MARXIST!
Well-done Right Wingers! You have made it impossible for Obama to ever be as the flaming Nazi-fascist-socialist-Marxist that Nixon was!
I've always been extremely attracted to Jasmine Guy for some reason, something about her manner and personality. But yeah, those videos just confirm my belief that she's projecting her views to others because of her extreme upbringing.(one of six children. She and her four sisters shared one bedroom, and her father worked three jobs to support the family.[10]) Little to no father figure for advice on men+lost for attention in a cramped room etc...