(October 11, 2013 at 5:16 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: They're just good christians doing the lord's work. And by work I mean crusade. Anything that even smacks of progress is to be feared. A black president is an inviting target for this group. Old money bluebloods with dreams of becoming robber barons and no money rednecks with dreams of a theocracy. Ugh...what a combo.

To be honest many Christians would believe that the Tea Party are a bunch of mad hatters.

(October 11, 2013 at 8:33 pm)Justtristo Wrote:

(October 11, 2013 at 5:16 am)Captain Colostomy Wrote: They're just good christians doing the lord's work. And by work I mean crusade. Anything that even smacks of progress is to be feared. A black president is an inviting target for this group. Old money bluebloods with dreams of becoming robber barons and no money rednecks with dreams of a theocracy. Ugh...what a combo.

To be honest many Christians would believe that the Tea Party are a bunch of mad hatters.

Well, that is not something that religion would decide. Religion concerns itself with the afterlife. The Tea party seem to be advocating worldly ideas.
And what I see is that both sides advocate materialism. However both sides advocate it rather differently from eachother.

(October 11, 2013 at 8:07 am)Airyaman Wrote: You are aware that people on the other side of the political fence similarly believe you all are deluded and slaves to government, among a plethora of other faults, right?

Sure. But where this fails as a parallel situation is that the situation is not at all parallel. We think the dimwits who poorly understand the consequences of their (seemingly) reactionary choices are destructive. And they are. They think government is the tool of Satan, that black men can't govern and that rugged individualism is what makes a country strong. And none of that is true.

(October 14, 2013 at 10:47 am)whateverist Wrote:

(October 11, 2013 at 8:07 am)Airyaman Wrote: You are aware that people on the other side of the political fence similarly believe you all are deluded and slaves to government, among a plethora of other faults, right?

Sure. But where this fails as a parallel situation is that the situation is not at all parallel. We think the dimwits who poorly understand the consequences of their (seemingly) reactionary choices are destructive.

Indeed. They want to walk the tightrope a little higher whilst losing the safety net. Problem is they would have everybody do the same...and I for one get dizzy from the thin air.

(October 11, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Raeven Wrote: Here is a website for your immense erudition: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/eco...l-debt.asp

---

(October 11, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Raeven Wrote: Ok, no offense, but you’ve got to figure out the quote thing. It’s almost impossible to know what you posted v. what someone else posted, so I’ll try and address what YOU posted (I think).

How does shifting the burden from the Feds to the states reduce costs of operation in parks, etc.? You think the Feds are just automatically more expensive?

Cutting staff levels? Seriously? They’re already doing more with a lot less. Clearly you’re not aware of the extent to which the Obama Administration made cuts to Federal staffing when he first came into office: Fed Jobs Decline Under Obama

As for the First Lady not having staff, wow. You really don’t know what they do, do you? Think she just sits around all day, eating bon bons and watching the soaps? She serves as a surrogate for her husband, makes many official appearances and shares her home daily with the public. She also advocates for her personal causes – as all First Ladies traditionally have. But you honestly think she should be back in the kitchen making shit on a shingle for hubby when he gets home? Ignorance on a breathtaking scale. But hey, I’m pretty sure that even if we eliminated every single staff position for her and Vice President Biden’s wife, it wouldn’t make a noticeable dent in reduction of the debt. Do you?

You have the audacity to call me ignorant? Please cite from the constitution the exact article that stipulates the duties of the first lady? Please use the appropriate article that created her office? Then, you also have the audacity to say I need to do my homework? Show me your constitutional acumen! Then, you can say I need to do homework!

That platform you stand on must be so elevated you don't even notice your hypocrisy.

(October 14, 2013 at 10:47 am)whateverist Wrote: Sure. But where this fails as a parallel situation is that the situation is not at all parallel. We think the dimwits who poorly understand the consequences of their (seemingly) reactionary choices are destructive. And they are. They think government is the tool of Satan, that black men can't govern and that rugged individualism is what makes a country strong. And none of that is true.

It has become extraordinarily apparent in the last month that those with such categorical (and largely farcical) mistrust of the government are far too disastrously inept to govern.

Not that I believe for a second that Teahadists actually mistrust the concept of a strong federal government. They mistrust the entity as it exists because they understand, deep down, that their radical insanity will prevent voters from ever allowing them to assume command over it again. Do you think for a moment that the Tea Party, if in control of government, would hesitate to use the federal apparatus to impose their medieval social policies on everybody, if they could? Or that they would do anything other than blow up the deficit on even more needless defense spending, tax cuts for the 1% and expansion of the Patriot Act?

(October 15, 2013 at 12:13 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote:

(October 11, 2013 at 4:51 pm)Raeven Wrote: Here is a website for your immense erudition: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/eco...l-debt.asp

Ok, I thought you had the quote thing worked out, but obviously not. The above is not something I said. It's something you are trying to point me to, I think.

I did have a look at your link, and there's some great information in there! Nothing of which I wasn't already aware, however. (Sorry!) So let me say again, the mechanism to reduce the national debt is through the Federal budget to reduce spending. Taxes must be increased as well. A growing GDP will help, but it's not the answer. I get that.

Your mistake is in assuming those of us in opposition to the present tactics of the House Republican minority are similarly opposed to addressing the large national debt. That's a false equivalency. Speaking strictly for myself, I simply don't view the methods now being employed by the Tea Party faction of the House as being ethical, effective or even particularly lawful. Current estimates of the hit to the economy over the past 15 days since the Federal government shut-down are around 20 billion dollars. Gosh, I'll bet that would pay for a lot of First Lady staff!

(October 15, 2013 at 12:13 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: You have the audacity to call me ignorant? Please cite from the constitution the exact article that stipulates the duties of the first lady? Please use the appropriate article that created her office? Then, you also have the audacity to say I need to do my homework? Show me your constitutional acumen! Then, you can say I need to do homework!

That platform you stand on must be so elevated you don't even notice your hypocrisy.

Oh, I'll take your word for it that there is nothing in the Constitution that provides for duties and/or staff for First Ladies. In fact, in my first response to you, I think I was careful to say their duties are by custom and tradition. Historically, they've all championed pet causes and made appearances for their husbands, and they have all had staff. So... I guess my question to you is, why is it a problem for THIS First Lady? Have you objected continually and strenuously throughout your life to all the customary duties and staffing of all other First Ladies? Or... would this be the first time it's a big problem -- so big, in fact, that it's the lynchpin to solving the entire national debt crisis?

Wasn't your underlying concern when first posting in this thread to do with budgetary concerns and overspending by the government? Yes? So I have to ask: Is this the best you can come up with to ameliorate overspending? Come on, I know you can do better than that! Maybe focus more on content and less on having a fish-slapping contest.