Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 22, 2024, 4:48 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Teabagger Interview W/ Jon Stewart
#11
RE: Teabagger Interview W/ Jon Stewart
(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Irrelevant, given that there is no necessary correlation between "having few non-whites" and "being racist".
Are you saying that a mostly-white group who have only become outspoken when a half-black president was elected doesn't have a correlation with being racist?
I can agree one that doesn't necessarily equal the other, but the two are more certainly related in some fashion or another.

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: ...and there are videos of such people being chased out of rallies by the organizers and security. There are no examples (that I know of) of tea party organizers officially displaying racist signs. An exposé by "Think Progress" on racism in the tea party was thoroughly debunked by various sites.
I can't say how many countless times I've seen ignorant, disgusting, and racist rhetoric being spoken by hosts of tea party rallies with plenty of such video evidence and most of that 'proof' being debunked on news, opinion, and websites that discuss this topic. As I said, I can agree that the tea party may not be 'officially' racist, but that element is still a powerful driving force in their party.

Michele Bachman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann and http://www.michelebachmann.com/#sall
Is far more radical than even Sarah Palin. If I remember correctly, she's even a birther, but I may be confusing her with someone else in that regard.

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Every time I see her on the news, she is always talking about small government, and I'm with her on that one.
Eh, I can find things I agree with in just about anyone, regardless of how small. Sarah is still an idiot who should not be involved in politics at all. She's right at home with FOX news, now that she's on their payroll, so I think I can say we're on the same page with her. On small government however, and this ties win with a lot I've been saying with the tea party-conservative-republican three way.

The thing is, Republicans have been a small government/low tax party for more than thirty years. They've always spoken on fiscal responsibility, more freedom, yadda yadda yadda, and for more than thirty years, whenever they've been in control of government, they've handedly outspent every democrat that's been in office, grossly expanded the power of the government in a manner not befitting the vast majority of its constituents, and have been grossly irresponsible with their tax policy.

This isn't to make mension of the general xenophobia of conservatives in this country, but when they cut taxes, they don't pay for it. When they reduce government, that means they deregulate businesses, strip regulating bodies of power (the IRS, the EPA, etc) and enforce moronic social laws on the people at large (promoting religion and religious views (such as intelligent design), banning gay marriage, ignoring climate change, and stripping science of funding and resources.) That means wonderful things if you're among the wealthiest in this country. If you're not, you're screwed. They don't believe in a social net of any kind, so if I'm out of a job I get no healthcare, no financial aid to help me support myself or my family while I look for a job, and if I get cancer, I'm utterly screwed.

I could literally write an entire book on how their 'small government' policies create a society in which the non-aristocracy in this country would be treated like second-rate serfs and the government's powers of security (hello patriot act) would make the government far more powerful in ways that would creep this country closer to a police state than anything Obama has ever planned or done.
Speaking of the last thirty years in this country, all of these things have come to pass every time the republicans have had majority power like democrats have now and weren't bat-shit crazy like the republicans are now.

But like I said in my last post, the tea party wasn't rallying against the patriot act - the major faces in the tea party now were telling us that those people were unamerican (to put it kindly - the unkinder ones spoke of rounding us up and taking us to range). They told us that Bush's and Reagan's spending policies were sane and necessary. They tell us they want small government, but it's okay to keep the unpaid-for Bush tax cuts, for the government to tell my gay friends that it's not okay for them to marry (I've done a google search of tea party position on gay marriage - they're for banning it), keeping guantanimo bay open (where you can be sent and kept there without a trial), and so on and so forth. No. They waited until November of 2008 to say that the government's policies are too socialist and many of their activities are just as anti-intellectual as any of the other religious right's activities - right down to teaching Intelligent Design.

It's the same ordeal as what the republicans have always wanted and I can accept that they're a staunchly conservative movement. I can accept that they're angry with the way things are and with Obama's policies. I can even accept that their ideals aren't racist, affiliated with the minimal/small government and low-tax ideals. Yet, not only are they doing none of that, but at the same time they're saying they're independants who are unhappy with both parties, but they want their ultra-right conservative republicans elected.

I'm sorry, but to me that's them putting it like this:
They say: we're not a part of the republicans and democrats - we're angry with both
They do: rally against democrats and democrat policies
They advocate: republican candidates

What they say is not adding up to what they're doing.

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: ...and there are several ideas from tea partiers as to why this is. They have caught what they call "party-crashers" before; people who dress up as racists and come to the tea party to further the idea that the tea party is racist. By far the most popular theory is that the tea party is seen to be a group "against Obama", rather than a group against big government in general, and since Obama is black, the party draws racists in quite easily.
But that's not the only reasons. It also has to do with their ideas on immigration policy, the kinds of attacks they've done on Obama, the 'second amendment' rhetoric they've been innuendo-ing in speeches, and the kinds of people they frequently attrack to their rallies. I can understand that the partiers did not intend to be a racist movement. I do understand, however, that their movement is attracting an inordinate number of people to their rallies who are blatently racist. Further, some of those blatantly racist people are sometimes rather prominant within their group.

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Being funded by a party you don't like isn't a valid reason (for me) to be against something. You will actually find that a large percentage of the tea party are Independent voters (http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-pa...phics.aspx). As for who they tell people to vote for, why does the party matter? Surely the person should matter more than the party?
I shoul dhave clarified on that remark - it's not that being funded by republicans is in itself a bad thing. That happens - particularly since the Tea party is a conservative movement.

But what it tells me is that when they say "we don't support either party" - they actually mean "vote for our republican candidate." It's not the only reason I say this, but it's a major reason.

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: You'll have to excuse me, but your last sentence (from "most of the people...") didn't make a bit of sense. I lost the subject half-way through. Could you reword it?
Oh. Sorry, sometimes I try to type fast enough that my brain-hands barrier doesn't work out the way I want it to. Plus I have a terrible tendancy for repitition and going off topic with rants.

What I meant was that when Bush was expanding government, spending like a teenager with no concept of the value of money, and telling us about what god tells him to do, there were protesters against that sort of thing. These protesters were democrats in congress, liberal people on television, and of course an angry mob. I know these were democrats because most of these groups said they were and talked about things as only liberlas would.
Most of the people who are in the tea party now - the small government/low tax people and FOX news, who has contributed to their growth, were telling us, the American people, that those protesters were unamerican. They should be told to GTFO of our country of god-fearing patriots.
Now that a democrat has been elected to office with a far wiser spending policy, these same people are now telling us that the tea party is right and everything obama does is wrong. The republicans in congress are blocking and delaying everything they do, FOX news is chugging its propoganda machine 24 hours a day and paying off the GOP, the tea party is following.

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Major for *you*. Not so major for others. Again, I don't see how this is a reason for me not to like the tea party. As a member of the right-wing, and a libertarian (i.e. aligned with most tea party values), I can answer both of those for you:
Tea Party Supporters: Who and What they Believe
The above link I recently located explains all of their positions.
There are a few things that needs to be noted:

54% of the Tea Party Supporters are Republican and 41% Independant
As such, a wide majority of the Tea Party is republican.

The overwhelming majority of the tea party supports Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and George W. Bush.

82% have a very serious problem with immigration, 66% 'doubt the impact of global warming', a majority dislike Roe v. Wade (in other words, they want the government to tell women what to do with their bodies), a greater percentage of Tea Partiers oppose gay marriage/civil unions (40% vs. 30% of general population).

They oppose health reform, but social security and medicare are both dandy.

I"m sorry, Adrian, it's difficult for me to take the tea party here in the states seriously when they're so hippocritical and so thoroughly overrun by crazies. Perhaps when the party collapses and becomes libertarian again with the far more sane voices of times past, then I can give them a measure of respect as I used to have for the republican party. (I generally consider myself center-left.)

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: As far as I was aware, the only thing they wanted to be repealed was the law that forced business owners to hire people regardless of their skin colour. There are some reasons why that would be a good thing; for instance, if a racist business owner decides not to hire black people because he feels he cannot work with them (due to his racist beliefs), he is currently going to be punished for that. I feel the system might work better if we allow people to hire whom they want, for the reasons they want, and weed racism out of society in other ways, rather than trying to force people who hate each other to work together.
Yeah, but things don't work out quite so well like that. When most of those 'civil rights' things was passed, it was more popular to believe that black people didn't deserve rights than to let them until these things did get passed and that's the problem with letting the population at large run wild with their beliefs.
You also get the convervative view that facts are electable by popular majority.

(August 20, 2010 at 2:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Isn't this a reason not to vote Republican? I don't see how the Tea Party is to blame here...
There are plenty of reasons, but I was attempting to point out that I find it difficult to distinguish between repubicans and tea partiers except that tea partiers tend to be far more to the right of most republicans. Since the GOP is trying to get elected by tea party candidates, we get the result of much more moderate and mainstream republicans becoming unelectable.
If today you can take a thing like evolution and make it a crime to teach in the public schools, tomorrow you can make it a crime to teach it in the private schools and next year you can make it a crime to teach it to the hustings or in the church. At the next session you may ban books and the newspapers...
Ignorance and fanaticism are ever busy and need feeding. Always feeding and gloating for more. Today it is the public school teachers; tomorrow the private. The next day the preachers and the lecturers, the magazines, the books, the newspapers. After a while, Your Honor, it is the setting of man against man and creed against creed until with flying banners and beating drums we are marching backward to the glorious ages of the sixteenth centry when bigots lighted fagots to burn the men who dared to bring any intelligence and enlightenment and culture to the human mind. ~Clarence Darrow, at the Scopes Monkey Trial, 1925

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan
Reply
#12
RE: Teabagger Interview W/ Jon Stewart
(August 20, 2010 at 10:11 am)Tiberius Wrote:
(August 20, 2010 at 3:33 am)padraic Wrote: A teabagger is a Libertarian of dimished mental acuity. EG they vote for Sarah Palin.(?)
I think the problem is painting every single one of them with the same brush. Not all the "teabaggers" are Libertarians; not all of them are stupid; not all of them vote for Sarah Palin; not all of them (in fact a low number) are racists.

Where I do side with the tea party is their platform of lower taxes, and smaller government. I'd attend the tea party rallies in the UK if they weren't so closely connected with UKIP, who I reject because of their anti-islam stance on almost anything.

Sorry Adrian,I should have used a smiley.I was taking the piss. I DO understand teabaggers are only a flavour of conservative. Some of them seem to be ignorant and rather stupid and/or racist bigots.So are some atheists and a lot of literalist theists.

In my opinion racism is caused mainly by xenophobia and is probably hardwired to some degree.. Although some fear of outsiders may be involuntary,hateful speech and behaviour are within our control.


My attitude to taxes is pure Keynes.He said that if you want a society with a high standard of living, you need full employment,high wages and high taxes. I've never had a problem with that, even when I was paying 46 cents in the dollar tax.

A pluralist, I also think social infrastructure should be owned and controlled by the State,at a profit if possible.That was the case here until a few years ago when conservative governments privatised it all..
Reply
#13
RE: Teabagger Interview W/ Jon Stewart
Adrian Wrote:As far as I was aware, the only thing they wanted to be repealed was the law that forced business owners to hire people regardless of their skin colour. There are some reasons why that would be a good thing; for instance, if a racist business owner decides not to hire black people because he feels he cannot work with them (due to his racist beliefs), he is currently going to be punished for that. I feel the system might work better if we allow people to hire whom they want, for the reasons they want, and weed racism out of society in other ways, rather than trying to force people who hate each other to work together.
I was under the impression that whoever mentioned that didn't want to repeal it but just stated that they would have been against that law. However, your probably know more on it then I.

aside from that, I do not think I know enough to say more.

but this is Tea Party Jesus most of it is crazy christian talk and such.
[Image: siggy2_by_Cego_Colher.jpg]
Reply
#14
RE: Teabagger Interview W/ Jon Stewart


Michele Bachman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann and http://www.michelebachmann.com/#sall
Is far more radical than even Sarah Palin. If I remember correctly, she's even a birther, but I may be confusing her with someone else in that regard.
I'm pretty sure that's correct. Bachman is totally bat-shit. Just watch her on TV some time. You can tell all her cylinders aren't firing!
The one thing everybody needs to remember is that I never claimed to be sane!
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  60 Minutes interview with MBS WinterHold 7 1907 March 20, 2018 at 12:25 am
Last Post: WinterHold
  Assange interview Napoléon 37 7068 January 11, 2017 at 10:39 am
Last Post: Aristocatt
  Trump supporters, what have you to say about the interview in the New Yorker? Whateverist 15 2895 July 19, 2016 at 2:13 pm
Last Post: Crossless2.0
  Jon Stewart Gets on Jeb - Multiple Answers - Bush Minimalist 1 847 May 17, 2015 at 9:33 am
Last Post: dyresand
  Jon Stewart Examines Corporate Inversions Minimalist 0 784 August 1, 2014 at 2:02 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  Kim Jung Un to US: Ban The Interview or else attack! Creed of Heresy 27 7391 June 27, 2014 at 6:29 am
Last Post: Crossless2.0
  Jon Stewart annihilates O'Reilly in live debate Creed of Heresy 3 2218 June 22, 2013 at 2:17 pm
Last Post: Creed of Heresy
  An interview with Peer Steinbrück Something completely different 0 1001 April 9, 2013 at 7:42 pm
Last Post: Something completely different
  An interview with Boris Dittrich on the global situation of gay rights Something completely different 0 1558 April 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Last Post: Something completely different
  Jon Huntsman: Republican party is "Devoid of a soul." TaraJo 6 2694 December 31, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Last Post: A Theist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)