Landslide 2012, the end of the democrat party

[Versa-Tech]

 

 

Fortunately, the Democratic Party should do better than that thar "Democrat party", whatever it is. Now that it's blatantly obvious that you don't like the "Democrat party", I think it's about time we discuss the possibility of competence appearing in the GOP.

It's not that I don't like the democrats, I just can't afford to let self-destructive narcessists into my circle of influence. With great power comes great responsibility. I have a hard enough time keeping my hands steady as it is.

[Edstock]

I sure hope Chuck is wrong, but if he's not, 2020 and beyond could get very interesting in the USA . . .

http://chuckspinney.blogspot.com.es/2012/08/the-ramifications-of-romneys-choice-of.html

 

I wonder what Jack London would think of all this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Heel

[the_spaniard]

How about explaining this comment.....can you cite some facts?

 

I've explained it before and cited sources before. Check my other posts.

 

FROM GALLUP: The majority of the tea part is ultra-conservative white people. 65% Pro-life. 87% against health-care reform. 63% Conservative. 11% Liberal. 79% Non-hispanic white.

 

FROM WIKIPEDIA: "Tea Party supporters are mainly white and slightly more likely to be male, married, older than 45, more conservative than the general population, and likely to be more wealthy and have more education"

 

A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power".^{[309][310][dubious – discuss]}

 

Sounds pretty conservative to me. They want smaller government, except when it comes to a womans body or a persons right to marry. They want more freedom, unless you are gay or Muslim.

 

I'm not claiming they are racist. I'm saying they are ultra-conservative white people. The facts above show that they are mostly conservative, and mostly white. We argue semantics all day on the ultra statement.

 

Are those numbers close to the general population? Sure are, but that isn't my point, and its not what I said. I wouldn't mind the tea party at all if they just changed the name to what they really are, and stop trying to convince people they are an equal mix of peoples and a grass-roots organization.

 

Personally I don't subscribe to them for the following reasons:

- 65% Pro-Life

- 87% Against Health-Care Reform

- 82% Gays don't have the right to marry

- 52% Gays have too much political power

- 73% Disagree with Obama engaging Muslim countries

- 44% Born-again Christians

 

EDIT> Oh yeah, when any group considers themselves "patriots" and then proceeds to damage the country in an attempt to make the current CINC a one-term president. Forgot about that little one. And the Taxpayer Protection Pledge - no compromise in there.

 

Nearly all of these things are negatives to me, so I do not feel they represent my interests.

Edited August 19, 2012 by the_spaniard

[retro-man]

I find it interesting that your usual "30 year economic catastrophe" has turned into 80 years....I guess that makes it easier to excuse obama for failing to do what he promised....how far back do you want to go?

Let me clarify for you here:

I have often stated - and believe - that Ronald Reagan's economic policies: i.e. supply-side, trickle-down, voodoo economics (George H.W. Bush's term) are what started us on a 30 year downhill slide. That's the source of the "30 year" number that you remembered (thank you) hearing from me. As for "The Great Recession", it has been widely - in the media and by economists - termed as the greatest economic slump since The Great Depression - which started about 80 years earlier. That's where the "80 years" thing comes from. 2 different things. Reagan's policies (feeding money to the top, smashing the unions that enabled the great middle class to arise, and cultivating a basic distrust of the public sector - "government" in general - regulation, public works, public education, social safety net, everything but the military basically), working over a period of 30 years, culminated in the Great Recession. I acknowledge that it's a bit more complicated than that, and there were policies put in place at the end of WWII and earlier that also contributed, but Reagan - "the great communicator" (and also - ironically - a big deficit spender) more than any other created the political climate that contributed to the Great Recession - that undermined middle class wages while simultaneously boosting consumerism in the quest for more profits, and removing regulatory barriers to financial shenanigans. History will not be kind to him. He loosened the lug nuts and cut the brake lines, ...... then George Bush got behind the wheel......

 

Let me qualify my remarks: Is government spending too much? Yes. (I think public sector spending should account for about 1/3 of the total economy - no more. Currently it accounts for about 38%, with only 28% or so being collected in taxes at all levels - the difference being the deficit.) Is there waste? Yes. Do we need to live within our means? Certainly. No argument there.

[retro-man]

 

His plan does NOT.......

 

.....affect anyone over the age of 55.

 

See, that's the chicken-sh*t thing about it to me: Ultimately it destroys medicare by making it into a voucher system. It just puts it far enough into the future to mollify a large, and traditionally Republican constituency - seniors - for the moment. If it's such a great idea, why doesn't he implement it immediately? You know the answer to that, and so do I. Just as I remember far enough into the past to know who drove our economy off a cliff, I think far enough into the future to worry about my children and future grandchildren. First off, the vouchers will probably keep pace with costs and inflation about as well as Social Security has. Second, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "competition" is going to result in lower costs - in fact, all current evidence points the opposite direction. So basically, he is advocating a Plutocrat's dream where people are given the choice of pumping up shareholder profits or dying, where the poor simply get what they can afford - which is relatively less and less each year, and where the amount available for these vouchers is subject to the vagaries of our political system. There is nothing brilliant about this plan to me.

[partsisparts]

This is a great piece on the republican plan to kill Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. It all started with Reagan...

 

 

 

http://flaglerlive.com/8577/david-stockman-reagan-nixon-bush-trickledown/

[retro-man]

This is a great piece on the republican plan to kill Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. It all started with Reagan...

 

 

 

http://flaglerlive.c...sh-trickledown/

 

Excellent article.

 

“It is not surprising, then,” Stockman concludes, “that during the last bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1 percent of Americans — paid mainly from the Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income, while the bottom 90 percent — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy — got only 12 percent. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the decaying fruit of bad economic policy.”

 

Word.

[RangerM]

See, that's the chicken-sh*t thing about it to me: Ultimately it destroys medicare by making it into a voucher system. It just puts it far enough into the future to mollify a large, and traditionally Republican constituency - seniors - for the moment. If it's such a great idea, why doesn't he implement it immediately? You know the answer to that, and so do I.

You see that the people not affected have been paying into the system and Ryan sees it as a "Screw you" to change the rules just as they're reaching the finish line which is why he provides an exemption?

 

His isn't trying to usurp a health system; he is merely trying to steer the ship away from the insolvency iceberg. If you refuse to admit there even IS a problem with Medicare solvency, then there's really nothing more to say.

 

And then you do......

Just as I remember far enough into the past to know who drove our economy off a cliff, I think far enough into the future to worry about my children and future grandchildren. First off, the vouchers will probably keep pace with costs and inflation about as well as Social Security has. Second, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that "competition" is going to result in lower costs - in fact, all current evidence points the opposite direction. So basically, he is advocating a Plutocrat's dream where people are given the choice of pumping up shareholder profits or dying, where the poor simply get what they can afford - which is relatively less and less each year, and where the amount available for these vouchers is subject to the vagaries of our political system. There is nothing brilliant about this plan to me.

Could you walk into any store in 1995 and pay $4 for a potentially life-saving prescription drug? I can't think of one.

 

How much do you pay for a cellphone nowadays, Retro? How about your internet access? If you think competition doesn't drive prices down (or at least keep them from going up as fast), then you must be paying similar rates for these items as you were in the '90s.

 

Here's some splainin' from the Federal Trade Commission.

 

Better yet, I'll save you the mouse-click...

 

 

Competition Counts

How Consumers Win When Businesses Compete

 

The FTC’s Bureau of Competition: Protecting Free Enterprise and American Consumers

What if there were only one grocery store in your community? What if you could buy a camera from only one supplier? What if only one dealer in your area sold cars?

Without competition, the grocer may have no incentive to lower prices. The camera shop may have no reason to offer a range of choices. The car dealer may have no motivation to offer a variety of car models and services.

Competition in America is about price, selection, and service. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of goods and services high.

Competition makes our economy work. By enforcing antitrust laws, the Federal Trade Commission helps to ensure that our markets are open and free. The FTC promotes healthy competition and challenges anticompetitive business practices to make sure that consumers have access to quality goods and services, and that businesses can compete on the merits of their work. The FTC does not choose winners and losers – you, as the consumer, do that. Rather, our job is to make sure that businesses are competing fairly within a set of rules.

Through its Bureaus of Competition and Economics, the FTC puts its antitrust resources to work, especially where consumer interest and consumer spending are high: in matters affecting energy, real estate, health care, food, pharmaceuticals, professional services, cable TV, computer technology, video programming, and broadband Internet access.

 

 

What is Antitrust?

 

The word “antitrust” dates from the late 1800s, when powerful companies dominated industries, working together as “trusts” to stifle competition. Thus, laws aimed at protecting competition have long been labeled “antitrust.” Fast forward to the 21st century: you hear “antitrust” in news stories about competitors merging or companies conspiring to reduce competition.

The FTC enforces antitrust laws by challenging business practices that could hurt consumers by resulting in higher prices, lower quality, or fewer goods or services. We monitor business practices, review potential mergers, and challenge them when appropriate to ensure that the market works according to consumer preferences, not illegal practices.

What kinds of business practices interest the Bureau of Competition? In short, the very practices that affect consumers the most: company mergers, agreements among competitors, restrictive agreements between manufacturers and product dealers, and monopolies. The FTC reviews these and other practices, looking at the likely effects on consumers and competition: Would they lead to higher prices, inferior service, or fewer choices for consumers? Would they make it more difficult for other companies to enter the market?

 

If you lament Ryan's plan to steer Medicare to a self-sustaining system, how do you feel about Obama's cuts in the Medicare trust fund?

Edited August 20, 2012 by RangerM

[fmccap]

[Langston Hughes]

The tea party doesn't have a race issue.......and snice you seem to present yourself as an expert on racial tendencies of conservatives ...tell us about those famous democrats......robert byrd, al gore sr.

 

I don't believe that i have or ever will deny that there are racists and bigots that have gotten elected as Democrats. Now if you would like to talk the past, I see the grand ole party as failing to live up to it's past, where over a 100 years ago the republican party elected many freed slaves to office and helped them acquire jobs and a say in the communities they resided in. It's something for the GOP to be proud of, but that is not the GOP of today. That is the Republican party left in the dustbin never to be seen from again. The present party is nothing like the old party.

 

I know bigots from both parties but in my life most of the bigots I have met are social conservatives and vote republican. That is my anecdotal answer to your famous Democrats.

[retro-man]

You see that the people not affected have been paying into the system and Ryan sees it as a "Screw you" to change the rules just as they're reaching the finish line which is why he provides an exemption?

 

His isn't trying to usurp a health system; he is merely trying to steer the ship away from the insolvency iceberg. If you refuse to admit there even IS a problem with Medicare solvency, then there's really nothing more to say.

Which is all to say that the system is going to be left in a degraded state. Perhaps the term "save" medicare is slightly misleading.

 

http://www.hark.com/...ur-husbands-arm

 

Re. competition and its ability to lower costs, medicine seems to operate under its own rules. I can travel to some foreign country (and have), with an evil, corrupt, and inefficient government-run system and pay far far less for a given medication than I do here - even with coverage here and none there. That is a fact.

 

 

Contrary to the "Anti-trust" blurb in the FTC link, there is no longer any serious effort to prevent the formation of monopolies in this country, or to break them up once they form - nor has there been for years. Part of the problem in the case of medicine may be perverse effects of our intellectual property laws (which also long ago went over the top IMO). As long as exclusive patents hold, a drug company has a virtual monopoly. We had a situation lately where certain cancer drugs that were - I hate to trot out a cliche here - necessary to save childrens' lives had become unobtainable because they had gone out of production once the monopoly was lost. There were documented cases where treatment was deferred because of this. LINK Where was the much-vaunted "free market" in all of this? MIA, that's where. If it were your child that was sick, a command economy would be looking pretty good right about then.

 

A crucial medicine to treat childhood leukemia is in such short supply that hospitals across the country may exhaust their stores within the next two weeks, leaving hundreds and perhaps thousands of children at risk of dying from a largely curable disease, federal officials andcancer doctors say.

Edited August 20, 2012 by retro-man

[Langston Hughes]

Ranger,

I have made my argument and if you don't feel it's compelling enough then that is something i can accept. You don't have to buy into my premises, but I do want to challenge you on few things. I never said that your conservatism is based on racial intolerance, nor did i imply that. my premise is that the farther one moves to the extreme right the more racism and bigotry there is. You can reject that if you like and I will not be harmed in anyway, so there's no need to argue

 

And the Tea Party has a huge basis in racial intolerance. It's sad but the is almost always a racial element in conservative populism and the Tea Party shows no signs of bucking that trend.you've seen the signs, you've read the crazy words and stupid racist emails that have been sent, your not some Luddite who avoids the internet.

 

I'll just link to one sight with a few interesting signs so this quote can be taken in context.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/05/racist-tea-party-signs/

 

So i saw this quote and it fits the images on the link.

 

Why would so many white people with a bone to pick with racial minorities feel comfortable boldly and openly expressing their affinity for racism at a tea party rally?

[RangerM]

Which is all to say that the system is going to be left in a degraded state. Perhaps the term "save" medicare is slightly misleading.

 

Depends on how you look at it. If you're under the age of 45, the idea that anything will be there when you retire is "saving"; because under the current system, there literally will be nothing left for you. Ryan's effort (and keep in mind it was a joint effort with Democrat Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon) is to protect current and near-retirees as well as provide some level of confidence to the younger generation(s).

 

Is there something you have against this?

 

Re. competition and its ability to lower costs, medicine seems to operate under its own rules. I can travel to some foreign country (and have), with an evil, corrupt, and inefficient government-run system and pay far far less for a given medication than I do here - even with coverage here and none there. That is a fact.

And I'm sure you get exactly the same level of care 100% of the time, right?

 

You're right about one thing. Medicine does operate under a different set of rules. Unfortunately those rules are set by the government. I'm not suggesting that government has absolutely no place, however are there any other economic sectors subject to the level of regulation as medicine? About the only example I can think of is Education; but that may not be the best example of success.

 

Contrary to the "Anti-trust" blurb in the FTC link, there is no longer any serious effort to prevent the formation of monopolies in this country, or to break them up once they form - nor has there been for years. Part of the problem in the case of medicine may be perverse effects of our intellectual property laws (which also long ago went over the top IMO). As long as exclusive patents hold, a drug company has a virtual monopoly. We had a situation lately where certain cancer drugs that were - I hate to trot out a cliche here - necessary to save childrens' lives had become unobtainable because they had gone out of production once the monopoly was lost. There were documented cases where treatment was deferred because of this. LINK Where was the much-vaunted "free market" in all of this? MIA, that's where. If it were your child that was sick, a command economy would be looking pretty good right about then.

It was the "command" economy (the FDA) that shut down production at Ben Venue Laboratories in the first place; due to "issues" brought up during an FDA inspection.

 

 

In a statement, Ben Venue said it's working closely with the FDA to bring methotrexate back to market as soon as possible, and understands "the urgent need" for the medication.

"

Since we suspended the production of all products in November 2011, our team has been working around the clock to implement changes needed to ensure a more sustained supply of the medicines we produce, and to address the manufacturing related issues at our facility noted in recent inspections by the FDA and other global regulatory agencies

. Over the past three years, we have invested more than $250 million to upgrade our facilities, and continue to invest millions more in order to restore production as quickly as possible. … We are committed to doing all that we can to help seek a solution to this urgent need, and are hopeful that some of the other companies licensed to manufacture methotrexate will be able to increase production while we work to restore manufacturing at our facilities. In the meantime, our inability to produce methotrexate and other medicines critical to patient care weighs heavily on us all."

 

 

And two days after the article you posted, the same NY Times posted the following article: Shipments From Abroad to Help Ease Shortage of Two Cancer Drugs Newsflash, that's the "free market" at work. Be sure to read that article about how FDA has a backlog of applications for new manufacturing applications and drug applications--holding back the "free market" if you will.

Edited August 20, 2012 by RangerM

[RangerM]

Ranger,

I have made my argument and if you don't feel it's compelling enough then that is something i can accept. You don't have to buy into my premises, but I do want to challenge you on few things. I never said that your conservatism is based on racial intolerance, nor did i imply that. my premise is that the farther one moves to the extreme right the more racism and bigotry there is. You can reject that if you like and I will not be harmed in anyway, so there's no need to argue.

We report what we see. I've heard plenty of card-carrying Union Democrats use the word "nigger"; but I don't attribute those feelings to all union members or Democrats; even when you consider that unions' roots can be attributed to bigotry. The difference it seems is members of the Left are more comfortable with blanket statements pertaining to groups, whereas my (just as most conservatives') thoughts pertain to individuals.

 

And the Tea Party has a huge basis in racial intolerance. It's sad but the is almost always a racial element in conservative populism and the Tea Party shows no signs of bucking that trend.you've seen the signs, you've read the crazy words and stupid racist emails that have been sent, your not some Luddite who avoids the internet.

 

I'll just link to one sight with a few interesting signs so this quote can be taken in context.

http://samuel-warde....ea-party-signs/

 

I saw and read every sign there. True there are a couple of examples that are over-the-top, but if the charge is that every one of those signs is demonstrating a racial hatred, I ask you to explain how. People can not like (or hate) Obama and not hate all blacks in general. Obama does not equal all black people. And it all seems laughable when you consider the fact that within the black community itself there are those with prejudices against those with darker complexion.

So i saw this quote and it fits the images on the link.

Again, treat each sign individually (even though in your head you seem predisposed to "look" for the racism). Does every one of them demonstrate a hatred of all blacks or just Obama? For the majority of them, I'd say the latter.

Edited August 20, 2012 by RangerM

[napfirst]

We report what we see. I've heard plenty of card-carrying Union Democrats use the word "nigger"; but I don't attribute those feelings to all union members or Democrats; even when you consider that unions' roots can be attributed to bigotry. The difference it seems is members of the Left are more comfortable with blanket statements pertaining to groups, whereas my (just as most conservatives') thoughts pertain to individuals.

 

 

 

I saw and read every sign there. True there are a couple of examples that are over-the-top, but if the charge is that every one of those signs is demonstrating a racial hatred, I ask you to explain how. People can not like (or hate) Obama and not hate all blacks in general. Obama does not equal all black people. And it all seems laughable when you consider the fact that within the black community itself there are those with prejudices against those with darker complexion.

 

Again, treat each sign individually (even though in your head you seem predisposed to "look" for the racism). Does every one of them demonstrate a hatred of all blacks or just Obama? For the majority of them, I'd say the latter.

Your words "union democrats use the word nigger" struck a cord with me......I went to work at Ford in the mid 60's and there were very few blacks working in the plant.....I can't begin to tell you how many times I heard that word used......and by stauch uaw members......even elected officals responsible for representing everyone......and to a lesser degree it was still occurred when I retired.....the local union is nothing more than a good ol' boy network that keeps the same "DNA" in power r through elections and appointed positions

[grbeck]

The problems today don't stem from tax cuts for the rich (which can mean anything from the top 20 percent to the top 5 percent of taxpayers). These people pay a higher percentage of total federal income taxes collected today than they did when the top rates were 90+ percent in the 1950s (which isn't surprising, as only three people paid them at one point). They pay plenty of taxes...they aren't getting off scott-free.

 

Our problems do not stem from deregulation, in general, or deregulation of the financial sector, in particular. We never deregulated anything, aside from the trucking, airline and telecommunications industries. And those three industries had nothing to do with the present crisis. We've actually tightened regulation over the financial sector during the past 20+ years, but that doesn't matter when politicians are meddling in the market to "help" others.

 

Unions? They collapsed because their host companies no longer controlled 80-90 percent of the market, as customers purchased superior products from competitors. Which, of course, was their right.

 

That wasn't Ronald Reagan's fault, unless we all believe that it was his job to force us to buy a Chevy Celebrity instead of a Toyota Camry. The Americans who regularly read Consumer Reports and were able to understand the implications of its test results and reliability surveys obviously felt otherwise. At any rate, companies exist to serve customers, not the other way around. We aren't buying junk to ensure that no one ever loses a job.

 

The problem is that America (as in, the federal government and the military) is acting alot like GM management in the 1980s and 1990s...still thinking it is too big to fail; still thinking it can afford to do everything; and still making grandiose plans for new programs and initiatives without checking how the present ones are working.

 

Eventually, enough customers moved on that GM went bankrupt. At the national level, neither the Democrats, nor, to a lesser extent, the Republicans, realize that we need to rationalize various programs; trim the military and rethink our role in the world; and tell various advocacy groups that taxpayers cannot guarantee everyone a perfect life, and that the Great Society programs have had serious negative counsequences, and are growing at an unsustainable rate.

 

The taxpayers bailed out GM and the UAW...who will bail out the U.S.?

 

As for wailing about racism among the Tea Party members - it exists largely in the over-fevered imaginations of Tea Party critics. I'm sure that some members are racist - this will happen in ANY mass movement. But then, some of my relatives can recount hair-raising stories of racism among the African-American administrators and employers where they work. These are all solid Obama supporters. And, if we are talking about racism as displayed by voting patterns or preference for a particular candidate based on race, we'll start with the fact that the president gets 91-92 percent of the vote of the African-American community. What's sauce for the goose...

Edited August 21, 2012 by grbeck

[partsisparts]

Be careful what you wish for..... This is an article about what the Ryan plan means to the average family.

 

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/08/16/paul-ryan-budget-plan-average-american-family/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook

[Langston Hughes]

The problem is that America (as in, the federal government and the military) is acting alot like GM management in the 1980s and 1990s...still thinking it is too big to fail; still thinking it can afford to do everything; and still making grandiose plans for new programs and initiatives without checking how the present ones are working.

 

Eventually, enough customers moved on that GM went bankrupt. At the national level, neither the Democrats, nor, to a lesser extent, the Republicans, realize that we need to rationalize various programs; trim the military and rethink our role in the world; and tell various advocacy groups that taxpayers cannot guarantee everyone a perfect life, and that the Great Society programs have had serious negative counsequences, and are growing at an unsustainable rate.

 

The taxpayers bailed out GM and the UAW...who will bail out the U.S.?

 

As for wailing about racism among the Tea Party members - it exists largely in the over-fevered imaginations of Tea Party critics. I'm sure that some members are racist - this will happen in ANY mass movement. But then, some of my relatives can recount hair-raising stories of racism among the African-American administrators and employers where they work. These are all solid Obama supporters. And, if we are talking about racism as displayed by voting patterns or preference for a particular candidate based on race, we'll start with the fact that the president gets 91-92 percent of the vote of the African-American community. What's sauce for the goose...

 

While i can agree with you that we are going to need to prioritize our spending and realize that there are needs we have and wants we'd like to see taken care of. The needs have to be taken care of first. That doesn't mean we abandon trying to deal with poverty and finding a way to protect families with our safety nets.

 

As for the Tea Party, conservatives have tried unsuccessfully to hide and dismiss the blatant intolerance to the surprise of no one, but failing to convince even themselves. There's no need for denial, the Tea Party attracts bigots, racists and the intolerant. The premise of Black Americans as racist for voting for Obama in large numbers is a crutch to the intolerant. It is used to cover the fact that there is a real and viable issue of racism within the Tea Party as evidenced by the signage, the emails of candidates, elected officials, Tea party group founders and it's loose membership.

[Langston Hughes]

I h

We report what we see. I've heard plenty of card-carrying Union Democrats use the word "nigger"; but I don't attribute those feelings to all union members or Democrats; even when you consider that unions' roots can be attributed to bigotry. The difference it seems is members of the Left are more comfortable with blanket statements pertaining to groups, whereas my (just as most conservatives') thoughts pertain to individuals.

 

I saw and read every sign there. True there are a couple of examples that are over-the-top, but if the charge is that every one of those signs is demonstrating a racial hatred, I ask you to explain how. People can not like (or hate) Obama and not hate all blacks in general. Obama does not equal all black people. And it all seems laughable when you consider the fact that within the black community itself there are those with prejudices against those with darker complexion.

 

Again, treat each sign individually (even though in your head you seem predisposed to "look" for the racism). Does every one of them demonstrate a hatred of all blacks or just Obama? For the majority of them, I'd say the latter.

 

Let's get past the whole left does this that the right doesn't. The right is just as likely to blanket statement the left and it's various groups and we are all aware of it. Personally, I've lost track of how many times I've heard conservatives refer to the UAW as a "Bunch of Socialists" or "liberals are communists". In fact I just saw a conservative suggest that minorities voting for the first man partially of their race as racism in another post. That's a fairly wide brush for an action that is pretty understandable given the general nature of race relations since our inception as a country. (and there is no proof that Carol Mosely Braun, or Al Sharpton got that level of support in past democratic primaries)

 

This is my view we are talking about not the left's. I am telling you what I see and feel, not what others do. If you wish to suggest that I view the Tea Party too narrowly that's fine, but I don't believe so.

 

Your right, the group as a whole is not racist as I've already mentioned. We are not debating that, we are discussing i thought, why there is a racial element to the Tea Party and whether or not it taints the group as a whole. I believe it does and that as one moves farther to the extreme right, you will come across more and more bigots. I find it troubling like the quote I used that the Tea Party and its' rhetoric seems to bring out blatant and open racists within it's ranks.

 

As for the UAW there are bigots, racists and those generally intolerant of diversity. It's a stain on the UAW and the big three in general. Remember that they become union members after being hired by the company so this stains the companies also. Please remember that there is no test to be a union member so we have all types, liberals, conservatives, birthers, Birchers, Alex Jones conspiracy theorists and probably some Old and new panthers.

 

My personal experience has been that the majority of N-Bombs i've heard in plant came from card carrying Republicans, but i haven't accused all Republicans of racism either.

[RangerM]

Your right, the group as a whole is not racist as I've already mentioned. We are not debating that, we are discussing i thought, why there is a racial element to the Tea Party and whether or not it taints the group as a whole. I believe it does and that as one moves farther to the extreme right, you will come across more and more bigots. I find it troubling like the quote I used that the Tea Party and its' rhetoric seems to bring out blatant and open racists within it's ranks.

I'd say the farther one moves "extreme" on either side, you will encounter irrationality. The key is to avoid tunnel vision, and try to see the whole picture. The central message of the Tea Party is "Leave us alone, Mr. President".

[goinbroke2]

Mr President, we the people control you the government. WE decide WHO to govern us and what we want governed. Do not force rules on us as it will make us criminals. Let us instead tell you which rules we want and you can enforce the rules we have agreed to.

 

In other words, if everybody agrees murder is bad, they vote on it and get the government to enforce the no-murder rule the people came up with. However if the government comes up with rules (no alcohol for example) but it is not what the people want, then the government instantly makes law abiding citizens criminals. Not because they are doing something that the people disagree with or want stopped, but because the government dictates it.

 

People are in charge of the gov, not the other way around.

 

The government relies on the fact that most people are ambivilent about things that don't concern them directly and secondly, most people will agree to a rule if it "seems" like it might help somebody else without really hurting them. (no smoking in restaurants for example)

[grbeck]

As for the Tea Party, conservatives have tried unsuccessfully to hide and dismiss the blatant intolerance to the surprise of no one, but failing to convince even themselves. There's no need for denial, the Tea Party attracts bigots, racists and the intolerant.

 

There is no proof that the Tea Party is motivated by racism, or a desire to exclude one particular race or group from public life. It is motivated by a desire to cut government spending and avoid tax increases. They have some problems with how they would actually achieve this goal - we can't avoid looking at Medicare and defense spending, as the Tea Party wants to do, if we want to cut spending. But that is a different subject than racism.

 

Cries of "racism" are an attempt to avoid a discussion on this issue.

 

But, look at this way...even if they are racists, so what? Their point about the unsustainable growth rate of federal spending still stands. So does their point that we are all taxed enough, and aren't going to pay any additional taxes to fund pie-in-the-sky spending schemes or ensure that every woman can pop out five future stars of America's Most Wanted by four different baby daddies.

 

As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

The premise of Black Americans as racist for voting for Obama in large numbers is a crutch to the intolerant. It is used to cover the fact that there is a real and viable issue of racism within the Tea Party as evidenced by the signage, the emails of candidates, elected officials, Tea party group founders and it's loose membership.

 

No, it's applying the logic these groups have used to accuse others of voting patterns motivated by racism. As, I've said, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the attempts to deflect the charges are quite amusing, and will result in more back flips and contortions than we saw during the entire Olympics.

Edited August 21, 2012 by grbeck

[Langston Hughes]

Mr President, we the people control you the government. WE decide WHO to govern us and what we want governed. Do not force rules on us as it will make us criminals. Let us instead tell you which rules we want and you can enforce the rules we have agreed to.

 

In other words, if everybody agrees murder is bad, they vote on it and get the government to enforce the no-murder rule the people came up with. However if the government comes up with rules (no alcohol for example) but it is not what the people want, then the government instantly makes law abiding citizens criminals. Not because they are doing something that the people disagree with or want stopped, but because the government dictates it.

 

People are in charge of the gov, not the other way around.

 

The government relies on the fact that most people are ambivilent about things that don't concern them directly and secondly, most people will agree to a rule if it "seems" like it might help somebody else without really hurting them. (no smoking in restaurants for example)

 

 

 

We, the people???? Remind me again when you became an American? Oh, that's right your not. May i suggest that before you write that again, you put Mr. Prime Minister at the top. This may sound kinda right wing of me, but I feel no need to apologize for Barack Obama and democrats in general to conservative Canadians. There you go American conservatives, you wanted liberals to not apologize for America and I did.

 

Now Take off, eh!!

[cal50]

Deserved?.....what is this...3rd grade recess?....A tiger can't change his stripes......I'm just waiting for you to melt-down again......

 

 

Well he has fewer posts to delete with the new profile Vs the old one when he blows a gasket, again.

 

SSDN / Same shit different name.

[Langston Hughes]

There is no proof that the Tea Party is motivated by racism, or a desire to exclude one particular race or group from public life. It is motivated by a desire to cut government spending and avoid tax increases. They have some problems with how they would actually achieve this goal - we can't avoid looking at Medicare and defense spending, as the Tea Party wants to do, if we want to cut spending. But that is a different subject than racism.

 

Cries of "racism" are an attempt to avoid a discussion on this issue.

 

But, look at this way...even if they are racists, so what? Their point about the unsustainable growth rate of federal spending still stands. So does their point that we are all taxed enough, and aren't going to pay any additional taxes to fund pie-in-the-sky spending schemes or ensure that every woman can pop out five future stars of America's Most Wanted by four different baby daddies.

 

As they say, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

No, it's applying the logic these groups have used to accuse others of voting patterns motivated by racism. As, I've said, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the attempts to deflect the charges are quite amusing, and will result in more back flips and contortions than we saw during the entire Olympics.

 

These Tea Party groups have brought froth some of the most idiotic racist behavior in many years and there is no way you can justify it. Tea Party candidates and leaders have openly sent racist emails, supported others who did likewise and generally failed to police themselves. But that's par for the course when you have a group of people who tend to few themselves as victims.

 

Do i have to remind you of Tea Party favorite Carl Paladino?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002299-503544.html

 

Please explain how the Tea Party isn't racist, but It promotes and votes for a man who enjoys sending racial jokes to his friends about the president? Trust me I am waiting for that explanation.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20054984-503544.html

 

This wasn't racist either i guess.

 

Look i could go on for pages with all the racist emails and signs attached to the Tea Party. It's time you accept that the message is either intolerant or the intolerant seem to think that they are welcome to share their intolerant views with other Tea Party members because they are still doing it.