08-04-11, 02:39 PM #21
08-04-11, 03:21 PM #22
Difference in IgnoranceOriginally Posted by Me-Ki-Gal
My indoctrination is not scientifically proven because people won't even try to prove it. But anecdotally, I can say that things go better when people work together instead of try to claw each others' throats out. That's a fairly consistent outcome, even if cooperation proves a failure. At least, when it fails, we tried, and didn't spend the whole time trying to claw each others' throats out.
But I also think that's a side issue, sort of. That is, it's a fine question but not necessarily the right one for the occasion.
There is a difference about differences of opinion. In June, I related an episode in which a friend criticized my information. Not that it was right or wrong, but, rather, that I had it at all. She was explaining to me that she liked Michele Bachmann. We go through this every once in a while. She likes to think of herself as liberal, but aside from libertarian pot decriminalization and marriage equality, I'm not sure where she gets that. She bought a Glenn Beck book because she liked what he had to say about the length of young girls' skirts. That he's barking crazy doesn't matter to her. Same thing with Bachmann. The guys at the bar like her, so my friend likes her. The idea of what Bachmann has to say? That's not important. That's for people like me, who are elitist for informing our opinions. Other people don't have time to look into the candidates they support, apparently.
What I'm after with my criticism of people's pride in ignorance is that they don't seem to care if their complaint isn't true, or if the solution they advocate only makes it worse. With the Tea Party, it seems largely about the fact of a black man in the White House. I am comfortable asserting that while the GOP would have given irrational hell to any Democrat elected, a white man with a more familiar-sounding name would not have been subject to the kind of bigoted distractions that still plague the right wing.
It's perfectly fine with me to accept that a guy in Colorado never learned that "tar baby" is a racial slur in the U.S. But at the same time, I also stop to think, "And he wants people's votes?"
I mean, okay, so Rep. Doug Lamborn is an idiot. And in his district—
"Even if some people say, 'Well, the Republicans should have done this or they should have done that,' they will hold the president responsible. Now, I don't even want to have to be associated with him. It's like touching a tar baby and you get it, you're stuck, and you're a part of the problem now and you can't get away."
—which is Colorado Springs and environs, apparently this sort of ignorance is desirable.
Colorado's Fifth Congressional District is home to Fort Carson, the USAF Academy, NORAD, Focus on the Family, New Life Church, and the world's first Christian missionary radio station, among others. It is a heavily conservative district. Exactly the kind of place where we might expect someone to think "tar baby" is an innocent phrase.
In other words, among the decisions Lamborn must make are some pertaining to equal opportunity, affirmative action, and other issues of racial and ethnic sensitivity. And Colorado's Fifth would prefer to send someone who has no freaking clue about those issues.
To the one, this isn't surprising, given the fact that it is, after all, CO-5. To the other, it's another example of celebrating ignorance.
Jonsson, Patrik. "What were two Republicans thinking, calling Obama 'tar baby' and 'boy'?". The Christian Science Monitor. August 3, 2011. CSMonitor.com. August 4, 2011. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...r-baby-and-boy
08-04-11, 04:20 PM #23
08-04-11, 04:25 PM #24
08-04-11, 06:00 PM #25
I get the feeling Colorado is having a back lash from liberalism being prevalent for so long in the state
This supposed "backlash" has been the dominant force in American political life for thirty years or more. There hasn't been any "liberal" prevalence to backlash against since Lyndon Johnson - in Colorado or anywhere else.
08-04-11, 06:55 PM #26
It's just not their dayOriginally Posted by Iceaura
Hell, in Colorado, something like forty-nine percent of the voters think rape should be okay if the victim can be said to deserve it.
Or was it Colbert who said that reality has a well-known liberal bias?
See, that's the thing. Reality just isn't going their way.
And that's what the backlash is about.
And they're really pissed because this is one time they can't pick up the ball and go home. That is, they can't call off reality. So instead they'll just try to wreck it, to make it as unpleasant for as many people as possible.
And there you have the conservative outlook in twenty-first century America.
08-05-11, 01:50 AM #27
Head, Meet Wall
You know, in truth, I can't believe I didn't think of it myself. I mean, it's one of those answers that I looked past because it's staring me in the face.
I mean, we are Americans, right? And what is worth more than anything else in this country?
I'll take "money" for the win, Dave!
That would be Dave Weigel, for Slate:
Things could be worse for Barack Obama on this, the day before the 50th anniversary of his birth. After being goaded and goaded and goaded over three years, he released his long-form birth certificate. Birtherism as we once knew it is dead.
Sort of. One reason birtherism survived as long as it did is that it was such a cash cow for fringe right activists. WorldNetDaily schlepped some untold amount of "Where's the Birth Certificate" merch, promoting it all with news stories on its website. How are they living after birtherism died?
While the rest of us moved on, WND just redesigned the WTBC merch and slapped an extra word on it. The merchandise accompanies fresh stories on WND's site, including one that attempts to prove that the long-form is fake because "no expert has been able to replicate the effects seen in the Obama birth certificate PDF by scanning a document, even with OCR software switched on and the resulting PDF optimized" ....
How ... stupid ... could ... I ... be?
How many freakin' t-shirts and bumper stickers did the Birthers sell? How many PayPal donations did they get?
Oh, right, and here's an even better one: A FOX News contributor and head of Stand Up America has apparently asserted that the reason the federal government is in a conspiracy to hide Obama's real heritage is that American blacks would be upset and cause lots of trouble.
You know, them darn black folks.
But remember, friends, it's not because the Birthers are racist. They're just really, really upset at Obama's screaming leftist policies. You know, the ones that were Republican policies before the GOP dove headlong into an abyss of oppositional insanity? Anyway, they hate Obama's leftism so much that, you know, they'll just throw anything they can find at him, and if some of that is racist, it's Obama's fault for making them so mad at his flaming liberal policies that were apparently acceptable, perhaps even laudible, as long as they were attached to a white, Christian, Republican male with a last name that was really easy to pronounce.
But, really, folks ... in all seriousness: What the hell is wrong with conservatives?
If it's not racism, if it's not abject greed, if it's not intellectual deficiency, if it's not Little Bo Peep's little lost sheep turning out to be a faery godmother with some really nasty, diesel-stinking meth in her wand, then what the hell is it?
What is wrong with these people?
Weigel, David. "Undead Birtherism". Slate. August 3, 2011. Slate.com. August 4, 2011. http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...irtherism.html
08-05-11, 07:37 AM #28
08-05-11, 08:09 AM #29
08-05-11, 01:56 PM #30
Not shocking, but somewhat confusingOriginally Posted by Bells
And I'm not so much shocked as puzzled. The words we might use to describe the conduct of the Tea Party are of the sort that we aren't supposed to throw at one another around here. And there is also what we might call a threshold of belief.
For instance, I think these people are trying to destroy the country. They are so blinded in their passion that they will wreck the place if it can't be every last little thing that they want.
This, of course, is a shocking accusation. It essentially frames the Tea Party as enemies of the Republic.
In the States, this sort of rhetoric is supposed to be off-limits in civilized political discourse, but the right wing has been pushing it for years, and the Tea Party is an acute eruption. Yet to turn the point back on them would violate the threshold of belief.
And here, I'll use my mother as an example. A wonderful person with a very immediate conscience. She sees the mistakes the Republicans are making. She sees the fundamental differences between Democratic and Republican errors. But she is inherently apolitical insofar as she doesn't like taking a side in abstraction. And to her outlook, it is impossible that such dangerous madness could infect so large a number of people, so saying the Tea Party are enemies of the republic is simply out of bounds. People aren't really that bad. And she insists on it. That is, sure, there are psychopaths out there killing people, like Ted Bundy, and all. But the idea that so many people have adopted so blatantly hostile and destructive a view of society simply exceeds her belief. It is beyond the threshold of belief.
Quite obviously, if we had a thread here about how the Tea Party is trying to destroy the country, how they consciously betrayed so much of what makes the United States of America worth keeping around, imagine the backlash. One of our colleagues thinks people's racism should be stricken from discussion. That is, you can't accuse racism without proof, and providing proof is off-limits because it constitutes a personal attack. Quite convenient, in the end, if you're one of the racists trying to scare people with Muslim bogeymen, armies of Mexicans invading the United States, and so on.
So imagine the reaction if we start accusing the obvious, that the Tea Party is willfully, and happily, trying to destroy the United States of America from within.
Nor am I willing to endure a Tea Scare akin to McCarthyism, which would be the obvious response. The nation is strong enough to endure these people without treating them as liberals were treated. But, at the same time, we need to stop tiptoeing around the issue.
If they're not enemies of the country, if they're not psychiatrically incompetent, what the hell is their problem? What is wrong with them, then?
It's a conundrum, and right now conservatives in general are willing to hide behind the pillars of civility. It is impolite to accuse their behavior with an accurate description, yet they insist on continuing to behave that way.
08-05-11, 02:53 PM #31
that is hilarious cause that is the same thing they say about libs . I don't buy the terrorist part . Average Americans that are disengaged is more like it . Now they are trying to engage . They don't know much about history and they certainly are not all that well educated . They are getting educated on history though so look out for that one .
Terrorists that is a joke . Your personal predigest are showing . You don't seem to realize what it really boils down to. Spend or not to spend that is the question . The rest is personal hang ups and name calling by both sides .
He said She said
Spidey knows this as he admits plain and clear his stance is to spend . Get it from the rich to make up short falls . I respect him for that cause he makes his stance with out delusions of what it is . He don't add peripheral nonsense of mass hysteria to his position .
08-05-11, 03:15 PM #32
Equal consideration of factsOriginally Posted by Me-Ki-Gal
But beyond all that, what are the facts?
You know, facts? As in, "Does what he says, or what she says, better match the facts?"
Obama is a flaming liberal, they say. Does that match the facts? Or, rather, how does that match the facts?
The Tea Party is a loud, angry, racist rabble, they say. Does that match the facts?
Consider Obama's policies: Guantanamo is open, indefinite detention is now part of our security culture, no public option, a Republican-devised health care plan, watered-down financial services reform, spending cuts without revenue increases. He's so flaming liberal, isn't he?
Consider the Tea Party. You can go to a rally and see one guy calling Obama Hitler, and another accusing Democrats of being Jews. (Wait, wait, wait, does that mean the flaming liberal Obama is going to murder all the Democrats?) Racist slogans and images abound. People wail that they want their country back, but can't tell you what that means.
Which of these realities is closer to the rhetoric?
He says? She says? Who says?
Yeah, I get it. Equal time. Equal respect. What ever happened to equal consideration of facts?
08-12-11, 02:49 AM #33
Strange Days: Tea Party Figures Out That John McCain Is Out of Touch—Because He Had Not Heard of a Particular Conspiracy Theory
Rough days down in Arizona. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, faced a tough crowd in Gilbert, Arizona earlier this week. According to the Arizona Republic:
Tea-party activists called McCain "out of touch" when the senator said he didn't know about United Nations "Agenda 21."One man described the initiative as a "takeover of the United States of America by taking over our farms."
"First, our firearms, then our farms," another man added.
McCain said no Congress would allow that to happen, but that didn't satisfy several in the room who subscribed to the theory.
On top of the grief he received for the Hobbit remark, it's almost enough to feel sorry for the guy.
Leavitt, Parker. "McCain faces angry crowd at Gilbert town-hall meeting". The Arizona Republic. August 9, 2011. AZCentral.com. August 12, 2011. http://www.azcentral.com/community/g...t-meeting.html
08-12-11, 03:17 AM #34
Because of course, the Tea Party is in touch... Especially when it comes to conspiracy theories.. Even more so when it is fueled by the leader of the crazy brigade.. After saying that he would vote for Bachmann, Queen of crazy, Mr Beck gave his listeners a nice little dose of fear for the black man and the left..
He also said they would defend America from the havoc the Obama administration will wreak if it loses.
"I firmly believe that race riots are on the way," he said. "They are being encouraged...[the Obama administration] will take this country down. If it looks like they are losing, the uber left, they will take it down. If I can't have it, no one will."
They're commin' fer yer wimmin' folk...
08-12-11, 12:01 PM #35
Over and over againOriginally Posted by Bells
"If I can't have it," Beck accuses of the leftists and nonwhites, "no one will."
Ironic, given the GOP's approach to issues. Like the debt ceiling standoff: If we don't get everything we want, we will cause a debt crisis and blame it on you for not giving us everything we want.
I mean, in the States we see this all the time. The conservative Christian sometimes argues, "My First Amendment rights are violated as long as another person's are intact."
Job-killing, Obama's alleged extremism, complaints of Christians being oppressed by the evil gays, and so on.
Over and over again.
Does this behavior persist outside the States, too?
11-12-11, 01:42 AM #36
The Tea Party Phenomenon Explained? (One Born Every Minute)
One Born Every Minute?
From Keith Olbermann's daily rant about who annoys him in the world:
The bronze—to Anthony Loiacono, a California businessman, founder of Tea Party Television. This is a story about the tea party, a TV network and baseball cards. Mr. Loiacono is being sued for $19 million by six men who claim they invested nearly three hundred thousand dollars in what Loiacono said was a project to develop an all-tea party TV channel.
Baseball cards? One of the six plaintiffs is Bill Hemrick, the Tennessee financial director for Michele Bachmann and the founder of the Upper Deck baseball-card company. The defendant—Loiacono—used to work for him in the baseball-card business. Hemrick threw him out of the company and sued him and still went back and invested with him in a field Loiacono knew nothing about—television.
Hemrick and his colleagues say Loiacono simply spent their money on himself and his friends and relatives, never put in his own his own money as he promised, used their money to outfit his own luxurious offices, overcharged them for the few business-related things he actually did, never did anything to fund the network properly, lied to them, defrauded them, was guilty of misappropriation of funds, self-dealing and corporate waste, put up a crappy website, and failed to take any steps towards getting an HD channel up and running on time. Interesting!
The Tea Party is sort of like the joke that keeps on giving, except the most part of its punch lines are simply toxic.
And then a story like this emerges, and, well, suddenly the Tea Party phenomenon starts to make sense.
Olbermann, Keith. "Worst Persons". Countdown With Keith Olbermann. Current TV, New York. November 10, 2011. Current.com. November 11, 2011. http://current.com/shows/countdown/v...-rick-santorum
11-12-11, 11:02 AM #37
That's, what, about twenty-three minutes? Twenty-three minutes of watching these videos if you intend to say a damn thing in this thread.
I will say that I kind of like the 'tea party' and have some sympathy for it. I like it as much as I like 'occupy wall street', certainly, and for much the same reason.
Both of them are populist movements. They arose spontaneously among the people, and aren't political movements being imposed from above on "the masses". As such, they are kind of an expression of Athenian-style participatory democracy.
Both of them crystalized around insights that I think are generally correct. The tea party is against the never-ending expansion of the government bureaucracy, regulation and the welfare state, funded by out-of-control deficit spending and growing indebtedness to creditors like China. Occupy wall street is against the increasing division of America into two classes - the 'suits' who demand million-dollar bonuses and golden-parachutes as a matter of right, and everyone else who can be laid off at a whim when their jobs are out-sourced to Asia. Seen that way, the two movements aren't entirely antithetical and needn't be enemies.
But both movements suffer from serious and perhaps fatal problems. And paradoxically, those problems arise from the same populism that I saw as their strength. Since these are popular movements, they lack strong leadership and organization. That's a very good thing, in a way, but it creates vulnerabilities.
It means that neither group has a coherent message, and both groups are subject to kind of a lowest-common-denominator devolution.
Occupy wall street started out with easily justifiable intentions, but quickly became a campout for drug addicts, was hijacked by violent anachist rioters, attacked and vandalized small business, and attracted all manner of crazies from the left-end of the Democratic party coalition with their inspiring messages like "fuck capitalism". (What do they favor exactly, communism?) The whole thing has degenerated into an impromptu street-party for the most extreme left.
The tea-party has always been a lot better behaved. But they've degenerated too. They started out as a spontaneous non-partisan and bi-partisan movement. Over time though, the name 'tea party' has become increasingly vague and meaningless. The often hostile news media need faces for television and talking-head leaders to interview. So they propel ambitious publicity-hounds like Sarah Palin into the forefront of a popular movement that never elected her. And everyone with a conservative cause, however looney-tunes it might be, jumps on board as well. So 'tea party' gradually turns into just another catch-all phrase for the extreme right.
11-12-11, 12:59 PM #38
(Insert Title Here)Originally Posted by Yazata
For instance, who are the billionaire backers of the Occupy movement, busing industry employees to the protest events?
When did a mayor demand the Tea Party elect a leader, and when did the Tea Party respond by electing a border collie?
I don't fault the Occupy movement for not having figured out that capitalism is a part of communism. Most people haven't.
And in that context, the lack of a coherent demand is part of the conservative narrative about the Occupy movement. Their demand is quite clear: the end of a growing plutocracy.
To the other, what is the Tea Party movement? Taxed Enough Already? Why weren't they complaining when taxes were even higher? Obama is a Communist? A Nazi? A Jew? A Kenyan-born anti-colonialist stealth operative in a fifty-year conspiracy to bring down the nation?
You might think the movements aren't antithetical, but the produce of the Tea Party—advocating the billionaires' agenda—is about as opposite to Occupy as can be.
The highjacking of Occupy is another right wing propaganda myth. Of course there are anarchists showing up. Of course there are some drugs. Of course there are some sexual assaults. That's how it goes when large numbers of people exist in sustained contact with one another. But highjacked? Come on, that's what FOX News says when they want to discredit the movement.
And as to the Tea Party's behavior, what of the movement to suspend free speech by shouting down local town halls? And when other people tried to shout back, the Tea Party bawled about thuggery. And then there was the legend of Kenneth Gladney, including the conspiracy theory about why his "assailants" weren't convicted.
I get it. People want to defend the Tea Party. It helps if they borrow some of Occupy's momentum and profile by claiming similarity. But occupy has no Koch brothers. The Democratic Party isn't scrambling to annex the movement. And it has history on its side.
Bureaucracy, regulation, the "welfare state", deficit spending: These are all results of what capitalism has wrought. Child labor? Workplace safety? Equal rights in hiring between skin colors? Women in the workplace? Big business fought each of these evolutions, in no small part because it created the need for such regulations. The broken employer-based healthcare system? That was better than single-payer. Obamacare? That's in lieu of single-payer. What holds back the healthcare debate is our corporate society. Look what happened when the parties came together to kill certain banking regulations. The implosion of Wall Street was inevitable.
The welfare state arises from the conduct of corporate America. The most successful social program in American history, Social Security, came about because of the misery wrought on the nation by corporate avarice. Same with Medicare. If the corporations hadn't screwed everything up, perhaps people and politicians would not have seen the need for such regulations and social support programs.
Deficit spending? Do you think it's possible that Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" might have anything to do with that? Just ... maybe? And if you're unhappy with social support's contributions to the debt, perhaps the suits could have spent a little more on their workers, reducing the demand for various programs?
And, of course, the bureaucracy is how we are supposed to administrate all of this. Get the capitalists back to reality. That's an important key to digging our way out of the hole we've made. Occupy would hold the capitalists to account for what they've done. The Tea Party would empower the capitalists to do even more.
11-12-11, 07:46 PM #39
11-13-11, 08:45 AM #40
I like the tea party message of limited government spending. Money in the private sector will multiply, while the same money in the hands of government tends to divide, with its value getting smaller, due to waste and inefficiency.
For example, for every dollar Steve Jobs made there was a multiplier effect of about 9 times in terms of related connected industries, jobs, wealth, etc., created. If we had given all his money to the government, the multiplier drops below 1. Big government has many uses, but it is also net drain on the economy, reducing the national multiplier causing job loss.
For example, deficit spending does not make money for the country, but costs us interest. For every dollar spent, if we add interest it is actually more than a dollar spent. This is part of the hidden divider. That loss means fewer jobs.
The Wall Street Occupiers are pro big government, trying to lower the multiplier even more but in favor of their own freebies. To want to pay for this using money siphoned out the 9 times multiplier into the less than 1.
The government workers were traditionally called civil servants. This title reflected their relationship to their bosses, which are the tax payers. Now the servants make more than the owners relative to median income. The slave has become the master, allowing them to squander, at will, via the divider effect. This was made possible by the democratic electorate. I would make a law that says the civil servant medium income can never exceed 49% of the medium income of the tax payers, since the tax payers own the plantation. This keeps the proper perspective.
Say we reduced the current civil servant wage scale to to reflect this 49%, we can use that money to create jobs by releasing it to the private sector to take advantage of the 9 multiplier.
By Fraggle Rocker in forum Art & CultureLast Post: Yesterday, 05:37 PMReplies: 1592
By one_raven in forum SF Open GovernmentLast Post: 11-03-09, 09:29 AMReplies: 26
By Tnerb in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PMReplies: 33
By James R in forum Formal debatesLast Post: 11-20-07, 10:14 PMReplies: 0
By wesmorris in forum PoliticsLast Post: 11-11-06, 08:19 PMReplies: 55