Tea Party Democrats

[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.

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.

there are "tea party" members who want a more aggressive foreign policy. we can't "unite" under anything unless the phony tea party members drop the label and quit pretending to be grassroots.

[Phatscotty]

with balanced budgets come a more balanced foreign policy. Stick to the fiscal part, real opportunities will present themselves. IMO, budgets are #1. Everything else will be relative.

Democrats and Independents voice for where they want the cuts will be heard. They would do us all a favor to seize on the opportunity that exists for budgets they think are bloated. It's a big tent.

[thegreekdog]

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.

there are "tea party" members who want a more aggressive foreign policy. we can't "unite" under anything unless the phony tea party members drop the label and quit pretending to be grassroots.

I believe this is correct (and Player is also correct). In the Pennsylvania gubenatorial election, there was a choice between two candidates... more of Rendell vs. more of GW Bush. The electorate chose more of GW Bush (a corporation supporting, big spending Republican). I don't want to get into the details of the Pennsylvania budget, the cuts of which are being completely blown out of proportion because of the hugely powerful teachers union in Pennsylvania, but it is most assuredly pro-business. In any event, my point here is that the Republican, pro-corporation, pro-life base was energized by the Tea Party, but they are not necessarily what I would define as Tea Party supporters. In fact, I would define them as GW Bush neo-conservatives (pro-war, pro-business, conservative moral values)... and those people have existed in Pennsylvania for years; before the Tea Party movement began.

As someone above said, it's all relative. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are merely neo-conservatives trying to get back in power. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are libertarians. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are blue-dog type Democrats.

[BigBallinStalin]

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?"

For me, socialism can describe more of an economy and less of the politics; whereas, communism describes more of the politics and more of the economy. In other words, communist countries rarely vary from one another, but "socialist countries" tend to vary significantly....

In other words, socialism tends to be an overarching category, under which Communism may fit, but the main difference between Communist countries and other socialist countries is that Communism doesn't have multiple political parties and usually has an international stance. What makes Communism "far left" is that it's farther from the mainstream socialist countries.

The difference between Communism and national socialism is very little. Both have one political party, both rely heavily on central planning (instead of having a more market economy), both states see themselves as the embodiment of their own people, but there is one main difference. Communists have an international agenda; whereas, nationalist socialists tend to have a nationalist agenda.

Practically, they're both left-wing, yet after decades and decades, the national socialists have been pushed into "right-wing" because many disillusioned "left-wingers" couldn't stand what the national socialists had become.

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.

I wouldn't say that "left" and "right" are meaningless terms; they're just misunderstood. When the term is applied at the individual level, it describes that individual's overall political stance, which can vary from either left or right depending on the topic.

When those terms are applied to a state, it can work, but we have to understand the left-right dichotomy first: What is interesting about the left-right dichotomy is that the "right-wing" is basically anything that the left-wing does not want on its side, so this explains how national socialism, monarchy, and theocracy end up on the "right wing." So, the terms may lose their meaning in that regard.

I think I'll start a thread on this, and get into descriptions beyond one's political stance. I use this framework to better understand a state or an individual. (I'll start it sometime in the near future).

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/

(That's a poorly worded test they got there. It's really biased to the left judging from how they portray the options and slyly describe the other side.)

[GreecePwns]

Well the test is not just taking from an American standpoint, but an international one. They take the angle of "if it has existed at some point, we are including it in our left-right/libertarian-authoritarian scale." Which I think is the best angle, as it consideres every possible stance.

Notice how the democratic socialist Presidential candidate from 2004 (or 2008, don't remember) only registers as center-left.

[PLAYER57832]

In any event, my point here is that the Republican, pro-corporation, pro-life base was energized by the Tea Party, but they are not necessarily what I would define as Tea Party supporters. In fact, I would define them as GW Bush neo-conservatives (pro-war, pro-business, conservative moral values)... and those people have existed in Pennsylvania for years; before the Tea Party movement began.

As someone above said, it's all relative. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are merely neo-conservatives trying to get back in power. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are libertarians. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are blue-dog type Democrats.

Exactly why the Tea Party is dangerous. Neither you nor they get to define the Tea Party, because there plain and simply is not "real Tea Party".

What there was was a perhaps genius move (if you are cynical), perhaps cooincidentaly move (if not so cynical). The only consistancy is declaring "be against taxes and big government" -- as such pretty much a no-brainer (double entendre intended) what "everyone wants". Its when you get to the details that you get controversy, which is why NOT having a uniform platform is "genius". The "true" Tea Party leadership (or the designers might be more accurate... or opportunists). let the locals pick the specific message. That way, folks in rural areas are more likely to hear about abortions and guns, those in big cities may hear more about the Patriot Act... etc. Those might not be accurate divisions, but it doesn't matter. Folks will keep talking, finding the areas that do "click" with whomever they are talking to and let that become "The Tea Party" in that person's mind.

So, in truth, you, greekdog can "claim" the Tea Party, Phattscotty can claim theTea Party..and some of the racists idiots around here can as well.

This "party" is not about unifying or agreeing to anything.. it is about opposition, plain and simple.

The trouble is, all that "opposition" is now very, very likely to wind us either giving even more power over to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest, driving this country into default (for which ALL of us will suffer, but most particularly those lower down who have debt or who need to get loans), or both.

The only hope is that a default will impact the bigwigs mightily, too, and perhaps they will put enough pressure on congress to stop this in time. Trouble is, "suffer" is pretty relative. The bigwigs seem to be doing pretty well in these "bad times" -- bad for the rest of us, at least. So, this is probably something similar, that will wind up lining some people's pockets well at the expense of the rest of us.

[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.

there are "tea party" members who want a more aggressive foreign policy. we can't "unite" under anything unless the phony tea party members drop the label and quit pretending to be grassroots.

Enact the platform of the Tea Party, the phonies will have no choice

[PLAYER57832]

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.

there are "tea party" members who want a more aggressive foreign policy. we can't "unite" under anything unless the phony tea party members drop the label and quit pretending to be grassroots.

Enact the platform of the Tea Party, the phonies will have no choice

What platform?

There IS no platform, only lots of people who think their ideas are "the platform".

[thegreekdog]

In any event, my point here is that the Republican, pro-corporation, pro-life base was energized by the Tea Party, but they are not necessarily what I would define as Tea Party supporters. In fact, I would define them as GW Bush neo-conservatives (pro-war, pro-business, conservative moral values)... and those people have existed in Pennsylvania for years; before the Tea Party movement began.

As someone above said, it's all relative. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are merely neo-conservatives trying to get back in power. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are libertarians. There are some self-identified Tea Partiers who are blue-dog type Democrats.

Exactly why the Tea Party is dangerous. Neither you nor they get to define the Tea Party, because there plain and simply is not "real Tea Party".

What there was was a perhaps genius move (if you are cynical), perhaps cooincidentaly move (if not so cynical). The only consistancy is declaring "be against taxes and big government" -- as such pretty much a no-brainer (double entendre intended) what "everyone wants". Its when you get to the details that you get controversy, which is why NOT having a uniform platform is "genius". The "true" Tea Party leadership (or the designers might be more accurate... or opportunists). let the locals pick the specific message. That way, folks in rural areas are more likely to hear about abortions and guns, those in big cities may hear more about the Patriot Act... etc. Those might not be accurate divisions, but it doesn't matter. Folks will keep talking, finding the areas that do "click" with whomever they are talking to and let that become "The Tea Party" in that person's mind.

So, in truth, you, greekdog can "claim" the Tea Party, Phattscotty can claim theTea Party..and some of the racists idiots around here can as well.

This "party" is not about unifying or agreeing to anything.. it is about opposition, plain and simple.

The trouble is, all that "opposition" is now very, very likely to wind us either giving even more power over to the biggest corporations and the wealthiest, driving this country into default (for which ALL of us will suffer, but most particularly those lower down who have debt or who need to get loans), or both.

The only hope is that a default will impact the bigwigs mightily, too, and perhaps they will put enough pressure on congress to stop this in time. Trouble is, "suffer" is pretty relative. The bigwigs seem to be doing pretty well in these "bad times" -- bad for the rest of us, at least. So, this is probably something similar, that will wind up lining some people's pockets well at the expense of the rest of us.

I'm confused as to why the Tea Party movement is more dangerous than our existing parties (to you)? I understand why the Tea Party movement (at least some people in it) are dangerous to Republicans and Democrats (challenging the establishment and all that). But why do you find it more dangerous?

For what it's worth (which appears to be nothing), you have completely mischaracterized the Tea Party movement because, again, you don't know anything about the Tea Party movement.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm confused as to why the Tea Party movement is more dangerous than our existing parties (to you)? I understand why the Tea Party movement (at least some people in it) are dangerous to Republicans and Democrats (challenging the establishment and all that). But why do you find it more dangerous?

For what it's worth (which appears to be nothing), you have completely mischaracterized the Tea Party movement because, again, you don't know anything about the Tea Party movement.

Well, there is no point in answerig the second part, since you so disagree with my characterization. (if you believed it, I think the answer would be evident).

So, let's try this. Where is the official Tea Party. Where is the official list of Tea Party stands? And what makes the list you present more OK than the one any other person claiming the Tea Party name presents?

You say I don't understand, fine. Explain. That is, not your positions. (for the most part, I get what you have said about those), but an official Tea Party position.

[thegreekdog]

I'm confused as to why the Tea Party movement is more dangerous than our existing parties (to you)? I understand why the Tea Party movement (at least some people in it) are dangerous to Republicans and Democrats (challenging the establishment and all that). But why do you find it more dangerous?

For what it's worth (which appears to be nothing), you have completely mischaracterized the Tea Party movement because, again, you don't know anything about the Tea Party movement.

Well, there is no point in answerig the second part, since you so disagree with my characterization. (if you believed it, I think the answer would be evident).

So, let's try this. Where is the official Tea Party. Where is the official list of Tea Party stands? And what makes the list you present more OK than the one any other person claiming the Tea Party name presents?

You say I don't understand, fine. Explain. That is, not your positions. (for the most part, I get what you have said about those), but an official Tea Party position.

There is no official Tea Party position clearly.

Answer my question - why is it more dangerous than the Republicans or Democrats?

By the way, did you know that the Republican and Democrat Parties don't do background checks before they let people register? Did you know that a gun-toting racist can be a member of the Democrat Party? Did you know that an eco-terrorist can be a member of the Republican Party? Did you know that both can be members of the Tea Party movement?

Could it be that your characterization of the Tea Party movement has to do with how they are characterized by the media sources you choose to watch and listen to?

[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.

there are "tea party" members who want a more aggressive foreign policy. we can't "unite" under anything unless the phony tea party members drop the label and quit pretending to be grassroots.

Enact the platform of the Tea Party, the phonies will have no choice

What platform?

There IS no platform, only lots of people who think their ideas are "the platform".

stick.
Less borrowing, less spedning, less taxes, balanced budgets.

If you are going to run interference, at least be good at it.

[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.

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?

?

Niether Obama nor most legislators are at the far extreme. They may act stupidly, nonsensically, etc. but they are not akin to the KKK grand wizard or the guy who bombs abortion clinics or the ones going out and committing suicide because their leader told them.....or any other extremes. Its possible an exception slipped through that I don't know about, but I doubt it.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm confused as to why the Tea Party movement is more dangerous than our existing parties (to you)? I understand why the Tea Party movement (at least some people in it) are dangerous to Republicans and Democrats (challenging the establishment and all that). But why do you find it more dangerous?

For what it's worth (which appears to be nothing), you have completely mischaracterized the Tea Party movement because, again, you don't know anything about the Tea Party movement.

Well, there is no point in answerig the second part, since you so disagree with my characterization. (if you believed it, I think the answer would be evident).

So, let's try this. Where is the official Tea Party. Where is the official list of Tea Party stands? And what makes the list you present more OK than the one any other person claiming the Tea Party name presents?

You say I don't understand, fine. Explain. That is, not your positions. (for the most part, I get what you have said about those), but an official Tea Party position.

There is no official Tea Party position clearly.

Exactly my point, but then you say I "don't understand" the Tea Party?

Answer my question - why is it more dangerous than the Republicans or Democrats?

Not sure I directly compared them above.

What is most dangerous, right now, is that people are no longer willing to sit down and work things out. We have groups who are perfectly willing to let the US government default instead of giving even a little on their "points". That's not guts, its not "standing on principle", its stupidity. Its playing Russian Roullette with all of us!

The ones cheering this dissention on the strongest are those trying to claim the Tea Party. In fact, ANY time you see dissention, someone saying "this is it... and don't bother even trying to talk to me if you don't agree".. you see people waving Tea Party flags. This doesn't mean everyone claiming that title thinks that way. You don't. Some in my town do not. But, the ones causing the worst problems ARE flying the "tea party flag".

AND.. not only that, but whenever their views get challenged, the response is, almost universally.. well they don't really represent the Tea Party. Yet... like I just asked you, that is a lie, because the real truth is there is no Tea Party.

By the way, did you know that the Republican and Democrat Parties don't do background checks before they let people register? Did you know that a gun-toting racist can be a member of the Democrat Party? Did you know that an eco-terrorist can be a member of the Republican Party? Did you know that both can be members of the Tea Party movement?

Could it be that your characterization of the Tea Party movement has to do with how they are characterized by the media sources you choose to watch and listen to?

Your points are irrelevant. When a racist joins the democratic or Republican party, it is very clear they are not representing the party. When they try to bring a racist position in, they get chastized.. told "don't use our name in that!". There is disagreement, there are absolutely people who do it anyway, particularly in sympathetic communities. Even so, one can readily distinguish those idiots from "the party". You cannot in the Tea Party.

And, like I said... a lot of the worst "no compromise" idiots today fall under that Tea Party banner.. that is, try to claim it to some extent or another.

[Phatscotty]

Why you want to spend hours talking about something when it's crystal clear you don't have the first clue about the subject at hand is beyond me. other than misrepresenting, misinforming, and remaining ignorant about the platform, you are basically trolling.

There are a few issues every single Tea Partier agrees on. That's a solid platform.

[PLAYER57832]

Why you want to talk about something so bad when it's crystal clear you don't have the first clue about the subject at hand is beyond me. other than misrepresenting, misinforming, and remaining ignorant about the platform, you are basically trolling.

There are a few issues every single Tea Partier agrees on. That's a solid platform.

Funny, but your view and greekdog's differ incredibly.

[Phatscotty]

the solid platform is less spending less taxes, less borrowing, less government

[PLAYER57832]

the solid platform is less spending less taxes, less borrowing, less government

Meaningless without details.
And no, its not really "less taxes"... its less corporate taxes... and if it were truly less borrowing, then the idea of defaulting should terrify them, not make them cheer.

[Phatscotty]

the solid platform is less spending less taxes, less borrowing, less government

Meaningless without details.
if it were truly less borrowing, then the idea of defaulting should terrify them, not make them cheer.

It's not about defaulting, its about making cuts in spending/erasing the need to borrow so we do not run up the debt and have to raise the ceiling again in 9 months. The idea of defaulting is terrifying, which is why you should have no problem understanding that it's the Tea Party who wants to fix this, not just kick the can down the road and keep raising the debt ceiling.

It truly is about less borrowing. Whether you can understand that or not, the fact remains.

[PLAYER57832]

the solid platform is less spending less taxes, less borrowing, less government

Meaningless without details.
if it were truly less borrowing, then the idea of defaulting should terrify them, not make them cheer.

It's not about defaulting, its about making cuts in spending/erasing the need to borrow so we do not run up the debt and have to raise the ceiling again in 9 months. The idea of defaulting is terrifying, which is why you should have no problem understanding that it's the Tea Party who wants to fix this, not just kick the can down the road and keep raising the debt ceiling.

It truly is about less borrowing. Whether you can understand that or not, the fact remains.

It is about folks who won't compromise, spurred on in good part by folks claiming the "Tea Party" title. The rest is just rhetoric.

[Night Strike]

What is most dangerous, right now, is that people are no longer willing to sit down and work things out. We have groups who are perfectly willing to let the US government default instead of giving even a little on their "points". That's not guts, its not "standing on principle", its stupidity. Its playing Russian Roullette with all of us!

Continuing to spend trillions more dollars per year than we take in WILL kill our country. I'd rather play Russian Roulette with not extending our debt ceiling than guarantee our death through endless debt.

By the way, the idea that we would default on our debt is a stupid scare-tactic. We take in more than $2 trillion in taxes every year (and I don't think that counts Social Security, and maybe Medicare/Medicaid). We owe $212 billion in net interest on our current debt level. Therefore, all Congress has to do is re-appropriate the expenditures to pay off the interest FIRST and we won't default. It's a really novel idea.

[thegreekdog]

There is no official Tea Party position clearly.

Exactly my point, but then you say I "don't understand" the Tea Party?

As Phatscotty indicated, there are certain ideas that the Tea Party movement supports - less taxes, less government spending for example. These ideas are supposed to be supported by the Republican Party. However, as we have seen in at least the last few Republican presidencies and Republican Congresses, clearly the Republicans do not support less government spending. Therefore, the Tea Party movement was appropriate.

Answer my question - why is it more dangerous than the Republicans or Democrats?

Not sure I directly compared them above.

What is most dangerous, right now, is that people are no longer willing to sit down and work things out. We have groups who are perfectly willing to let the US government default instead of giving even a little on their "points". That's not guts, its not "standing on principle", its stupidity. Its playing Russian Roullette with all of us!

The ones cheering this dissention on the strongest are those trying to claim the Tea Party. In fact, ANY time you see dissention, someone saying "this is it... and don't bother even trying to talk to me if you don't agree".. you see people waving Tea Party flags. This doesn't mean everyone claiming that title thinks that way. You don't. Some in my town do not. But, the ones causing the worst problems ARE flying the "tea party flag".

AND.. not only that, but whenever their views get challenged, the response is, almost universally.. well they don't really represent the Tea Party. Yet... like I just asked you, that is a lie, because the real truth is there is no Tea Party.

Okay, I have some follow-up questions (to which I will provide my own answers before you provide yours):

(1) Why do we have people who are not willing to "work things out?" The answer, from my point of view, is that the people that are elected to Congress have not and continue to not represent the people that voted for them. The people elected to Congress do not do what their constituents want or what is best for their constituents; rather, the people elected to Congress do what their biggest donors want them to do. Therefore, when 90% of Congress is not representing their constituents, but is instead continuing to spend money, making small cuts instead of large ones, the constituents get angry. Instead of thinking about this as a Republican vs. Democrat thing (which is what you're doing), think of it as a constituent vs. government thing, which is what it is. When your elected officials stop listening to you, why should you "work things out" with them? Why should you continue to bend over when your representatives no longer represent you?

(2) Regarding the debt ceiling - Why is it bad if the US government defaults?

(3) Regarding the debt ceiling debate - Why are the Tea Party movement members (and their associated members) the group that must compromise? Why are you not railing against the people who want to raise the debt ceiling so that they may spend more money?!

(4) Why do you think Tea Party members won't discuss the Tea Party? It seems to me there are a number of frequent posters on this website who are perfectly willing to discuss their political views. I listen to a radio show every morning that discusses Tea Party type views (although the host is more libertarian). I have yet to see a comprehensive interview done by any major network with an actual, intelligent Tea Party representative. I mean you have a guy running for president who basically is the Tea Party yet I have not seen any substantive interview on any major network. All you (Player) hear about the Tea Party are the terms "radical," and "racist," and "anti-government," and "subversive."

See below for #5.

By the way, did you know that the Republican and Democrat Parties don't do background checks before they let people register? Did you know that a gun-toting racist can be a member of the Democrat Party? Did you know that an eco-terrorist can be a member of the Republican Party? Did you know that both can be members of the Tea Party movement?

Could it be that your characterization of the Tea Party movement has to do with how they are characterized by the media sources you choose to watch and listen to?

Your points are irrelevant. When a racist joins the democratic or Republican party, it is very clear they are not representing the party. When they try to bring a racist position in, they get chastized.. told "don't use our name in that!". There is disagreement, there are absolutely people who do it anyway, particularly in sympathetic communities. Even so, one can readily distinguish those idiots from "the party". You cannot in the Tea Party.

And, like I said... a lot of the worst "no compromise" idiots today fall under that Tea Party banner.. that is, try to claim it to some extent or another.

It's all a matter of perspective. For example, I think Nancy Pelosi is an idiot and some of the worst scum on Earth; yet she is widely respected and regarded. I think the president panders to whomever will get him elected; yet he is very widely respected and regarded. In any event...

(5) Why is the Tea Party movement the only group that is being uncompromising? Clearly your own political views have colored this argument. The Tea Party movement shouldn't have to compromise because it's not a political party in the same vein as the Republicans or Democrats. You think the Tea Party movement is the death of congeniality and compromise in politics? Oh please...

[BigBallinStalin]

Well the test is not just taking from an American standpoint, but an international one. They take the angle of "if it has existed at some point, we are including it in our left-right/libertarian-authoritarian scale." Which I think is the best angle, as it consideres every possible stance.

Notice how the democratic socialist Presidential candidate from 2004 (or 2008, don't remember) only registers as center-left.

I'm not concerned about the results. I was questioning the questions themselves. They tend to demonize business and trade.

For example:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

Either serve humanity or trans-national corporations? They portray the options as mutually exclusive, but it isn't, and small business are steadily accounting for a larger portion of international trade, so it's not just trans-national corporations and their interests being served.

There's plenty more questions like the one above that show the creators' bias.


That's what I mean by the test being biased. It will portray business and trade in a negative light, without mentioning how it actually helps people, and then the results will push you into somewhere in the left. I find that to be misleading and dishonest.

[PLAYER57832]

What is most dangerous, right now, is that people are no longer willing to sit down and work things out. We have groups who are perfectly willing to let the US government default instead of giving even a little on their "points". That's not guts, its not "standing on principle", its stupidity. Its playing Russian Roullette with all of us!

Continuing to spend trillions more dollars per year than we take in WILL kill our country. I'd rather play Russian Roulette with not extending our debt ceiling than guarantee our death through endless debt.

Then you don't understand what will happen.. you TRULY do not.

By the way, the idea that we would default on our debt is a stupid scare-tactic. We take in more than $2 trillion in taxes every year (and I don't think that counts Social Security, and maybe Medicare/Medicaid). We owe $212 billion in net interest on our current debt level. Therefore, all Congress has to do is re-appropriate the expenditures to pay off the interest FIRST and we won't default. It's a really novel idea.

Yes, you make clear that you DO NOT understand what is at stake, here. Even just the threat of a delay in payment will drive up interest rates for everyone in the country, make it immediately more expensive to borrow.

and, for the record, there was a deal, agreed to by Obama, Democrats and Republicans, which would have given a 4 trillion dollar savings. The Republicans agreed, but the next day backed out to their Tea Party -basis "no new taxes" garbage.

The taxes in question.. ONLY for the wealthiest. The cuts.. would have hit particularly the middle class and seniors.

[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?

?

Niether Obama nor most legislators are at the far extreme. They may act stupidly, nonsensically, etc. but they are not akin to the KKK grand wizard or the guy who bombs abortion clinics or the ones going out and committing suicide because their leader told them.....or any other extremes. Its possible an exception slipped through that I don't know about, but I doubt it.

Here's what you stated:

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.

Obama fits the above description of a fanatic pretty well. What is not radical about Obama's spending policies? The deficit gap has been increasingly become ginamormous, and such policies are being pushed during a recession. How unreasonable can one get?

At the very least, he can be characterized as a radical or unreasonable. Since his spending policies for a recession are unreasonable and he wants his will imposed, he can be labeled as a fanatic.

My main point is that you're oversimplifying, so please stop, kthx.