ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Facts About the Tea Party (aka. Teabaggers).

lligevets

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 777

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 8:47 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Apr. 17 2011, 8:44 am

Quote: lligevets @ Apr. 17 2011, 8:21 am

>

>

>

> 

>Do you actually know the difference between fact and opinion?

>

 

Ummmm....let me guess....fact is what you believe to be true and opinion is what somebody else believes to be true?

 

Sorry, not meant to be personal, just taking a stab at giving an answer.


LOL

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 8:48 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Apr. 16 2011, 6:26 am

>I can't speak for Rusty and what he was trying to get at in his arguments, but it sounds to me like you have a problem with what has been described to me as post-modernist thinking when it comes to the Constitution. It is easy to see how "progress" and "post-modern" can be confused. Still, there are important differences. "Post-modern" relies on deconstructing language in order to illustrate how notions of oppression came to be. More to the point, in legal theory it is said to rely on a very relativistic notion of the law and of the Constituion. "The law is what the judge says it is." Therefore, any notion that the Constituion can and should be of relevance is nonsense.

>Although this describes a certain reality to the situation, it is not a viewpoint of which I morally approve. Nor is it one that progressives who struggled for civil rights, insist on principles of one man (or woman) one vote, support freedom of press and assembly, support the right to due process etc. would approve. Certainly not when it excuses or accepts ignoring Constitutional principles in order to vitiate these rights.

>While progressives may flirt in theory with this sort moral relativism gone wild for analytical purposes, in fact it is conservatives who put such ideas into practice. So many times conservative judges will produce very bad, very flawed decisions because they ignore precedent, ignore the Constistution, and ignore virtually anything else that might prevent them from coming to some morally bankrupt decision. To equate being progressive with such behavior is unfair and ahistorical.

>
"Therefore, any notion that the Constituion can and should be of relevance is nonsense."


Very sad...


 


 


It's amazing how all these people say that the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land, or is "nonsense", etc., but they fully cling to pieces of it that they like (like freedom of speech, press, etc.)


People are flawed.  If a judge does a ruling that is unConstitutional, then it should be overruled.  Unfortunately, sometimes SCOTUS does the very same thing.


 


And have you listened to the progressives in their own words?  Many of them are openly ignoring and subverting the Constitution.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 8:58 am

Quote: Corwin8 @ Apr. 16 2011, 8:12 pm

Quote: Gibmaticus @ Apr. 16 2011, 5:38 pm

>

>

>The "tea party" is a subculture within the American rightwing and it's inappropriate to refer to the group as either a "party" or a "movement"  The subculture consists mainly of disgruntled Republicans and so-called movement conservatives that are fundamentalist in their approach to everything.  At their core is typical narcissism and it's characterized by delusions of grandeur, a sense of entitlement, exploiting others for their own success, and improbable boasts of brilliance, victory, power, or beauty that are unsupportable by an objective reality.  This "party", to use the term loosely, is most definitely NOT any sort of a "grassroots" movement as the great social justice movements of this country have been.  It is instead a fully-funded propaganda arm of the Establishment GOP, bankrolled in part by bad actors such as the Koch brothers, various faceless Wall St. millionaires, foreign entities, and given cover by the rightwing celebrities and B-list Republican politicians such as Palin, Bachmann, and the rubes of Faux News.  I am biased against them, to be sure, because they represent the reincarnation of the Know-Nothings, a party of American nativists that arose in the mid-19th century and who held considerable sway in this country just prior to the Civil War.  As much as I detest these "teabaggers", as they are derisvely referred to, I find their histrionics laughable, their values untenable and very un-American, and I find the current corporate media's obsession with them to be extremely troublesome.  America is addicted to celebrity and as a nation we are woefully inept at critical thinking.  Elevating the importance of this particular group of ignorant loudmouths over the voices of thoughtful, sensible people of any stripe is an awful sign of America's mediocrity.  As much as I love our country, I am not at all happy with what I see today.  To be sure, there are those in whom I have much confidence but I view them regretfully as voices in a wilderness of willful rightwing partisan ignorance and deceit.  Let's hope Jimmy Carter is correct and this "tea party" nonsense will run its course and then be consigned to the dustbin of forgotten history. 

>

Wow. Just wow.   I imagine we all need your wisdom and guidence to get us through the dark times.  God forbid anyone organize and state what they belive in. Right or wrong. In the long run the tea party may or may not pass into just a footnote in history, but let's dismiss them now and save the time waiting, right?

Jimmy Carter correct? How was that one term asshat correct about anything? Never mind, as we are all too awesome to bask in the greatness and awesomeness that is the current administration. 

Nice opinion piece on what you feel about the tea party, but sadly the rule about opinions is in full effect here. Everyone has one and they all ....... you know the rest. 

How about instead of offering your bullshit laden rant about all your left wing taking points like the cutesy Faux news and Palin bashing you offer a real solution to the problems we face that include NOT taxing everyone to death and cutting the addiction the government has to spending regardless of party in charge. 

Offer a fix, an idea, a plan that is not spending our way to greatness. Spending to reduce debt is like screwing for virginity. 

I'll offer the disclaimer that you need because you must be new here. This post is filled with sarcasm and shoud be taken as such. I may not pigeon hole you yet, as I don't know you. But welcome to 10 forward. 

Sadly I suspect the politics of personal destruction are going to be in full effect. 

Among all of the stuff they said, the one thing I always have to laugh at is calling the Tea Party "un-American".  It always amazes me that somehow our country has gotten to the point where openly supporting the Constitution is now "un-American."


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 9:02 am

Quote: Gibmaticus @ Apr. 17 2011, 4:57 am

>1. Sunset the Bush tax cuts for corporations and the top 10% of wage-earners.  There is no morally-acceptable rationale for allowing this group to dodge taxation.
lawfully keeping your own money is tax dodging?!?!?!?


caltrek2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2654

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 9:13 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Apr. 17 2011, 8:48 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Apr. 16 2011, 6:26 am

>

>I can't speak for Rusty and what he was trying to get at in his arguments, but it sounds to me like you have a problem with what has been described to me as post-modernist thinking when it comes to the Constitution. It is easy to see how "progress" and "post-modern" can be confused. Still, there are important differences. "Post-modern" relies on deconstructing language in order to illustrate how notions of oppression came to be. More to the point, in legal theory it is said to rely on a very relativistic notion of the law and of the Constituion. "The law is what the judge says it is." Therefore, any notion that the Constituion can and should be of relevance is nonsense.

>Although this describes a certain reality to the situation, it is not a viewpoint of which I morally approve. Nor is it one that progressives who struggled for civil rights, insist on principles of one man (or woman) one vote, support freedom of press and assembly, support the right to due process etc. would approve. Certainly not when it excuses or accepts ignoring Constitutional principles in order to vitiate these rights.

>While progressives may flirt in theory with this sort moral relativism gone wild for analytical purposes, in fact it is conservatives who put such ideas into practice. So many times conservative judges will produce very bad, very flawed decisions because they ignore precedent, ignore the Constistution, and ignore virtually anything else that might prevent them from coming to some morally bankrupt decision. To equate being progressive with such behavior is unfair and ahistorical.

>
"Therefore, any notion that the Constituion can and should be of relevance is nonsense."

Very sad...

 

 

It's amazing how all these people say that the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land, or is "nonsense", etc., but they fully cling to pieces of it that they like (like freedom of speech, press, etc.)

People are flawed.  If a judge does a ruling that is unConstitutional, then it should be overruled.  Unfortunately, sometimes SCOTUS does the very same thing.

 

And have you listened to the progressives in their own words?  Many of them are openly ignoring and subverting the Constitution.


 


Yea, that can become the crux of the problem. There is much in the Constituion that points to the Supreme Court as ruling what is Constituitonal. When they fail in their job by obvious departure from the Constituion it strikes at the very core of the legitimacy of the system.


 


In that sense, I can understand your standing up for the Tenth Amendment. Still, the Supreme Court has spoken on many occasions on that point and over-ruled your view point. That puts you in the position of deciding for yourself whether the system is still legitimate of not.


For me, much was lost in the 2000 election.


Sometimes, that is just the way the cookie crumbles.


 


As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum. - Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 9:13 am

Quote: Gibmaticus @ Apr. 17 2011, 4:57 am

>3. Reduce the military budget significantly and permanently.  You want spending cuts??  START HERE!!
While I do agree with reducing military spending, did you know that Socialist Security alone is actually nearing the defense budget item?  And that doesn't include any of the other entitlements - which are all rapidly growing.  According to the White House, Defense spending for 2011 is $846B, but these "mandatory" entitlements are $2.1 TRILLION.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 9:16 am

Quote: Gibmaticus @ Apr. 17 2011, 4:57 am

>4. Promote government investment in job creation involving industries that do NOT pollute the environement and have potential for market success like ALTERNATIVE ENERGY RESOURCES!
Government sponsored green jobs?  How'd that work for other countries like Spain???  How's that working here in the US where Obama spent pork money doing that very thing?


Let's STOP all government subsidies - let people be free to innovate.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 9:17 am

Quote: Gibmaticus @ Apr. 17 2011, 4:57 am

>5. Simplify the tax code to significant degree, close ALL loopholes and accounting gimmicks and then LOWER the tax rates.  This is the obvious solution to taxation in this country and I am not holding my breath.
100% agree!


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 9:25 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Apr. 17 2011, 9:13 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Apr. 17 2011, 8:48 am

Quote: caltrek2 @ Apr. 16 2011, 6:26 am

>

>

>I can't speak for Rusty and what he was trying to get at in his arguments, but it sounds to me like you have a problem with what has been described to me as post-modernist thinking when it comes to the Constitution. It is easy to see how "progress" and "post-modern" can be confused. Still, there are important differences. "Post-modern" relies on deconstructing language in order to illustrate how notions of oppression came to be. More to the point, in legal theory it is said to rely on a very relativistic notion of the law and of the Constituion. "The law is what the judge says it is." Therefore, any notion that the Constituion can and should be of relevance is nonsense.

>Although this describes a certain reality to the situation, it is not a viewpoint of which I morally approve. Nor is it one that progressives who struggled for civil rights, insist on principles of one man (or woman) one vote, support freedom of press and assembly, support the right to due process etc. would approve. Certainly not when it excuses or accepts ignoring Constitutional principles in order to vitiate these rights.

>While progressives may flirt in theory with this sort moral relativism gone wild for analytical purposes, in fact it is conservatives who put such ideas into practice. So many times conservative judges will produce very bad, very flawed decisions because they ignore precedent, ignore the Constistution, and ignore virtually anything else that might prevent them from coming to some morally bankrupt decision. To equate being progressive with such behavior is unfair and ahistorical.

>
"Therefore, any notion that the Constituion can and should be of relevance is nonsense."

Very sad...

 

 

It's amazing how all these people say that the Constitution isn't the supreme law of the land, or is "nonsense", etc., but they fully cling to pieces of it that they like (like freedom of speech, press, etc.)

People are flawed.  If a judge does a ruling that is unConstitutional, then it should be overruled.  Unfortunately, sometimes SCOTUS does the very same thing.

 

And have you listened to the progressives in their own words?  Many of them are openly ignoring and subverting the Constitution.

 

Yea, that can become the crux of the problem. There is much in the Constituion that points to the Supreme Court as ruling what is Constituitonal. When they fail in their job by obvious departure from the Constituion it strikes at the very core of the legitimacy of the system.

 

In that sense, I can understand your standing up for the Tenth Amendment. Still, the Supreme Court has spoken on many occasions on that point and over-ruled your view point. That puts you in the position of deciding for yourself whether the system is still legitimate of not.

For me, much was lost in the 2000 election.

Sometimes, that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

And this is where Thomas Jefferson warned us against lifetime judges.  They can lie all they want at the Senate hearings, but once they're confirmed, they can do pretty much anything they want.  There's very little accountibility - we've lost our separate but equal powers.  My hope is that as more and more people wake up, over time, the system will revert back to its original design.


FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46304

Report this Apr. 17 2011, 6:27 pm

Who says anyone trusts Jon Kyl?


And just because something is "published" doesn't make it truthful or untruthful.


chr33355

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1551

Report this Apr. 18 2011, 3:53 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>
  Not only do you have history wrong  you don't know anything about the Tea Party either.  Now can you provide any evidence to back up your claims that the tea party isn't grass roots.

- okay , i will prove to you that they are funded and backed by non-grassroots people.

- will this change your mind? NO.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tea_Party

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all

http://investing.businessweek.com/businessweek/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=127907&privcapId=127342&previousCapId=24766&previousTitle=AMERICAN%20TOWER%20CORP-CL%20A

http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Charles_G_Koch_Charitable_Foundation

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/lobbyists-planning-teaparties/

" Koch's director of communications did affirm, however, that the company funds Americans for Prosperity (AFP). TPM's Lee Fang reports that "AFP was founded in part by the company's Executive Vice President, David Koch. He is currently the chairman of the board of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation."

"The Tax Day Tea Party protests occurred on April 15, 2009. This event was organized by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and Freedomworks, corporate astroturf organizations."

- right there, and if you doubt my sources just look it up for yourself.

- the teabaggers are funded by Big-Business ... that is FACT.

Since you used a wiki as one of your sources I am just going to call Bullshit on everything since wiki's are not evidence.

 

The second source relies entiry on the testimony of an unnamed Republican consultant who may or may not even exists.

The third didn't even mention the Tea Party.

The fourth also doesn't mention the Tea Party and is provided by a group call media matters that has been know to take conservatives speeches and lines out of context.

The fourth is an emotional hit peices with little proof to back up its claims.  Please keep trying though.

- you can't even get your facts straight

- did not use a wiki !!!

- and reporters cite anonymous sources all the time. remember reading about Watergate?

- so now teabaggers show no trust or respect for any other news source other than Fox and their own chosen Blogs

- and they ignore the FACT that a Republican Senator (Jon Kyl) openly LIED to the Congressional Record AND the American People;

- yet they still choose to trust those sources.

- just simply amazing.

- and you tried to discredit The New Yorker and even Mike Bloomberg's own publication ... just amazing.

- i guess Teabaggers don't believe stuff they read that has actually been published ... i guess that is why they want to de-fund Public Libraries and Schools.

The fact you can't recongnize a wiki format scares me.  I am all for defunding public schools and offering vouchers to pay for poor families to get into schools.


Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum