RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party

RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TreasureKY -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/30/2010 6:32:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub ... He was addressing the very platform of the Tea Party itself. Please provide a source for the unified platform of the Tea Party. Treasure, you are increasingly coming across as someone who is defending a group that you neither understand nor fully support. It's disingenuous of you to ask those of us who disagree with you to define your position. I have a better idea. Why don't you look it up (I did and it took less than 2 mins to find multiple sources of Tea Party platform and grievances. Hint: google "Contract from America." ) If you find something in your research that is contrary to how the Tea Party has been portrayed in this thread, then bring it here and we'll discuss it. Those of us who were wrong I'm certain will apologize. That's okay... I didn't think you could. [;)]

brainiacsub -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/30/2010 6:34:52 PM)
That's okay, because everybody else reading this who does google "Contract from America" will know that I absolutely could and that you were wrong. I had nothing to prove here. The burden was on you.

Musicmystery -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/30/2010 7:30:52 PM)
quote: They spent several hundred billion, and the credit markets did not ease up. Actually, they did. Banks weren't even loaning to each other. The difficulty after that is toxic assets hidden in bundles, so no one could properly assess which institutions were credit worthy.

TreasureKY -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/30/2010 7:58:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub That's okay, because everybody else reading this who does google "Contract from America" will know that I absolutely could and that you were wrong. I had nothing to prove here. The burden was on you. I'd have to disagree with you on the burden thing, but no matter... If the "Contract From America" is the very platform of the Tea Party itself, care to explain how Moonhead's comment was addressing it? And just to clarify, I'm simply requesting you back up your assertion. I shouldn't have to provide your proof for you.

Owner59 -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/30/2010 10:05:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub That's okay, because everybody else reading this who does google "Contract from America" will know that I absolutely could and that you were wrong. I had nothing to prove here. The burden was on you. I'd have to disagree with you on the burden thing, but no matter... If the "Contract From America" is the very platform of the Tea Party itself, care to explain how Moonhead's comment was addressing it? And just to clarify, I'm simply requesting you back up your assertion. I shouldn't have to provide your proof for you. Thanks treasure,for confirming what we already knew,that the tea-baggers aren`t anything but deluded,easily duped republicans. The latest strain has discontent and fake outrage mixed into the genetics.

domiguy -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/30/2010 10:40:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: I live here....It's true. Teabaggers are puppets or worse. All of them? That is amazing. So just so I know what I am up against, how many are there in the Teabag party now? You don't have to be exact, just a close estimate will work. Shouldn't be hard, obviously if you know what they are thinking, you must know who they are, right? They are all pretty much cunts. Being swept up by the same conservative party that they voted for their entire lives.

brainiacsub -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/30/2010 10:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub That's okay, because everybody else reading this who does google "Contract from America" will know that I absolutely could and that you were wrong. I had nothing to prove here. The burden was on you. I'd have to disagree with you on the burden thing, but no matter... If the "Contract From America" is the very platform of the Tea Party itself, care to explain how Moonhead's comment was addressing it? And just to clarify, I'm simply requesting you back up your assertion. I shouldn't have to provide your proof for you. Once again you are being disingenuous. Moon's post has nothing to do with this conversation. You asked me to provide proof of my response to boi and domi: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=3231765. However, if you now want to assert that the Teabaggers believe that the unfunded wars and ballooning defense spending over the past decade have contributed to fiscal irresponsibility, despite there being no evidence that it is part of their platform, then you are the one who needs to come forward with the proof. I referenced one site of dozens that are easily found with a quick google search and yet you are still here trying to argue a no win position. Every print article, blog, op ed, Wiki definition, and discussion in these forums supports my claim, not yours. There is nothing further to debate with you if you cannot defend your position honestly.

Politesub53 -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 3:47:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I think the main aim of the bail out was to stop the major banks folding up. For the major bankers yes, not for the average person. New banks would crop up to fill the "void." But, we can't have actual Capitalism now can we? Too many people living in mansions for generations. Rich people always want to remain rich. I dont get why people are unable to understand the following Popeye. If the major banks had failed, the economy would have followed, way more than it did. The trickle down effect would have been a disaster for everyone, not just a "few banks" as people like to think. I have asked the following many times and not had a reply from anyone, well not that was serious. "Would any of you against the bailouts, been happy to see the failure of a large bank, if it meant you lost everything ?" Somehow I doubt it, we would have had cries of "Why didnt the Governement DO something wah wah." New banks ? Who the hell would rush to invest in an industry that had just collapsed ? This is just fairyland thinking.

TreasureKY -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 5:24:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY I'd have to disagree with you on the burden thing, but no matter... If the "Contract From America" is the very platform of the Tea Party itself, care to explain how Moonhead's comment was addressing it? And just to clarify, I'm simply requesting you back up your assertion. I shouldn't have to provide your proof for you. Thanks treasure,for confirming what we already knew,that the tea-baggers aren`t anything but deluded,easily duped republicans. The latest strain has discontent and fake outrage mixed into the genetics. You are certainly entitled to believe what you want. However, as far as I'm concerned, all I've confirmed is: BS believes the "Contract From America" is the official platform of the Tea Party; and BS appears to not know what she says from one post to the next.

TreasureKY -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 5:44:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I have asked the following many times and not had a reply from anyone, well not that was serious. "Would any of you against the bailouts, been happy to see the failure of a large bank, if it meant you lost everything ?" Somehow I doubt it, we would have had cries of "Why didnt the Governement DO something wah wah." I'll offer a serious answer to your question. Theoretically, no one would have lost everything. For many years now the Government has guaranteed deposits in member banks through the FDIC. Currently, the amount guaranteed is $250,000. Technically, the Government has been doing something since 1933.

domiguy -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 6:23:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY [ I'll offer a serious answer to your question. Theoretically, no one would have lost everything. For many years now the Government has guaranteed deposits in member banks through the FDIC. Currently, the amount guaranteed is $250,000. Technically, the Government has been doing something since 1933. This proves that you really don't understand how things work. What is the FDIC? How is it funded? Did it theoretically go broke during this last fiasco? Who changed the limit to be 250k? Everyone was bailed out. It is revisionary history to go back and say that the bailout was a bad idea. Whatever negative impact you see today would have been horribly magnified if everything was left to fail. Would it have been better in the long run? Probably. But the public just like you doesn't understand the razor edge that is the FDIC. Personally I would have liked to see the banks that went under only pay out only the 100k in funds that they guaranteed in case of failure. Why don't the teabaggers focus on all of the Americans that were paid out 100% of the value of their accounts that exceeded 100k? You should be screaming to demand the money back. You guys are hypocrites. You pick and choose where your MOCK outrage is be applied. If you don't see this as a right wing political party that's sole purpose is to attack a party and a Presidency than you really are the idiot that you routinely portray yourself to be. There is nothing wrong with it being a right wing thang. It is rather brilliant in it's design and conceptualization. The Republicans are really good at this type of thing because they only have to appeal to one group of people. It is always the same group....White, middle to upper middle class, who want things to be they way they were in the past. Enjoy it while you can. But you are being led around by the nose. It just sucks that you refuse or are to dense to notice the chain and your deviated septum.

TreasureKY -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 6:28:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy ... [8\|]

domiguy -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 6:32:01 AM)
Come on now...Everyone knows the correct response is......pffft.[:D]

dcnovice -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 9:40:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice In a letter to the New Yorker (5-31-10), David B. Kanin, adjunct professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins, offers an interesting (to me, at least) perspective on Tea Partiers vis-a-vis the American founders. quote: The so-called Tea Partiers may portray themselves as heirs to the American Revolutionaries, but they are actually the descendants of those who lost the debate of 1788--in particular, the strain of constititutional opponents who violently resisted federal authority until Washington took to the battlefield against them. American Revolutionaries opposed taxation without representation. These people oppose any taxation at all. Despite their "We the People" T-shirts, the visceral drivers of this fragmented formation are not conservatives striving to defend the Bill of Rights and strictly define constitutional language. They are anti-federalists, opposed to any meaningful central government, hostile to the principles of America's founders, and determined to re-create the loose association of local authorities that fell apart within a few years of its establishment. Thoughts? Is Kanin on to something? Overstating his case? Who are the true heirs to America's founders? dc, I think this is more correlation than intentional similarity. The Teas, after all, complain "liberals don't love America" -- they aren't out to undermine it. They are, as Kanin notes, not the conservative voice they imagine themselves to be, but they are also not purpose-driven to create governance by loose association of local authority either. Rather, these are largely people previously unengaged in the political process sending a reactive message out of frustration, with no real understanding of its consequences and with no real plan to replace what they hope to erase. And, of course, the people who hope to take advantage of their momentum. Well said (as usual), Tim! I think you may have nailed it. In my less charitable moments, the "reactive message" sometimes strikes me as a temper tantrum.

dcnovice -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 9:43:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Steve Wynn, CEO if Wynn Resorts, may not be a Tea Party member but he has a good handle on whats behind their grass roots movement: quote: Steve Wynn Takes on Washington, Vegas & EBITDA Steve Wynn says Americans are afraid. He’s just angry. “Washington is unpredictable these days,” declares the CEO of Wynn Resorts “No one has any idea what’s next…the uncertainty of the business climate in America is frightening, frightening to everybody, and it’s delaying the recovery.” <snip> Wynn speaks of “wild, uncontrolled spending,” and “unbelievable, unsustainable debt”. As he plans to split his company headquarters between Las Vegas and Macau, with a bigger emphasis on Macau because of its tremendous profitability, he has no qualms about dealing with the Chinese government. Macau has been steady. The shocking, unexpected government is the one in Washington.” He’s concerned about the prospect of inflation, of FHA repeating the mistakes of Fannie and Freddie, and the cost to business from the new healthcare law. “We’re on our way to Greece, in the hands of a confused, foolish government,” Wynn says. “It’s got to stop. It’s got to stop.” <snip> Full interview here Interesting perspective, Sanity. Thanks!

dcnovice -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 9:48:30 AM)
quote: There always comes a point when enough is enough. Good point, Treasure. I've been trying to figure out why the coming of that enough-is-enough point seems to have coincided with the advent of the Obama Administration. One possibility, it occurs to me, is that people were looking to Obama and the Dems to deliver a whole new style of governing and feel betrayed when they got what seemed to be more of the same.

Sanity -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 9:49:21 AM)
Thanks dc. I thought that Wynn sounded a lot like Merc in that interview.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 9:52:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Congress received a flood of communication? The will of the people? By what measure, Steven? Since when do we have Govt by referendum? You don't believe that's proper in a Republic do you? Especially at a time of perceived emergency? The will of the people was exercised in the November 2008 election following the TARP decision. They will have to wait until this November to express themselves again. Then we shall see. I get a bit nervous when I see or hear someone professing to know the "will of the people" without a voting procedure. This raises an interesting dilemma for leaders in a republic: What do you do when "the people" seem to want one course of action, and you believe another course to be in the national interest? Not a dilemma at all. You were voted in to represent the interests of your constituents. Your beliefs are secondary to theirs.

domiguy -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 9:55:55 AM)
A guy who has built up Vegas beyond capacity is now criticizing that people can't waste their money in his over priced and abundant rooms? He is a douchefuck. Wynn wants a bailout...He seems unable to understand what role he has played in his own demise.

domiguy -> RE: A Historical Take on the Tea Party (5/31/2010 9:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Congress received a flood of communication? The will of the people? By what measure, Steven? Since when do we have Govt by referendum? You don't believe that's proper in a Republic do you? Especially at a time of perceived emergency? The will of the people was exercised in the November 2008 election following the TARP decision. They will have to wait until this November to express themselves again. Then we shall see. I get a bit nervous when I see or hear someone professing to know the "will of the people" without a voting procedure. This raises an interesting dilemma for leaders in a republic: What do you do when "the people" seem to want one course of action, and you believe another course to be in the national interest? Not a dilemma at all. You were voted in to represent the interests of your constituents. Your beliefs are secondary to theirs. Fuck the teabaggers....They are nothing and will soon enough be dismissed. A wise politician can sense what needs to be done and who and what should be ignored.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875