please explain the Tea Party to a canuck

Post Reply New Topic

That was where 9/11 was originally planned and where Bin Laden was. We invaded that country (and before you start about not catching him look up the geography of that region of the world). Unless you think we should let people fly passenger aircraft into buildings, it is personally reasonable to go after the psychos. Also, during the course of our invasion we made a further mess and left a power vacuum. We are still in Afghanistan because we have a mess to clean up.

Also if you think we should pull out, then take a look at the aftermath of World War I and the years leading up to World War II.

Btw, we're going to blame Obama's agenda because he's spent more money than all the expenses for both wars combined from 2001 to present. And he did that in under a year, and is promising to spend even more money. It is simple math, you don't have to be an accountant to figure out that Obama's spending is unsustainable even if we cut off all funding to both wars today. He's spent more money in under 2 years than Bush did in his entire Presidency.

OK, that is true. I should have spoken more precisely: income taxes are not going to increase for anyone but the ultra-rich, and even they haven't been hit that hard in terms of tax rate increases. Most everyone else got a tax cut, and I'm pretty sure that on balance (even considering the new taxes on cigarettes and tanning) the average American is paying less in taxes now than they were under Bush.


Well, in many parts of the country a car is necessary, and even if you don't have a car you pretty much have to have a driver's license as identification. Ignoring that, though, the argument that the problem here is the fact that it's mandatory for everyone doesn't sound too convincing to me. There are taxes on food, and everyone has to eat. Are those taxes unconstitutional as well?

If you have ever bothered to actually look at Drudgereport you'd see that it is a site that is a collection of links to stories from blog pages, news agencies, etc.

Drudge almost never posts a commentary on his page because it is just a link to various sources.

So in regards to just watching Fox News comment, I wasn't aware that the associated press, reuters, the BBC, ABC, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, etc. were all parts of Fox News.

Are you going to say that the New York Times is an affiliate of Fox next? Sorry but Rupert hasn't bought the NY Times yet. I just consider a story to have at least some credibility if there is a link to it from Drudge.




And you accuse me of being gullable and an ideologue...

If you actually bothered to study your history instead of reading the propaganda from the liberal left you would know that the Republican Party is the party of civil rights not the Democrats.

Fact: President Lincoln was a Republican

Fact: The Civil Rights act of 1964 wouldn't have passed if not for Republicans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Fact: Biggest Opponent of the 1964 civil rights act was Democrat Strom Thurmond

Fact: 18 Democrats and 1 Republican tried to fillabuster in Senate (that is 18 dems trying to block it compared to 1 Republican trying to fillabuster it)

Fact: The Americans with Disabilities Act which we all rely on to varying degrees was due to a Republican President. Specifically, George H.W. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_ ... ct_of_1990

Fact: The protections were extended and restored with some added amendments in 2008 thanks to President George W. Bush.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADA_Amendments_Act_of_2008

I will be honest and say the main Sponsor of the bill was Senator Tom Harkins from Iowa whom is a Democrat. It had 77 cosponsors.




The Republicans didn't have a fillabuster proof majority for starters if I remember correctly President George W. Bush tried about 19 times to get some sort of reform passed because he thought there was going to be problems with lending practices.

Also the deregulation occurred under President Clinton.



Are you living in Europe? Only other explanation is you consider Al Franken and Michael Moore to be center...

@Orwell

It's more of either I miss your posts in the clutter, am rather busy and in a hurry posting, am a little rusty debating on forums, as well as the fact I had finally stopped bothering posting sources at a certain site that has a political section because I got sick of people claiming I had no sources, etc. Got to the point I was like what is the point with actually taking the time to track everything down again if people are just going to ignore it and call me an idiot anyways.

I'm also as you've noticed commenting on lots of things, I mean no disrespect and I will try to slow down with regards to reading through all the posts and go through and respond to your posts more thoroughly. It's just rather hectic right now with trying to write a paper on visual perception...

Edit:
@Orwell

Saw your comment about taxes on food.

That isn't entirely true Orwell, it depends on the state, also it is usually at a State and Local Level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxe ... ted_States

Quite a few states do not tax general groceries. And in all honesty, I would consider taxes on food to be kinda a tough one. Fact is though, you can grow your own food and forgo buying food from groceries.

Also as far as auto insurance, you are still choosing to drive a car.

Unless you intend to commit suicide you can't make a choice to stop breathing.

Last edited by Inuyasha on 03 Nov 2010, 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fact: US parties of today have only their names in common to the ones of old. Or do you think he advocated for small government? lol.

Fact: Current republicans are utter loonies that have nothing to do with old times. George Bush is still a pretty bad president regardless of how popular he is in comparison to Obama in made-up polls. Tea parties are loonier. Both republicans and democrats are considered to be non-center right by the world's standards, and are all to blame for the economic catastrophe. And people that watch only Fox News (or watch it and take it seriously at all) have absolutely no sense of reality.

Did you even bother to read what I posted...

Seriously enough with the juvenile name calling. The race card has been played so much the left it's like the "boy who cried wolf." Being called a racist is meaningless in this country because people don't believe the left anymore when they call someone a racist. Which is going to be a really bad thing if someone actually ends up a victim of racial discrimination.

I'm not going to be goaded into a flame war with you, I've seen these kind of tactics before and I'm not falling for it.

You can get an ID without getting a drivers license. I cant drive i still had to get a state ID. And yes you can grow your own food if you want.

The Tea Party was announced by a raving former corporate raider (ie the lowest form of life responsible for destroying thousands of jobs and raiding pensions) on the floor of the Chicago mercantile exchange as a sort of populist(!) uprising. The main source of money for this scheme is a family that made its fortune developing Josef Stalin's oil industry!

So, someone said "I am sure people in 2112 will laugh on us about for thinking it was a good idea to give credits for consumer instead and not just for houses and actual investments."

Without customers, there's no point in making investments. The problem with the Right is that they are blind to the idea of balance. It's virtuous to invest and a vice to buy things - but if everyone invests and no one buys then what's the point of it all? They inject some ridiculous morality into these questions... not a morality about is it right for people to starve in a land of plenty of course... no, it's a morality about the virtue of thrift and self-denial and that dragging oneself to the well for six hours every day to get water builds character.

Growing your food is not actually realistic, to both people who suggested that. This is not the 1800s.

And for some people, it is possible to get by without a car. I bike instead of driving, but that's not a realistic option for people in many parts of the country (or for anyone physically unable to bike long distances).

Regardless of what you say about it being possible, in principle, to avoid taxes on food, or the mandate to buy auto insurance, that is immaterial because in practice you have no way to avoid all taxes and government fees. I agree that the individual mandate is a bad idea, at least with the current structure of the healthcare reform, but I don't agree with the claims made against its legality by trying to set it apart from other legal mandates.

The health care mandate is the price for keeping the private insurance racket in the game. The insurance racket says, "We have to ban people with pre-existing conditions and knock people off the rolls because otherwise healthy people will not buy insurance and when they're sick they will and the preexisting condition clause will force us to take him or her - they'll pay premiums only when they're sick while we're paying out more but never paying when they're healthy". Obama wanted to stop the practice of shutting out those with preexisting conditions from the insurance, so the only answer is to make the healthy buy insurance also.

Now, the ideal is for government to run the health insurance and that there be no premiums, instead it is funded through tax revenues. Obama however felt he could not cut out the insurance racket. If he had, then they would have been arrayed against him at the outset. Obama wanted to keep as many of these powerful players onside (Big Pharma, the insurance racket...) to more easily pass the bill. They could have told Big Pharma to lower their price for drugs, to use the government to that end, but they refused in fear of them.

The health care bill is an ugly compromise - and it is so because of Rahm Emanuel, the Blue Dogs and corporate money... not to mention Lieberman.

There are many who object to making people pay a for-profit company for insurance and this is where the public option comes in. With the public option, the health care bill had a significant majority support, but when Lieberman successfully got them to drop it, and then drop the Medicare buy-in (done to spite the liberals, Lieberman admitted), support for the bill plummeted. It was seen as giving everything the vested interests wanted.

The reason US health care is so expensive is that there are so many hands in the cookie jar making profits off of it - the insurance, the big pharma, the hospitals and so forth. The way to save money is to cut the profits out as much as possible, but these profits are used as weapons to bribe candidates to maintain the profits and the privilege and of course keep the health care system expensive. A real fixing of the system must involve confronting these powerful forces and unfortunately Obama seems not cut out for confrontation at all.

The reason health care is so expensive is because is primarily because there is third-party payment for everything (HMOs pay the bill, so consumers don't care what it costs). Why should insurance pay for routine operations? That's not insurance. Your auto insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. Insurance is for things that probably won't happen.

Government created expensive health care with the tax exemption of employer provided health care.

The single-payer system is the only solution... this is no place for profits any more than the sewage system should not be used for profit. The health care system is infrastructure.

This idea, insurance for catastrophes and people having to pay for any visit to the doctor will dissuade people from going to doctors unless there's a catastrophe. This is a bad outcome.

While I don't disagree with your sentiment. I'm from Australia and I love our combination of public/private health care; its silly but it works well.

The problem we have, while its not a deal breaker the public doctors have the same attitude. Who cares when the government is picking up the bill.

Why shouldn't a sewage system be used for profits? A huge network of pipes to flush s**t down is a valuable service. Food is used for profits and yet it remains plentiful.

I highly doubt replacing one third party payment system with another will significantly reduce the costs of health care, other things equal. You will still have to pay high prices for it, just not directly.

Too much of a hassle to pay someone to flush my s**t down the toilet.

Food is highly subsidized is which is why it is cheap and we have so much of it. (Of course, not enough to feed the poor and hungry oddly enough)

High prices are a root problem in healthcare, You are correct in that whatever payment/coverage system is adopted, the root problem will still exist. The healthcare industry, financially, is grossly inefficient and IMO needs to be reworked from the ground up to make healthcare accessible to all classes. If healthcare was more affordable, then the issue of insurance coverage wouldn't be as nearly as big a deal as it is.
Sadly, this root problem is often ignored in the healthcare debate with the focus mainly on coverage of an inefficient system.

Part of the reason for this is the government itself restricts the supply of medical skills and material. Physicians are licensed by government and it is illegal for a non-licensed person to offer medical services. Likewise to be sold as medicine, medical materials must be vetted, blessed and approved by government. When supply is restricted, prices go up.

ruveyn