Tea Party Democrats

[BigBallinStalin]

More like you can see any continuum as a circle. Go far enough to the right and you become essentially the same as the far left.

Show your work.

far right = fanatic, stop listening to reason, want their will imposed.
far left = fanatic, stop l istening to reason, want their will imposed.

The "details" might shift a tad, but ironically enough not always.

Hmm... Obama has planned huge expenditures in education and healthcare, yet tax revenue has already increased to cover that, and the US government is strapped for cash. We know that enacting such plans will cost too much for many legislators; therefore, the budget proposals and the Obama-plans will be delayed, suspended, and fought over.

If so many legislators and Americans do not support such plans, and since Obama refuses to significantly compromise on this issue, then has he "stopped listening to reason, wants his will imposed?" Are not his expensive policies (non-fiscal stimulus related) a bit ridiculous in light of the 2008 recession?


____________________________________________________________________

And:

How would you define a reactionary?

How would you define a radical?

And where on the political spectrum do they lay?

[PLAYER57832]

lol.. not tonight.

[john9blue]

there's never going to be a serious discussion about the tea party unless we decide who constitutes the tea party. right now there are people who call themselves "tea partiers" who have opposing views on almost everything. you have ron paul supporters and you have establishment republicans.

[Woodruff]

More like you can see any continuum as a circle. Go far enough to the right and you become essentially the same as the far left.
That's one reason why your constant attack of the "far left" is rather humerous.. in a macabre way. You are not very far from them.

You'll have to explain this one to me, because I'm not seeing it UNLESS YOU'RE ONLY talking about methods. And if you're only talking about methods, then your statements don't make any sense.

[PLAYER57832]

More like you can see any continuum as a circle. Go far enough to the right and you become essentially the same as the far left.
That's one reason why your constant attack of the "far left" is rather humerous.. in a macabre way. You are not very far from them.

You'll have to explain this one to me, because I'm not seeing it UNLESS YOU'RE ONLY talking about methods. And if you're only talking about methods, then your statements don't make any sense.

The opposite, in fact. The methods vary, but the result is the same.

I gave a shortened version above.

Go to either the extreme right or extreme left (or any extreme for that matter) you go, the more convinced you are correct, the less you feel you have to listen to other opinions. Move to the extreme and you get not just "let ME do xyz", its "YOU MUST do xyz". BOTH sides will use essentially the same kinds of force/methodologies because "the ends justify the means" (actually more Machiavellian methods or even more sneaky methods than true outright force.. force is only at the very, very end .. for after the overwhelming majority have already succumbed) .

At the extreme, it becomes OK to lie.. first small, then bigger ones, to promote "the cause". It becomes OK to cheat people, to even do violance, etc. Because the "cause" will justify it.

In the end, it doesn't matter if what you want is a fully "socialistic" state in which everyone must be the same.. or a state fully controlled by a theocracy or other powerful entity (dictators, monarches, corporate domineers,e tc.).. the result is that the population must conform to the given model.. or suffer. (ousted from society, imprisoned, killed, or otherwise silenced, etc.).

[PLAYER57832]

Oh, and in both cases, for it to fully work, the primary requirement is that you limit information.. eventually.

You don't start that way, because, of course, you start out thinking "my way is the best and everybody will come to see it". Except.. it doesn't happen. People are not uniform, among other reasons. So..one of the "corners" you cut is true freedom of thought.

[GreecePwns]

So what is the difference between communism and socialism? Which is more "far left?" What about anarcho-capitalism and national socialism? Which one is more "far right?"

The answer is that "left" and "right" are meaningless. To define a position you must separate the economic issues from the social ones, as well as separate those who want state power concentrated in a few or one from those who want some sort of representative system from those who want no state at all.

To say that every political position can be put on a neat little line is flat out wrong. Not only that, but "left" and "right" are relative terms. You call socialism "far left," but if you spent your whole life in Europe you certainly would not.

Just read this website http://politicalcompass.org/

[PLAYER57832]

BPs going to take a huge loss from that incident. If it was truly profitable to have oil spills near American coastlines, then we would have an oil spill once every year.

#1 They took a "paper" loss but overall are making money. They have not come close to really paying for all the damage.. in fact, doing so would be about impossible. (how do you replace a species we barely even knew existed before?)

#2. I did not say it was profitable to have an oil spill, its that it doesn't cost the companies nearly enough to have them.

#3 There are spills every year, just not BP style spills. But.. looked at the news lately. Exxon is at it again, this time on the Yellowstone river.

[Woodruff]

More like you can see any continuum as a circle. Go far enough to the right and you become essentially the same as the far left.
That's one reason why your constant attack of the "far left" is rather humerous.. in a macabre way. You are not very far from them.

You'll have to explain this one to me, because I'm not seeing it UNLESS YOU'RE ONLY talking about methods. And if you're only talking about methods, then your statements don't make any sense.

The opposite, in fact. The methods vary, but the result is the same.
I gave a shortened version above.
Go to either the extreme right or extreme left (or any extreme for that matter) you go, the more convinced you are correct, the less you feel you have to listen to other opinions. Move to the extreme and you get not just "let ME do xyz", its "YOU MUST do xyz". BOTH sides will use essentially the same kinds of force/methodologies because "the ends justify the means" (actually more Machiavellian methods or even more sneaky methods than true outright force.. force is only at the very, very end .. for after the overwhelming majority have already succumbed) .

First you say the methods vary, and then you say both sides will use essentially the same methods. You should make up your mind.

I contend that the methods are almost identical between the two groups. The goals, however, differ greatly.

BPs going to take a huge loss from that incident. If it was truly profitable to have oil spills
near American coastlines, then we would have an oil spill once every year.

#1 They took a "paper" loss but overall are making money.

No, they didn't take a "paper loss" on the oil spill...they've taken a tremendous loss on it. Overall the company in all of it's processes is still making money, sure...but the oil spill itself was a tremendous loss and not at all "making money".

They have not come close to really paying for all the damage.. in fact, doing so would be about impossible. (how do you replace a species we barely even knew existed before?)

I agree with you on this. But this is a different issue.

#2. I did not say it was profitable to have an oil spill, its that it doesn't cost the companies nearly enough to have them.

I would tend to agree with this. Though I don't think you can pin it down to a specific value...everything depends on what the known impacts of the spill are.

[john9blue]

So what is the difference between communism and socialism? Which is more "far left?" What about anarcho-capitalism and national socialism? Which one is more "far right?"

The answer is that "left" and "right" are meaningless. To define a position you must separate the economic issues from the social ones, as well as separate those who want state power concentrated in a few or one from those who want some sort of representative system from those who want no state at all.

To say that every political position can be put on a neat little line is flat out wrong. Not only that, but "left" and "right" are relative terms. You call socialism "far left," but if you spent your whole life in Europe you certainly would not.

Just read this website http://politicalcompass.org/

quit pretending to be such a centrist!!!! you're biased and partisan just like the rest of us!!

sound familiar?

[PLAYER57832]

So what is the difference between communism and socialism? Which is more "far left?" What about anarcho-capitalism and national socialism? Which one is more "far right?"

The answer is that "left" and "right" are meaningless. To define a position you must separate the economic issues from the social ones, as well as separate those who want state power concentrated in a few or one from those who want some sort of representative system from those who want no state at all.

To say that every political position can be put on a neat little line is flat out wrong. Not only that, but "left" and "right" are relative terms. You call socialism "far left," but if you spent your whole life in Europe you certainly would not.

This is why I specifically spoke of extremes. On the edges, they ALL meet.

[PLAYER57832]

BPs going to take a huge loss from that incident. If it was truly profitable to have oil spills
near American coastlines, then we would have an oil spill once every year.

#1 They took a "paper" loss but overall are making money.

No, they didn't take a "paper loss" on the oil spill...they've taken a tremendous loss on it. Overall the company in all of it's processes is still making money, sure...but the oil spill itself was a tremendous loss and not at all "making money".

I never said they were making money. But they absolutely RUINED many people's lives.. destroyed them, and definitely destroyed a major portion of the environment. The company "took a hit", sure.. but they continue to make a profit. The company will make a lot of noise, but that's mostly what it is.

They have not come close to really paying for all the damage.. in fact, doing so would be about impossible. (how do you replace a species we barely even knew existed before?)

I agree with you on this. But this is a different issue.

No, regarding BP and BBS' post, it is THE issue. Regarding the Tea Party.. if those claiming that title get their way, we will see much more of the same.

#2. I did not say it was profitable to have an oil spill, its that it doesn't cost the companies nearly enough to have them.

I would tend to agree with this. Though I don't think you can pin it down to a specific value...everything depends on what the known impacts of the spill are.

Yeah,,, and funny that.. a lot of that research was curtailed or funded by the oil companies.

[Woodruff]

BPs going to take a huge loss from that incident. If it was truly profitable to have oil spills
near American coastlines, then we would have an oil spill once every year.

#1 They took a "paper" loss but overall are making money.

No, they didn't take a "paper loss" on the oil spill...they've taken a tremendous loss on it. Overall the company in all of it's processes is still making money, sure...but the oil spill itself was a tremendous loss and not at all "making money".

I never said they were making money.

You didn't? Look up there above...you sure seemed to be trying really hard to imply it, if not say it outright.

But they absolutely RUINED many people's lives.. destroyed them, and definitely destroyed a major portion of the environment.

Absolutely it did. I don't believe anyone around here has doubted that, particularly. I certainly haven't.

The company "took a hit", sure.. but they continue to make a profit.

I don't have any problem at all with them continuing to make a profit, so long as they fulfill their responsibilities to the environment. Which they have, for the most part, as was required of them. Do I personally think they should have been held MORE responsible? Yes, without question...but I'm not the one that makes that decision, nor are you.

They have not come close to really paying for all the damage.. in fact, doing so would be about impossible. (how do you replace a species we barely even knew existed before?)

I agree with you on this. But this is a different issue.

No, regarding BP and BBS' post, it is THE issue.

It's absolutely a different issue. There is a vast difference between them doing what they are REQUIRED to do and them doing what YOU THINK THEY SHOULD DO.

[Mr_Adams]

Have you guys agreed on ANY definitions yet?

Also, the tea party definitely existed before O'bummer was elected. It is essentially the leftovers of the Ron Paul 2008 campaign, which has snowballed into a national group.

[PLAYER57832]

BPs going to take a huge loss from that incident. If it was truly profitable to have oil spills
near American coastlines, then we would have an oil spill once every year.

#1 They took a "paper" loss but overall are making money.

No, they didn't take a "paper loss" on the oil spill...they've taken a tremendous loss on it. Overall the company in all of it's processes is still making money, sure...but the oil spill itself was a tremendous loss and not at all "making money".

I never said they were making money.

You didn't? Look up there above...you sure seemed to be trying really hard to imply it, if not say it outright.

They were making money from oil. They did not make money from the spill itself, they just were not charged as much as they ought to have been. If they had been charged what they should have been, then the cost of producing the oil would well have exceeded the income.

But, its not that they have a benefit from polluting itself. They were not being economically encouraged to pollute, they just were not being discouraged nearly enough.

Make better sense now?

But they absolutely RUINED many people's lives.. destroyed them, and definitely destroyed a major portion of the environment.

Absolutely it did. I don't believe anyone around here has doubted that, particularly. I certainly haven't.

Uh.. I think we both know a couple of exceptions.. at least.

The company "took a hit", sure.. but they continue to make a profit.

I don't have any problem at all with them continuing to make a profit, so long as they fulfill their responsibilities to the environment. Which they have, for the most part, as was required of them. Do I personally think they should have been held MORE responsible? Yes, without question...but I'm not the one that makes that decision, nor are you.

Well, actually I am in a position to know. I did a lot of research on the Gulf. But no, I don't get to have any say in it.

They absolutely and unequivocably should have been held to a higher standard BEFORE the accident..t hat is key. Expecting any entity to truly make up damage on that scale is impossible. However, it galls me that they are allowed to continue generating wealth for investors, making huge salaries, while many people's lives have NOT been rebuilt.. people who did not do anything to deserve the damage they face. That is just morally wrong. EVERY PENNY those companies make should go to repay victims and restore the environment, FIRST. By rights, that company should now be held by the victims and operated to generate income for them. And, those in the decision levels of both BP and Halliburton should be put in jail.. for life.

The damage those companies did FAR, FAR exceeded the damage of 9-11. Just think on that!

They have not come close to really paying for all the damage.. in fact, doing so would be about impossible. (how do you replace a species we barely even knew existed before?)

I agree with you on this. But this is a different issue.

No, regarding BP and BBS' post, it is THE issue.

It's absolutely a different issue. There is a vast difference between them doing what they are REQUIRED to do and them doing what YOU THINK THEY SHOULD DO.

No, not in this thread, because it was thanks to this "don't put more onus on companies.. they make us money and should therefore not be touched" mentality, this "no more government regulation, cut government size.. no matter what" ideology that is the direct reason why those companies were not more heavily regulated. It started before the Tea Party, but the Tea Party folks are building on it to an extreme extent now.

[Phatscotty]

United we stand, divided we fall.

Except you seem perfect happy to divide.. in fact, you seem to relish it.

The country has united for fiscal responsibility.

Fiscal responsibility is my #1 issue.

Catch up Player you are very far behind in the game. Are you still just realizing Ron Paul is the godfather of the Tea Party movement? That puts you about 4 years behind in my book...

[Phatscotty]

there's never going to be a serious discussion about the tea party unless we decide who constitutes the tea party. right now there are people who call themselves "tea partiers" who have opposing views on almost everything. you have ron paul supporters and you have establishment republicans.

Yet we can all unite in the name of less borrowing, less spending, less taxes, and less government growth. Even Democrats and Independents.

We are putting aside abortion, religion, stem cell, gun control.. etc. Big problems need to be handled and Americans know this.

[Woodruff]

there's never going to be a serious discussion about the tea party unless we decide who constitutes the tea party. right now there are people who call themselves "tea partiers" who have opposing views on almost everything. you have ron paul supporters and you have establishment republicans.

Yet we can all unite in the name of less borrowing, less spending, less taxes, and less government growth. Even Democrats and Independents.

More drug testing of welfare recipients.

[Phatscotty]

there's never going to be a serious discussion about the tea party unless we decide who constitutes the tea party. right now there are people who call themselves "tea partiers" who have opposing views on almost everything. you have ron paul supporters and you have establishment republicans.

Yet we can all unite in the name of less borrowing, less spending, less taxes, and less government growth. Even Democrats and Independents.

More drug testing of welfare recipients.

less spending, less borrowing, less taxes, less government interference

welfare, a gov't spending program, will need less money after we clamp down on the abuse and waste

[Woodruff]

there's never going to be a serious discussion about the tea party unless we decide who constitutes the tea party. right now there are people who call themselves "tea partiers" who have opposing views on almost everything. you have ron paul supporters and you have establishment republicans.

Yet we can all unite in the name of less borrowing, less spending, less taxes, and less government growth. Even Democrats and Independents.

More drug testing of welfare recipients.

less spending, less borrowing, less taxes, less government interference

welfare, a gov't spending program, will need less money after we clamp down on the abuse and waste

Your plan INCREASES GOVERNMENT SPENDING and INCREASES GOVERNMENT GROWTH. You CLAIM you want LESS of those things, Phatscotty. You are a hypocrite who only wants YOUR PET PROJECTS supported by the government.

[Phatscotty]

I wish clamping down on waste and abuse was free.

It will show results by the end of the first year. That's a guarantee.

Write it down Woody. Come back here in 1 year and let's see who was right.

Spending will be reduced

you will see

[Woodruff]

I wish clamping down on waste and abuse was free.

It will show results by the end of the first year. That's a guarantee.

Write it down Woody. Come back here in 1 year and let's see who was right.

Spending will be reduced

you will see

Phatscotty, it is mathematically impossible for spending to be reduced in that program unless a good 25% of welfare recipients are using drugs. That is absolutely not the case, so YOU want to throw good money after bad. All the while claiming you want less government and less spending. You're a hypocrite, Phatscotty...plain and simple.

[Phatscotty]

We can revisit this when the programs results come in, and hopefully, in the correct thread.

[Woodruff]

We can revisit this when the programs results come in.

You mean when the Governor whose pockets are being lined by the program announces the results? Why on Earth would a Governor who was interested only in making money for himself via this program ever declare that this program wasn't "good for the people"? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of terrible spending and more government interference. Just want the Tea Party wants, right!

[Phatscotty]

The problems we are facing are bigger than ourselves or any petty bickering

Brother, It's time to come together.

We have to work with each other to slay the beast that will eat us and everyone around us equally.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G31h5gbazwU