Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

please explain the Tea Party to a canuck

Page 5 of 9 [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

02 Nov 2010, 7:40 pm

John_Browning wrote:
2) Obama did try to mend the rift between democrats and republicans by getting the republicans feedback on hotly contested issues, but the feedback he got was not compatible with his private agenda so it was disregarded. Because the republicans were disregarded, relations between the two parties are too far gone for reconciliation at this point.

During the healthcare debate, the GOP posted on their website of five things that they wanted to see in a healthcare reform bill. The bill the Democrats passed contained all five of those provisions, and it didn't get them a single Republican vote. Republican input was listened to, some of it was incorporated in a compromise position, but then the Republicans refused to meet halfway. And frankly, after the country has thrown you into a small minority in governance, refusing to even meet halfway in some sort of compromise is pretty unreasonable. Certainly when Republicans were in charge, there wasn't even the pretense of negotiation or compromise. They passed what they wanted to pass and crushed any opposition.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Nov 2010, 7:46 pm

Orwell wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
2) Obama did try to mend the rift between democrats and republicans by getting the republicans feedback on hotly contested issues, but the feedback he got was not compatible with his private agenda so it was disregarded. Because the republicans were disregarded, relations between the two parties are too far gone for reconciliation at this point.

During the healthcare debate, the GOP posted on their website of five things that they wanted to see in a healthcare reform bill. The bill the Democrats passed contained all five of those provisions, and it didn't get them a single Republican vote. Republican input was listened to, some of it was incorporated in a compromise position, but then the Republicans refused to meet halfway. And frankly, after the country has thrown you into a small minority in governance, refusing to even meet halfway in some sort of compromise is pretty unreasonable. Certainly when Republicans were in charge, there wasn't even the pretense of negotiation or compromise. They passed what they wanted to pass and crushed any opposition.


Hope you enjoy all the tax increases and having to fill out an SB 1070 every time you make a purchase of over $600.

You don't meet someone halfway when you think the entire thing is bull. When parts of it are blatently unconstitutional and you feel it violates the oath of office you took. There is no compromise on something like that.

And you quite frankly better hope the United States Supreme Court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional. Otherwise the Federal Government can tell you to buy specific products just because you are alive and breathing. That's a dictatorship not a Constitutional Republic.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

02 Nov 2010, 7:48 pm

Orwell wrote:
Quote:
I will respond a vote for Dems is a vote for the same people that caused the financial collapse.

Um... when was the financial collapse? 2008, wasn't it? At the end of eight years of Republican governance?

I dunno, perhaps I've just suffered amnesia or something. Usually my memory's pretty reliable, but I must have forgotten that the Democrats were actually in charge from 2000-2008.

The Democrats are responsible. Bush proposed banking reforms in 2003, but the democrats led by Barney frank fought the idea because it would have reduced minorities access to predatory subprime mortgage lending.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Nov 2010, 8:02 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Quote:
I will respond a vote for Dems is a vote for the same people that caused the financial collapse.

Um... when was the financial collapse? 2008, wasn't it? At the end of eight years of Republican governance?

I dunno, perhaps I've just suffered amnesia or something. Usually my memory's pretty reliable, but I must have forgotten that the Democrats were actually in charge from 2000-2008.

The Democrats are responsible. Bush proposed banking reforms in 2003, but the democrats led by Barney frank fought the idea because it would have reduced minorities access to predatory subprime mortgage lending.


I will add to that and point out Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate in January 2007. Things didn't start going south until after that point. Furthermore Bush not only tried in 2003, his administration tried several more times and Dems stonewalled the entire time.

Oh and you want to know who else tried to fix the problem Senator John McCain.

You won't get that information from the mainstream media though.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

02 Nov 2010, 8:08 pm

Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
The Federal Student Loan Program was originally handled by private companies and was to enable people to go to college. There is a good reason why it wasn't under direct control of the Federal Government, and that is to try to keep it from being used as a political tool.

You are correct that there was originally a private middleman in the Federal Student Loan Program. However, that is all they were: a middleman. The government was still providing the actual funds.

In what way has the student loan program been used as a political tool, or in what way(s) could it be used as such?

Quote:
Problem is, usually when the Federal Government takes over you end up with more corruption than you had to start with.

Not in this case. The federal government was already involved, the only difference now is that you no longer have private businesses scamming money out of the system.

Quote:
I will respond a vote for Dems is a vote for the same people that caused the financial collapse.

Um... when was the financial collapse? 2008, wasn't it? At the end of eight years of Republican governance?

I dunno, perhaps I've just suffered amnesia or something. Usually my memory's pretty reliable, but I must have forgotten that the Democrats were actually in charge from 2000-2008.

Quote:
Also a lot of Conservatives admire Reagan for defeating the Soviet Union, by causing them to spend themselves to death.

Right, they do admire him for that, but just like all of Reagan's other "accomplishments" this is a complete myth. The Soviet Union was moribund well before Reagan took office. They had a fundamentally untenable economic and political system, and you can only hold such an artifice together for so long before it collapses.


To add to Orwell's comments, if student loans were a purely private practice, students without an exemplary credit rating would be rejected. Often times, 18 year olds don't even have any credit so their parents take out the loans. Do you really think it's fair to deny someone a college education because their parents have crappy credit?

I must also address the nonsense previously mentioned about the government forcing banks to make mortgage loans. This is completely false. The majority of loans that are now in default are the ARM's which the government has absolutely nothing to do with. FHA/VA loans are government insured loans that are only approved for fixed rate mortages. The banks love these loans because it means that if the borrower defaults, the government pays the bank. It is often more difficult to obtain a government insured loan because there are additional qualifying factors, such as the condition of the property. In any case, there is never/was never ANY pressure on the banks to make ANY mortgage loans. The predatory lending practices involved fudging applications and appraisals and by lending without any stated income from the borrower.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

02 Nov 2010, 8:10 pm

Orwell wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
2) Obama did try to mend the rift between democrats and republicans by getting the republicans feedback on hotly contested issues, but the feedback he got was not compatible with his private agenda so it was disregarded. Because the republicans were disregarded, relations between the two parties are too far gone for reconciliation at this point.

During the healthcare debate, the GOP posted on their website of five things that they wanted to see in a healthcare reform bill. The bill the Democrats passed contained all five of those provisions, and it didn't get them a single Republican vote. Republican input was listened to, some of it was incorporated in a compromise position, but then the Republicans refused to meet halfway. And frankly, after the country has thrown you into a small minority in governance, refusing to even meet halfway in some sort of compromise is pretty unreasonable. Certainly when Republicans were in charge, there wasn't even the pretense of negotiation or compromise. They passed what they wanted to pass and crushed any opposition.


QFT, although I'm getting the sense that it's like talking to a brick wall.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Nov 2010, 8:13 pm

number5 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
2) Obama did try to mend the rift between democrats and republicans by getting the republicans feedback on hotly contested issues, but the feedback he got was not compatible with his private agenda so it was disregarded. Because the republicans were disregarded, relations between the two parties are too far gone for reconciliation at this point.

During the healthcare debate, the GOP posted on their website of five things that they wanted to see in a healthcare reform bill. The bill the Democrats passed contained all five of those provisions, and it didn't get them a single Republican vote. Republican input was listened to, some of it was incorporated in a compromise position, but then the Republicans refused to meet halfway. And frankly, after the country has thrown you into a small minority in governance, refusing to even meet halfway in some sort of compromise is pretty unreasonable. Certainly when Republicans were in charge, there wasn't even the pretense of negotiation or compromise. They passed what they wanted to pass and crushed any opposition.


QFT, although I'm getting the sense that it's like talking to a brick wall.


I would suggest in the future you refrain from making a comment like that. It can really annoy someone especially if they also feel like they are talking to a brick wall.

A better comment would have been, "Let's agree to disagree."



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

02 Nov 2010, 8:22 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
2) Obama did try to mend the rift between democrats and republicans by getting the republicans feedback on hotly contested issues, but the feedback he got was not compatible with his private agenda so it was disregarded. Because the republicans were disregarded, relations between the two parties are too far gone for reconciliation at this point.

During the healthcare debate, the GOP posted on their website of five things that they wanted to see in a healthcare reform bill. The bill the Democrats passed contained all five of those provisions, and it didn't get them a single Republican vote. Republican input was listened to, some of it was incorporated in a compromise position, but then the Republicans refused to meet halfway. And frankly, after the country has thrown you into a small minority in governance, refusing to even meet halfway in some sort of compromise is pretty unreasonable. Certainly when Republicans were in charge, there wasn't even the pretense of negotiation or compromise. They passed what they wanted to pass and crushed any opposition.


QFT, although I'm getting the sense that it's like talking to a brick wall.


I would suggest in the future you refrain from making a comment like that. It can really annoy someone especially if they also feel like they are talking to a brick wall.

A better comment would have been, "Let's agree to disagree."


I can agree to disagree withan opposing, but valid viewpoints. I cannot agree to disagree with outright lies and myths.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Nov 2010, 8:25 pm

number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
2) Obama did try to mend the rift between democrats and republicans by getting the republicans feedback on hotly contested issues, but the feedback he got was not compatible with his private agenda so it was disregarded. Because the republicans were disregarded, relations between the two parties are too far gone for reconciliation at this point.

During the healthcare debate, the GOP posted on their website of five things that they wanted to see in a healthcare reform bill. The bill the Democrats passed contained all five of those provisions, and it didn't get them a single Republican vote. Republican input was listened to, some of it was incorporated in a compromise position, but then the Republicans refused to meet halfway. And frankly, after the country has thrown you into a small minority in governance, refusing to even meet halfway in some sort of compromise is pretty unreasonable. Certainly when Republicans were in charge, there wasn't even the pretense of negotiation or compromise. They passed what they wanted to pass and crushed any opposition.


QFT, although I'm getting the sense that it's like talking to a brick wall.


I would suggest in the future you refrain from making a comment like that. It can really annoy someone especially if they also feel like they are talking to a brick wall.

A better comment would have been, "Let's agree to disagree."


I can agree to disagree withan opposing, but valid viewpoints. I cannot agree to disagree with outright lies and myths.


The question is who is being deceived. Seriously, it's a fair question one could throw it right back at you. Especially when it comes to politics.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

02 Nov 2010, 8:29 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Orwell wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
2) Obama did try to mend the rift between democrats and republicans by getting the republicans feedback on hotly contested issues, but the feedback he got was not compatible with his private agenda so it was disregarded. Because the republicans were disregarded, relations between the two parties are too far gone for reconciliation at this point.

During the healthcare debate, the GOP posted on their website of five things that they wanted to see in a healthcare reform bill. The bill the Democrats passed contained all five of those provisions, and it didn't get them a single Republican vote. Republican input was listened to, some of it was incorporated in a compromise position, but then the Republicans refused to meet halfway. And frankly, after the country has thrown you into a small minority in governance, refusing to even meet halfway in some sort of compromise is pretty unreasonable. Certainly when Republicans were in charge, there wasn't even the pretense of negotiation or compromise. They passed what they wanted to pass and crushed any opposition.


QFT, although I'm getting the sense that it's like talking to a brick wall.


I would suggest in the future you refrain from making a comment like that. It can really annoy someone especially if they also feel like they are talking to a brick wall.

A better comment would have been, "Let's agree to disagree."


I can agree to disagree withan opposing, but valid viewpoints. I cannot agree to disagree with outright lies and myths.


The question is who is being deceived. Seriously, it's a fair question one could throw it right back at you. Especially when it comes to politics.


My vote is for anyone who considers Fox News a reliable news source. (And no, I don't get my news from msnbc)



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Nov 2010, 8:35 pm

Heh, Fox News is the reason I was the only student in my Constitutional Law class that knew which Justices allowed city and state governments to take away people's property and give it to businesses all for "eminent domain." Everyone guessed it was the Conservative Judges, but I knew it was the Liberal Judges.

Those Conservative judges whom people accuse of being in the pocket of big business sided with individual property owners against big business. If only the swing vote hadn't gone with the liberals.


I have an unofficial minor in history, btw.


At this point I would believe Glenn Beck if he was high on pot over the entire mainstream media. Sometimes I think Beck is out there, but seriously the mainstream media has absolutely no credibility in my book unless it also shows up on a conservative source.


Also so you know I have a Bachelor's of Science in Computer Graphics Technology so I can also tell you that CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, etc. were using doctored photos in a particular major news situation in 2006. The photos were so blatently doctored I could do a better job in 15 minutes and my specialty is manufacturing graphics not photo editting.



Zara
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,877
Location: Deep Dungeon, VA

02 Nov 2010, 8:47 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Heh, Fox News is the reason I was the only student in my Constitutional Law class that knew which Justices allowed city and state governments to take away people's property and give it to businesses all for "eminent domain." Everyone guessed it was the Conservative Judges, but I knew it was the Liberal Judges.


I have an unofficial minor in history, btw.


At this point I would believe Glenn Beck if he was high on pot over the entire mainstream media. Sometimes I think Beck is out there, but seriously the mainstream media has absolutely no credibility in my book unless it also shows up on a conservative source.


Limiting your information sources does not make a person smarter and more capable to navigate the complexities of the world. Buying into the delusion that everyone else is lying expect for the ones you personally approve of only narrows your own perspective. There are fakes and lies out there, yes, but it's wrong to stereotype all non-conservative sources as being untruthful. There have easily been just as many untruths spoken by conservatives as there have been by liberals.


_________________
Current obsessions: Miatas, Investing
Currently playing: Amnesia: The Dark Descent
Currently watching: SRW OG2: The Inspectors

Come check out my photography!
http://dmausf.deviantart.com/


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Nov 2010, 8:51 pm

Zara wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Heh, Fox News is the reason I was the only student in my Constitutional Law class that knew which Justices allowed city and state governments to take away people's property and give it to businesses all for "eminent domain." Everyone guessed it was the Conservative Judges, but I knew it was the Liberal Judges.


I have an unofficial minor in history, btw.


At this point I would believe Glenn Beck if he was high on pot over the entire mainstream media. Sometimes I think Beck is out there, but seriously the mainstream media has absolutely no credibility in my book unless it also shows up on a conservative source.


Limiting your information sources does not make a person smarter and more capable to navigate the complexities of the world. Buying into the delusion that everyone else is lying expect for the ones you personally approve of only narrows your own perspective. There are fakes and lies out there, yes, but it's wrong to stereotype all non-conservative sources as being untruthful. There have easily been just as many untruths spoken by conservatives as there have been by liberals.


I never said Fox News was my only news source. I just said all the other regular broadcast outlets have completely lost my trust. I do pay attention to other news sources however, particularly drudge (which links to other news stories from both left and right wing sources).



JNathanK
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,177

02 Nov 2010, 9:00 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
i am horribly uninformed about this. this is embarrassing. i can be pretty arrogant about the areas where i am well-informed... and this is not one of those areas. i can admit when i am ignorant of an issue.

i understand the basics of american politics, but this Tea Party stuff has thrown me for a loop.

i am a canadian. i don't read the newspaper, nor do i watch television news. the closest thing i read to the news is consumerist.com for their consumer stories.

i tried asking my husband about the Tea Party, and he explained it to me somewhat. but he only half-watches the news himself.

anyway. i'm lazy. anybody care to explain some of the background, or why there are such strong opinions about this Tea Party? thank you in advance.

?


They're a bunch of reactionaries who blame all of the deficit on Obama's social spending (The war is seldom considered a cause), on immigrants, on Islam, on moral degradation. They like to compare Obama to a Nazi, communist, etc. I think its sick, that it undermines the holocaust and all the people who died in it, and when they argue that liberals did it with Bush", I don't remember anyone from the, so called, mainstream, liberal media doing it. A hippie holding up a cardboard sign isn't the liberal news media. They do it all the time on Fox News though. Glen Beck does it on a regular basis. Many think he was a secret Muslim and that he wasn't born in this country. You can't argue with them. Like I said, they're reactionaries, and I believe there's a lot of racism behind it.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

02 Nov 2010, 9:04 pm

JNathanK wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
i am horribly uninformed about this. this is embarrassing. i can be pretty arrogant about the areas where i am well-informed... and this is not one of those areas. i can admit when i am ignorant of an issue.

i understand the basics of american politics, but this Tea Party stuff has thrown me for a loop.

i am a canadian. i don't read the newspaper, nor do i watch television news. the closest thing i read to the news is consumerist.com for their consumer stories.

i tried asking my husband about the Tea Party, and he explained it to me somewhat. but he only half-watches the news himself.

anyway. i'm lazy. anybody care to explain some of the background, or why there are such strong opinions about this Tea Party? thank you in advance.

?


They're a bunch of reactionaries who blame all of the deficit on Obama's social spending (The war is seldom considered a cause), on immigrants, on Islam, on moral degradation. They like to compare Obama to a Nazi, communist, etc. I think its sick, that it undermines the holocaust and all the people who died in it, and when they argue that liberals did it with Bush", I don't remember anyone from the, so called, mainstream, liberal media doing it. A hippie holding up a cardboard sign isn't the liberal news media. They do it all the time on Fox News though. Glen Beck does it on a regular basis. Many think he was a secret Muslim and that he wasn't born in this country. You can't argue with them. Like I said, they're reactionaries, and I believe there's a lot of racism behind it.


The war isn't considered the problem because Obama has spent more money on his projects than both wars combined. Heck he spent more money in 18 months than Bush did in 8 years.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

02 Nov 2010, 9:04 pm

thanks for the background information everyone!




...sorry, but it got too in-depth and i stopped reading 3 pages ago. you can have the thread to yourselves now...

[steps away from thread]


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105