The Times is a well respected paper and while they may lean left...it is not far left, lets not get crazy here. Just because the baggers and the like keep pushing the political pendulum right doesnt mean the other side fails to exist. This political climate as a whole is making me f'ing sick lately because if anyone looks at things historically, far left right now is moderate 50 years ago and "middle of the road" right now wouldve been considered a G.Gordon Liddy Republican 25 years ago.
The Times, PBS, NPR-----Ever notice its anything "prize winning", "scholarly", or "thought provoking" the right tries to go after and vilify? I dont even want to make a partisan debate here and Im trying not to, and trying not to be nasty to you Beat but the idea and hearing it over and over from the talking heads and others alike just makes me sick. If its not Hannity or Boortz then its leftist and garbage. What a joke.
In human affairs, diametrically opposite principles are often equally true in the same time and place. This certainly applies to compromise. Compromise is, after all, one of the classic logical fallacies.
Let's put wicked at 0 and ethical at 10. Compromise is at 5, it's already as bad as it is good. For example, put tyranny at 0 and liberty at 10. Compromise, and you have half a tyranny. Worse yet, as soon as 5 becomes the norm, the forces of tyranny demand another compromise. Now you're three quarters enslaved. Somewhere round the fourth or fifth compromise, you can't even see liberty from there.
The problem with this is that everyone has their own definitions of 'liberty' and 'tyranny.'
For example, my definition of liberty means that I do not need to fear becoming someone else's slave (guaranteed by the 15th and 16th amendments), that my property rights are reasonably protected (by my state, which has recorded my property in its deeds), that the safety of my groundwater will be protected because state and federal laws prohibit my neighbor from burying toxic waste in my backyard; that the intellectual properties that earn me income are protected form unauthorized use by others due to federal copyright laws; that my personal liberty to live without fear of death is protected because my neighbor is not allowed to purchase a bazooka, anti-aircraft missile or Sherman tank to play with in his backyard; that I can feel reasonably free to buy food from a store knowing that federal laws protect it from being contaminated by substandard slaughtering and processing plants; that I have the liberty to vote without the fear of someone at a polling station turning me away for political reasons or making me pay a poll tax; that I have the liberty to apply for and win a job without the fear of discriminated against because of my race, creed, or religion, due to federal and state labor laws; that I have legal protection from police if my neighbor threatens to kill me, or steal from me, or enroach upon my own rights; that I have a justice system I can use to punish those whose illegal acts enroach upon my own liberty; that I have the freedom to buy anything in this country using a set of currency standardized by government; that I have the security of knowing that federal laws will prevent banks from stealing my deposits or investments (although it can't do anything to protect against losses due to market factors); that I have the freedom to raise my children in my own religion, without fearing that they will be indoctrinated in a religion I don't belong to by teachers and administrators; that I have the freedom to write and publish just about anything I want, including horrendously vile racist, anti-semitic, misogynistic and violent garbage, short of tracts advocating the overthrow of the country, without fearing that my neighbors, community or state governments will suppress it, because of the first amendement; that I have the liberty of trial by a jury of my peers and habeus corpus, rather than being subjected to a lynch mob or a kangaroo court, courtesy of the sixth amendment; that I have the liberty to enjoy certian natural wilderness areas without having to worry that they will be raped by energy companies, miners, and strip mall developers, courtesy of federal land protection policies.
So, you know, everyone's definition of liberty and tyranny is different. Even a libertarian like Thomas Jefferson became a semi-federalist when president by authorizing the Louisiana purchases and changing his mind about utilizing a federal banking system.
But, it's a big ol' world out there, and free for views of all kinds. Politically, your mileage may vary.
The Times is a well respected paper and while they may lean left...it is not far left, lets not get crazy here. Just because the baggers and the like keep pushing the political pendulum right doesnt mean the other side fails to exist. This political climate as a whole is making me f'ing sick lately because if anyone looks at things historically, far left right now is moderate 50 years ago and "middle of the road" right now wouldve been considered a G.Gordon Liddy Republican 25 years ago.
That's about how I see it. The Times is a left of center moderate paper, just as the Wall St. Journal is a right of center moderate paper. Personally, I think most of America is somewhere between these two moderate, centrist voices.
FYI, far left and far right are exactly where they used to be, because the political spectrum is actually static. Political parties move along the spectrum, but, just like a thermometer reading is constant, the spectrum itself doesn't change. All that has changed is the amount of propaganda trying to convince people that far right is actually center, and that left of center moderates are Marxists.
In human affairs, diametrically opposite principles are often equally true in the same time and place. This certainly applies to compromise. Compromise is, after all, one of the classic logical fallacies.
Let's put wicked at 0 and ethical at 10. Compromise is at 5, it's already as bad as it is good. For example, put tyranny at 0 and liberty at 10. Compromise, and you have half a tyranny. Worse yet, as soon as 5 becomes the norm, the forces of tyranny demand another compromise. Now you're three quarters enslaved. Somewhere round the fourth or fifth compromise, you can't even see liberty from there.
The problem with this is that everyone has their own definitions of 'liberty' and 'tyranny.'
For example, my definition of liberty means that I do not need to fear becoming someone else's slave (guaranteed by the 15th and 16th amendments), that my property rights are reasonably protected (by my state, which has recorded my property in its deeds), that the safety of my groundwater will be protected because state and federal laws prohibit my neighbor from burying toxic waste in my backyard; that the intellectual properties that earn me income are protected form unauthorized use by others due to federal copyright laws; that my personal liberty to live without fear of death is protected because my neighbor is not allowed to purchase a bazooka, anti-aircraft missile or Sherman tank to play with in his backyard; that I can feel reasonably free to buy food from a store knowing that federal laws protect it from being contaminated by substandard slaughtering and processing plants; that I have the liberty to vote without the fear of someone at a polling station turning me away for political reasons or making me pay a poll tax; that I have the liberty to apply for and win a job without the fear of discriminated against because of my race, creed, or religion, due to federal and state labor laws; that I have legal protection from police if my neighbor threatens to kill me, or steal from me, or enroach upon my own rights; that I have a justice system I can use to punish those whose illegal acts enroach upon my own liberty; that I have the freedom to buy anything in this country using a set of currency standardized by government; that I have the security of knowing that federal laws will prevent banks from stealing my deposits or investments (although it can't do anything to protect against losses due to market factors); that I have the freedom to raise my children in my own religion, without fearing that they will be indoctrinated in a religion I don't belong to by teachers and administrators; that I have the freedom to write and publish just about anything I want, including horrendously vile racist, anti-semitic, misogynistic and violent garbage, short of tracts advocating the overthrow of the country, without fearing that my neighbors, community or state governments will suppress it, because of the first amendement; that I have the liberty of trial by a jury of my peers and habeus corpus, rather than being subjected to a lynch mob or a kangaroo court, courtesy of the sixth amendment; that I have the liberty to enjoy certian natural wilderness areas without having to worry that they will be raped by energy companies, miners, and strip mall developers, courtesy of federal land protection policies.
So, you know, everyone's definition of liberty and tyranny is different. Even a libertarian like Thomas Jefferson became a semi-federalist when president by authorizing the Louisiana purchases and changing his mind about utilizing a federal banking system.
But, it's a big ol' world out there, and free for views of all kinds. Politically, your mileage may vary.
The Congress of our Republic was designed by intention to be a deliberative body that would employ compromise in the construction of law. Without compromise our democratic Republic does not function as intended. That is why I am convinced the Tea Party does not believe in our form of government. Because they are uncompromising, if they can't get 100% of everything they demand, then nothing will get done, and since much of the Tea Party is driven by a fundamental hatred of Mr. Obama, they have chosen to block anything he wants to do, regardless of repercussions. The Tea Party just doesn't know how to govern. They are very good at behaving like right wing raido jocks, but that's not govering. They offer an exercise in destructive nhilism, not representative democracy.
Approval ratings for Congress have never, ever been lower, and I place the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Tea Party. Only time will tell if they will wake up and face reality, or just be swept out of Congress, because the American People aren't going to tolerate this dysfunction very much longer.
JDH. Why do they scare you? Why don't you just compromise with the members of the Tea Party? You'll like them. Just give them half of what they want. You'll see. Then they'll like you.
The Tea Party does not scare me. It doesn't matter if I compromise with them because I'm not in Congress. I'm a private citizen, and I don't care if they like me or not. I want my government to work, and I believe they are there to insure that it does not work. If they continue to behave as they have, they won't be in Congress much longer, which will suit me just fine.
I've provided you with their mission statement. It doesn't mention anything about not wanting government to work. Where did you get that from? Perhaps your sources aren't representing them correctly. By the way, our progressive President was supposed to deliver his budget to the Congress the other day and he did not. The Senate haven't provided a budget in 5 years. Now, exactly who is obstructing the government from working?
You are entitled to your opinions. I do not share them. I am pointing out that there is growing concern within the Republican Party about what the Tea Party is doing. I am convinced that unless the Tea Party quits being the party of uncompromising obstructionism, and continues to conduct primary campaigns that unseats people like Senator Luger, only to be defeated in the general election because the Tea Party candidate is just not electable, then they will just get swept out of office. The powers that be in many Republican circles are not just concerned, they aren't going to tolerate these antics. You'll notice the topic is "Bad News for the Tea Party", because that's what I am seeing right now. Personally, I think that bad news for the Tea Party is good news for the American People, but that's just my opinion.
The powers that be in the Republican Party are part of the problem. And the big money that they get is part of the problem. The Tea Party is more grass roots. And truth be told, what you are really seeing is an article from the New York Times (far left) trying to create controversy within their opponents' ranks and using folks like you to echo their words. JMO
Yea, the Tea Party is grass roots, funded by salt of the earth guys like the Koch billionaires. If the people in charge of the Tea Party continue to see things the way you do, well, I will be very happy to see them go the way of the carrier pidgeon. In fact, I am predicting that, just as the old Dixie Rat party was a reactionary response to the Civil Rights Movement, and burned out quickly, so is the Tea Party a reactionary response to the election of the first African-American President, and to his signature legislation; The Affordable Care Act. I don't expect the Tea Party to last any longer than the Dixie Rats did.
The Congress of our Republic was designed by intention to be a deliberative body that would employ compromise in the construction of law. Without compromise our democratic Republic does not function as intended. That is why I am convinced the Tea Party does not believe in our form of government. Because they are uncompromising, if they can't get 100% of everything they demand, then nothing will get done, and since much of the Tea Party is driven by a fundamental hatred of Mr. Obama, they have chosen to block anything he wants to do, regardless of repercussions. The Tea Party just doesn't know how to govern. They are very good at behaving like right wing raido jocks, but that's not govering. They offer an exercise in destructive nhilism, not representative democracy.
Approval ratings for Congress have never, ever been lower, and I place the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Tea Party. Only time will tell if they will wake up and face reality, or just be swept out of Congress, because the American People aren't going to tolerate this dysfunction very much longer.
JDH. Why do they scare you? Why don't you just compromise with the members of the Tea Party? You'll like them. Just give them half of what they want. You'll see. Then they'll like you.
The Tea Party does not scare me. It doesn't matter if I compromise with them because I'm not in Congress. I'm a private citizen, and I don't care if they like me or not. I want my government to work, and I believe they are there to insure that it does not work. If they continue to behave as they have, they won't be in Congress much longer, which will suit me just fine.
I've provided you with their mission statement. It doesn't mention anything about not wanting government to work. Where did you get that from? Perhaps your sources aren't representing them correctly. By the way, our progressive President was supposed to deliver his budget to the Congress the other day and he did not. The Senate haven't provided a budget in 5 years. Now, exactly who is obstructing the government from working?
You are entitled to your opinions. I do not share them. I am pointing out that there is growing concern within the Republican Party about what the Tea Party is doing. I am convinced that unless the Tea Party quits being the party of uncompromising obstructionism, and continues to conduct primary campaigns that unseats people like Senator Luger, only to be defeated in the general election because the Tea Party candidate is just not electable, then they will just get swept out of office. The powers that be in many Republican circles are not just concerned, they aren't going to tolerate these antics. You'll notice the topic is "Bad News for the Tea Party", because that's what I am seeing right now. Personally, I think that bad news for the Tea Party is good news for the American People, but that's just my opinion.
The powers that be in the Republican Party are part of the problem. And the big money that they get is part of the problem. The Tea Party is more grass roots. And truth be told, what you are really seeing is an article from the New York Times (far left) trying to create controversy within their opponents' ranks and using folks like you to echo their words. JMO
Yea, the Tea Party is grass roots, funded by salt of the earth guys like the Koch billionaires. If the people in charge of the Tea Party continue to see things the way you do, well, I will be very happy to see them go the way of the carrier pidgeon. In fact, I am predicting that, just as the old Dixie Rat party was a reactionary response to the Civil Rights Movement, and burned out quickly, so is the Tea Party a reactionary response to the election of the first African-American President, and to his signature legislation; The Affordable Care Act. I don't expect the Tea Party to last any longer than the Dixie Rats did.
The Dixiecrats actually broke away from the Democratic Party. The Tea Party is a grass roots effort operating within the Republican Party. They try to distinguish themselves from the Rinos (the ones who keep falling for the compromise trick). And by the way, who are the leaders of the Tea Party. I can't name one. There are many, hence grass roots. And I think therein lies the difference between the left and right. I respond to issues and values and platforms and not on personalities. The left seems to be influenced by emotions and their leaders' images. You gotta admit, the Pres really plays up to that camera. Funding from rich guys? Can you say George Soros, the marxist devil himself? We'll see what happens in the future. And it really doesn't matter to me who is in office, because I will still hold to my core beliefs and vote for the lesser of 2 evils.JMO
the Tea Party a reactionary response to the election of the first African-American President, and to his signature legislation; The Affordable Care Act. I don't expect the Tea Party to last any longer than the Dixie Rats did.
This is a bit of a derail, but I've always wondered why liberals insist on the term "African-American".
Let's be honest here - you don't call the President African-American with your friends any more than I do or anymore than the Congressional Black Congress does - we all say he's black.
I've never met a black guy who's offended by being called black, but I've known some African-Americans as friends (read: Ghana/Nigeria immigrants) who get mightily offended by being called African-American, wanting only to be called an American. They sincerely don't like being singled out/referred to like that. Yet the term is considered politically correct when referencing native born black Americans. Something I've never really understood as anything more than PC run amok
I'll leave the argument "The only reason ppl hate Obama is because of his skin color" for another day
I find it interesting that compromise is always directed to the right as if something about leftist ideas is somehow pure and those who claim to be compassionate liberals are the first to use slurs against those who disagree with them and descend into name calling. The entire political system in this country has disentegrated into corruption and we are debating "principles"? What a laugh! I just finished preparing my tax return and my own nation disgusts me at the waste of honest money that takes place here. There is no political and little personal responsibility left.
"...Let's be honest here - you don't call the President African-American with your friends any more than I do or anymore than the Congressional Black Congress does - we all say he's black. ..."
Xmacro, you are free to speak for yourself, but you are not free to speak for me. I DO refer to him as an African-American, both in public and with my friends. I consider it an expression of respect. Until you know who you are talking about, I'd suggest not making assumptions about that person, because you are very likely to be wrong.
self-censorship
noun /?self'sent .s?.??p//-s?-/
control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary
Didn't think I'd find someone who self-censors outside certain countries. Go figure.
My crew at the manufacturing plant is 65% black and none of them call each other African-American, just saying! I just call them by their name and/or nickname and everyone seems good with that. The best of the nicknames of my darker employees are Chuck (we have two of them and those names were given by whites to them), Chick Wayne, Living Dead, Bigfoot, Coop, and OP. My point is artificially seperating people with hyphenated names is not necessary when they all just see each other as co-workers. So what do they call me? The General, Big Guy, Boss, Cheese, Big Daddy and last but not least, Brother. It works for me!
It's the stupidity, stupid. That's essentially the warning to fellow Republicans from party heavyweights like former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
At a gathering Thursday of the Republican National Committee (RNC) in Charlotte, N.C., Governor Jindal a potential presidential candidate in 2016 called on the GOP to "stop being the stupid party." "I'm serious," he added. "Its time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.... It's no secret we had a number of Republicans that damaged the brand [last] year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say weve had enough of that."
Mr. Barbour, a former RNC chairman, made essentially the same charge Friday on "CBS This Morning," saying comments about rape and abortion in the past election cycle from several Republican Senate candidates hurt the entire party. "The comments they made were stupid comments, offensive comments, and in todays world when a candidate in one state says something, the negative effect of that can spill over to other candidates," he said.
Both men were referring to the much-publicized, and much-derided, remarks of former Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri ("if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down") and former Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock ("even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen").
The Congress of our Republic was designed by intention to be a deliberative body that would employ compromise in the construction of law. Without compromise our democratic Republic does not function as intended. That is why I am convinced the Tea Party does not believe in our form of government. Because they are uncompromising, if they can't get 100% of everything they demand, then nothing will get done, and since much of the Tea Party is driven by a fundamental hatred of Mr. Obama, they have chosen to block anything he wants to do, regardless of repercussions. The Tea Party just doesn't know how to govern. They are very good at behaving like right wing raido jocks, but that's not govering. They offer an exercise in destructive nhilism, not representative democracy.
Approval ratings for Congress have never, ever been lower, and I place the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Tea Party. Only time will tell if they will wake up and face reality, or just be swept out of Congress, because the American People aren't going to tolerate this dysfunction very much longer.
JDH. Why do they scare you? Why don't you just compromise with the members of the Tea Party? You'll like them. Just give them half of what they want. You'll see. Then they'll like you.
The Tea Party does not scare me. It doesn't matter if I compromise with them because I'm not in Congress. I'm a private citizen, and I don't care if they like me or not. I want my government to work, and I believe they are there to insure that it does not work. If they continue to behave as they have, they won't be in Congress much longer, which will suit me just fine.
I've provided you with their mission statement. It doesn't mention anything about not wanting government to work. Where did you get that from? Perhaps your sources aren't representing them correctly. By the way, our progressive President was supposed to deliver his budget to the Congress the other day and he did not. The Senate haven't provided a budget in 5 years. Now, exactly who is obstructing the government from working?
You are entitled to your opinions. I do not share them. I am pointing out that there is growing concern within the Republican Party about what the Tea Party is doing. I am convinced that unless the Tea Party quits being the party of uncompromising obstructionism, and continues to conduct primary campaigns that unseats people like Senator Luger, only to be defeated in the general election because the Tea Party candidate is just not electable, then they will just get swept out of office. The powers that be in many Republican circles are not just concerned, they aren't going to tolerate these antics. You'll notice the topic is "Bad News for the Tea Party", because that's what I am seeing right now. Personally, I think that bad news for the Tea Party is good news for the American People, but that's just my opinion.
The powers that be in the Republican Party are part of the problem. And the big money that they get is part of the problem. The Tea Party is more grass roots. And truth be told, what you are really seeing is an article from the New York Times (far left) trying to create controversy within their opponents' ranks and using folks like you to echo their words. JMO
That is not true. While I'm sure some people in the tea party are actually every day joes who at one "time" believed in some of the stuff they have advocated for (the teaparty) however the "tea party" or "tea baggers" as they once called themselves is not a grass roots organization. It was funded by american crossroads, american's for prosperity and other organizations greatly funded by Carl Rove and the Koch Brothers. This is no secret. Corporate money being used to manipulate people.
Totally unlike, for example, the Democratic Party, which strictly eschews all such contributions .
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Totally unlike, for example, the Democratic Party, which strictly eschews all such contributions .
All political candidates are now compelled to take contributions - especially after the Citizens United decision which may well eliminate our democratic elections.
The Congress of our Republic was designed by intention to be a deliberative body that would employ compromise in the construction of law. Without compromise our democratic Republic does not function as intended. That is why I am convinced the Tea Party does not believe in our form of government. Because they are uncompromising, if they can't get 100% of everything they demand, then nothing will get done, and since much of the Tea Party is driven by a fundamental hatred of Mr. Obama, they have chosen to block anything he wants to do, regardless of repercussions. The Tea Party just doesn't know how to govern. They are very good at behaving like right wing raido jocks, but that's not govering. They offer an exercise in destructive nhilism, not representative democracy.
Approval ratings for Congress have never, ever been lower, and I place the blame for that squarely at the feet of the Tea Party. Only time will tell if they will wake up and face reality, or just be swept out of Congress, because the American People aren't going to tolerate this dysfunction very much longer.
JDH. Why do they scare you? Why don't you just compromise with the members of the Tea Party? You'll like them. Just give them half of what they want. You'll see. Then they'll like you.
The Tea Party does not scare me. It doesn't matter if I compromise with them because I'm not in Congress. I'm a private citizen, and I don't care if they like me or not. I want my government to work, and I believe they are there to insure that it does not work. If they continue to behave as they have, they won't be in Congress much longer, which will suit me just fine.
I've provided you with their mission statement. It doesn't mention anything about not wanting government to work. Where did you get that from? Perhaps your sources aren't representing them correctly. By the way, our progressive President was supposed to deliver his budget to the Congress the other day and he did not. The Senate haven't provided a budget in 5 years. Now, exactly who is obstructing the government from working?
You are entitled to your opinions. I do not share them. I am pointing out that there is growing concern within the Republican Party about what the Tea Party is doing. I am convinced that unless the Tea Party quits being the party of uncompromising obstructionism, and continues to conduct primary campaigns that unseats people like Senator Luger, only to be defeated in the general election because the Tea Party candidate is just not electable, then they will just get swept out of office. The powers that be in many Republican circles are not just concerned, they aren't going to tolerate these antics. You'll notice the topic is "Bad News for the Tea Party", because that's what I am seeing right now. Personally, I think that bad news for the Tea Party is good news for the American People, but that's just my opinion.
The powers that be in the Republican Party are part of the problem. And the big money that they get is part of the problem. The Tea Party is more grass roots. And truth be told, what you are really seeing is an article from the New York Times (far left) trying to create controversy within their opponents' ranks and using folks like you to echo their words. JMO
That is not true. While I'm sure some people in the tea party are actually every day joes who at one "time" believed in some of the stuff they have advocated for (the teaparty) however the "tea party" or "tea baggers" as they once called themselves is not a grass roots organization. It was funded by american crossroads, american's for prosperity and other organizations greatly funded by Carl Rove and the Koch Brothers. This is no secret. Corporate money being used to manipulate people.
I'm pretty sure the term "tea baggers" was a derogatory one used by the left. And the Koch Brothers fund lots of conservative candidates and causes. (can you say George Soros). The tea Party might have some wealthy donors now, but you can't point to any one person or group for starting it. Each of the individual state/county organizations are run by the local members. Demean them all you want. That's what the left does. And, for a full disclosure here, I've never been to a Tea Party, and am not a member of it or the Republican Party. However, to an open eye, and an honest interpretation of the Constitution, these guys have a better understanding of what makes this country great better than most. JMO
I am expecting to see a full split between the Republican Party and the Tea Party. Their interests are just too diverse for the two to remain "united". Evidence of this can be found in the fact that Rand Paul will be giving a Tea Party "response" to the Presidents State of the Union address, while Marco Rubio is offering a Republican "response".
If there is a split, I predict that the Tea Party will own the far right, and all the nutters out there in that world. If the Republicans are smart, they will re-form themselves into a centrist, right of center party that would be fiscally conservative and socially tolerant, or libertarian (however you want to look at it), with a possible alignment with the "no lables" movement. If they did that, they would be in office for the next hundred years, because I believe that's where the US majority really is. Unfortunately for the Republicans, it will take a considerable amount of time to accomplish this, and during that time, expect to see Democrats win more and more elections. Good job, Tea Party!
Let the Tea Party flail around on the far right fringes preaching Social Darwinist economic purity, anti- immigrant, anti-"minority" populations, along with anti-gay and and mysoginistic dogma mixed with a heavy dose of States Right confederacy and hatred of the Federal Government. That's not where the majority of the US is, and it never will be will be.
Totally unlike, for example, the Democratic Party, which strictly eschews all such contributions .
All political candidates are now compelled to take contributions - especially after the Citizens United decision which may well eliminate our democratic elections.
Eggs Ackley.
Rather than trying to attack the Tea Party via guilt by association with an unavoidable donor, or via guilt by association with some talking head who you don't like on a radio station you don't need to listen to... instead try grasping the truth of their thesis. Lay off those guys and open your ears. It's the same with Occupy. Instead of attacking them for their unkempt moonbeam airhead lunacy, grasp their central truth.
We are Taxed Enough Already.
The 99% ought not be serfs of the 1%
Both are right.
Government bleeds us dry to fund far too many broken projects which are too intrusive, too wasteful, too stupid, too wicked, too often already proven doomed to failure, always preferential to special interest. The answer is not to collect more taxes to waste stupidly on wicked failed special interests. That's like a Victorian doctor bleeding his anaemic patient. He ain't going to get any better that way, Doc. The only answer is less profligate spending -- not more. You can throw money at Asscrackistan from now until the camels come home and those knuckleheads still won't crawl out of the eighth century. All that happens is, the Military Industrial Complex gets fat. Same principle applies to War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Carbon, you name it. It ain't working. Stop it. Knock it off.
This is where modern Liberals and Conservatives both have their heads up where the sun don't shine. The days when a rational person can in any way pretend that if you throw government money at it a problem it will go away have come and gone. It does not work.
When you're broke, Cut Back.
I think it a shame that the other extreme couldn't get their poop all in a poke to have an effect the same way the Tea Party did. Their thesis is equally true: The 99% ought not be serfs to the 1%. The solution is not to appoint more Goldman Sachs execs to the cabinet, not to appoint Covington Burling to Attorney General, not unlimited largesse to Wall Street and Too Big to Jail. Not 450 million hollow point rounds and half tracks for DHS, not a fleet of drones overhead, but fair play for all. I don't care who funds Occupy nor what radio jock talks them up. They do have a point.
The Establishment is well-funded. They rape you and I for funding.
I'd much rather see twenty Tea Party senators and twenty Occupy senators jamming up the works rather than the continual wall to wall donor bought unprincipled compromisers who have brought us to this mess. Time to listen to the truth on both extremes. Time to stop compromising. Time for principles.
Hope and Change, not Hype and Chains.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
Totally unlike, for example, the Democratic Party, which strictly eschews all such contributions .
All political candidates are now compelled to take contributions - especially after the Citizens United decision which may well eliminate our democratic elections.
Eggs Ackley.
Rather than trying to attack the Tea Party via guilt by association with an unavoidable donor, or via guilt by association with some talking head who you don't like on a radio station you don't need to listen to... instead try grasping the truth of their thesis. Lay off those guys and open your ears. It's the same with Occupy. Instead of attacking them for their unkempt moonbeam airhead lunacy, grasp their central truth.
We are Taxed Enough Already.
The 99% ought not be serfs of the 1%
Both are right.
Government bleeds us dry to fund far too many broken projects which are too intrusive, too wasteful, too stupid, too wicked, too often already proven doomed to failure, always preferential to special interest. The answer is not to collect more taxes to waste stupidly on wicked failed special interests. That's like a Victorian doctor bleeding his anaemic patient. He ain't going to get any better that way, Doc. The only answer is less profligate spending -- not more. You can throw money at Asscrackistan from now until the camels come home and those knuckleheads still won't crawl out of the eighth century. All that happens is, the Military Industrial Complex gets fat. Same principle applies to War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Carbon, you name it. It ain't working. Stop it. Knock it off.
This is where modern Liberals and Conservatives both have their heads up where the sun don't shine. The days when a rational person can in any way pretend that if you throw government money at it a problem it will go away have come and gone. It does not work.
When you're broke, Cut Back.
I think it a shame that the other extreme couldn't get their poop all in a poke to have an effect the same way the Tea Party did. Their thesis is equally true: The 99% ought not be serfs to the 1%. The solution is not to appoint more Goldman Sachs execs to the cabinet, not to appoint Covington Burling to Attorney General, not unlimited largesse to Wall Street and Too Big to Jail. Not 450 million hollow point rounds and half tracks for DHS, not a fleet of drones overhead, but fair play for all. I don't care who funds Occupy nor what radio jock talks them up. They do have a point.
The Establishment is well-funded. They rape you and I for funding.
I'd much rather see twenty Tea Party senators and twenty Occupy senators jamming up the works rather than the continual wall to wall donor bought unprincipled compromisers who have brought us to this mess. Time to listen to the truth on both extremes. Time to stop compromising. Time for principles.
Hope and Change, not Hype and Chains.
"...The 99% ought not be serfs to the 1%. The solution is not to appoint more Goldman Sachs execs to the cabinet, not to appoint Covington Burling to Attorney General, not unlimited largesse to Wall Street and Too Big to Jail. Not 450 million hollow point rounds and half tracks for DHS, not a fleet of drones overhead, but fair play for all. I don't care who funds Occupy nor what radio jock talks them up. They do have a point. ..."
I agree with much of this, but I also believe your view of fiscal policy, the role of government in a capitalistic society, and how our form of government should function is nihilistic, based on inaccurate assumptions, and Social Darwinism. You are advocating destruction, obstruction, and a pathway to third world status for the US because you want to prevent our representative democracy from working as designed. You are proposing that the extremes should prevent government from functioning, in order to be "pure" in the pursuit of "truth". Our form of government was never designed to function this way. It is, by design, built on the idea of compromise. Without compromise and deliberative consensus, our Republic of representative democracy does not function, and that is exactly what you advocate.
I also believe that is exactly why the Tea Party will fail. Americans want the Congress to work cooperatively, not to continue this stupid obstructionism in the name of "purity".
JDH - your new use of the term Social Darwinism has me flummoxed.
from wiki
"Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones".
Now I ask you. Which party tends to segregate the society into different factions most? The Democratic side is often legislating separate laws for separate groups (women, gays, blacks, hispanics, native Americans, etc.). They continuously vie for their share of the pot. The Tea Party echoes the founding fathers' ideas of ALL of us being Americans. Same laws, same rules, same opportunities, etc. I hate when liberals change the meaning of things.
JDH - your new use of the term Social Darwinism has me flummoxed.
from wiki
"Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones".
Now I ask you. Which party tends to segregate the society into different factions most? The Democratic side is often legislating separate laws for separate groups (women, gays, blacks, hispanics, native Americans, etc.). They continuously vie for their share of the pot. The Tea Party echoes the founding fathers' ideas of ALL of us being Americans. Same laws, same rules, same opportunities, etc. I hate when liberals change the meaning of things.
I don't agree with your assumptions or your conclusions, mainly because I don't believe they are rooted in fact. I would suggest you read up on Herbert Spencer (the founder of Social Darwinism, which is the application of evolutionary theory to capitalist economics). He coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", believed that government should never interfere in capital markets, and said that when the poor die, society is benefited because they are inherently weak. He believed that the natural order of capitalist economics required the strong to crush the weak, because that would make for a stronger, healthier society.
His was one of the most influential voices during the Irish potato famine when millions starved to death. He advocated that government must not interfere with the starvation because he argued that it was an economic problem, and the poor had brought these conditions on themselves, and it would be wrong to expect the wealthy (Protestants) to assist the poor. During the entire famine, Ireland EXPORTED FOOD while almost 1/3 of the population (Catholic) perished; starved with their mouths green from eating grass. When the famine ended, the Noble gentry (Protestants) assumed control of the lands recently vacated by the dead. The strong crushed the weak; in a country of 9 million, 3 milllion starved and 1 million fled, while the strong profited from the suffering.
One only has to study the working conditions and living standards that prevailed during the Industrial Revolution to understand what Social Darwinism did to working class people in Europe and the United States, and why there was radical social change in reaction to the effect of Social Darwinism at the begining of the 20th Century. Today, Social Darwinism has a shiny new coat; it's called Globalization, but it still is allowing European and American capitalists to treat workers in China, India, Vietnam, Mexico, and other "developing" countries to the same kinds of working and living standards that were prevelant during the Industrial Revolution. The economic pressures from globalism on our own working class is huge, and if not checked, we could well see similar working and living conditions return to the US, encouraged and supported by the Tea Party because they consistently advocate for completely unregulated capital markets and businesses. That's the libertarianism of the Koch boys.
Ayn Rand was influenced by Mr. Spencer, and her novels are filled with Social Darwinist ideology. The Tea Party admires Ms. Rand and holds her writings up as a terrific model of capitalist economic theory. I do not, and reject her as being outright anti-Christian and cruel.
"...The Tea Party echoes the founding fathers' ideas of ALL of us being Americans. ..."
Except many of the Founding Fathers had slaves, and considered them to have fewer rights than their horses, and even wrote laws against interracial "cohabitation", which most of them broke anyway. Women weren't allowed to vote until the 1920's, either, so I really don't think the founding fathers had a good idea of us ALL being Americans. They moved the ball forward as far as they could, and left it up to future generations to build on their foundation. If you want to go back to the 1790's, you can count me out.
The American Revolution was, I believe, one of the finest expressions of liberality in human history. Benjamin Franklin might well be known as our First Liberal, and I would also suggest to you that liberals have been advocating that the groups you mention be allowed equal protection under the law with everybody else for a long time. Liberals have been fighting segregation in this country since the 1850's; the Abolitionists were liberals, the Party of Lincoln was a liberal Party then, and it was liberal Democrats and Republicans who finally ended the American aparthied of Jim Crow in the 1960's.
In short, I think it would be safe to say that liberals have been expanding personal liberty since 1776, and may God bless them every one for their efforts.
If you advised a 900 pound man to lose 600, does that mean you advocate bulimia?
Stop using labels to close your mind.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
If you advised a 900 pound man to lose 600, does that mean you advocate bulimia?
Stop using labels to close your mind.
As I've said before, I do not share your views on economics, nor do I accept your metaphors as being either accurate or appropriate. Furthermore, since you are not the boss of me, I dont think I will stop using terms that you deem unacceptable for reasons you define.
Nihilism is the belief that established authority is corrupt and must be destroyed in order to rebuild a just society. That sounds exactly like what Tea Party advocates are trying to accomplish, especially in regards to the Republican Party, and our Federal Government.
The Tea Party has consistently and rigidly insisted that the US follow Europe in the application of austerity drastic cuts in spending in order to lower national deficits, with no new revenues. However, in Europe, austerity has not produced the desired results. Instead it has created higher deficits, higher unemployment rates and slower economic growth.
I view this approach as nihilistic a deliberately destructive approach to solving the deficit problem that is rooted, not in sound economic theory, but in a desire to destroy the influence of government (and government itself) along with social programs like Social Security and Medicare and food stamps, The Affordable Care Act, etc. and a willingness to use the economic crisis as an excuse to accomplish those goals .
European "austerity" can easily be compared to the constraints Germany was was forced to concede to after WW1, which led to a complete collapse of their currency and economy, with unemployment levels that led to social unrest. While not nearly as severe as the Treaty of Versailles, but similar in structure and effect, the application of austerity by Germany on economically weaker states today is completely ironic. It can also be argued that the Treaty of Versailles was a nhilistic approach toward Germany, designed more to punish than to solve anything.
I am actually surprised that Europe has not adopted more of a "Marshall Plan" approach, whereby bad debt in war ravaged Europe was completely written off, and government stimulus was provided which allowed Europe to rise from the ashes of WWII to become the economic powerhouse it is today.
I would prefer to see a more balanced approach to our deficit problem, than what the Tea Party offers; one that incorporates a combination of both spending cuts and increased revenues (taxes) designed, not to slow economic growth, but to increase growth and lower unemployment so that revenues will be increased - just as they were during the Clinton Administration.
Additionally, the use of obstructionism and filibuster to prevent government from working is, in my view, a nihilistic approach to the function of government.
2 : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
2 : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
If you advised a 900 pound man to lose 600, does that mean you advocate bulimia?
Stop using labels to close your mind.
As I've said before, I do not share your views on economics, nor do I accept your metaphors as being either accurate or appropriate. Furthermore, since you are not the boss of me, I dont think I will stop using terms that you deem unacceptable for reasons you define.
Closed.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
2 : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
ya learn some *** every day.
good lookin out
Don't fall for that, spend some time reading about Nihilism and you get a better sense of how it is being twisted by some in an attempt to apply it where it does not fit.
2 : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
ya learn some *** every day.
good lookin out
Don't fall for that, spend some time reading about Nihilism and you get a better sense of how it is being twisted by some in an attempt to apply it where it does not fit.
it really is an accepted use of the word. the argument can be debated. ... but frankly i dont feel like debating it. some interesting points made in this thread. ive come to my own conclusion but sharing it here is pointless. its all pointless. im the Nihilist now.
Comments
For example, my definition of liberty means that I do not need to fear becoming someone else's slave (guaranteed by the 15th and 16th amendments), that my property rights are reasonably protected (by my state, which has recorded my property in its deeds), that the safety of my groundwater will be protected because state and federal laws prohibit my neighbor from burying toxic waste in my backyard; that the intellectual properties that earn me income are protected form unauthorized use by others due to federal copyright laws; that my personal liberty to live without fear of death is protected because my neighbor is not allowed to purchase a bazooka, anti-aircraft missile or Sherman tank to play with in his backyard; that I can feel reasonably free to buy food from a store knowing that federal laws protect it from being contaminated by substandard slaughtering and processing plants; that I have the liberty to vote without the fear of someone at a polling station turning me away for political reasons or making me pay a poll tax; that I have the liberty to apply for and win a job without the fear of discriminated against because of my race, creed, or religion, due to federal and state labor laws; that I have legal protection from police if my neighbor threatens to kill me, or steal from me, or enroach upon my own rights; that I have a justice system I can use to punish those whose illegal acts enroach upon my own liberty; that I have the freedom to buy anything in this country using a set of currency standardized by government; that I have the security of knowing that federal laws will prevent banks from stealing my deposits or investments (although it can't do anything to protect against losses due to market factors); that I have the freedom to raise my children in my own religion, without fearing that they will be indoctrinated in a religion I don't belong to by teachers and administrators; that I have the freedom to write and publish just about anything I want, including horrendously vile racist, anti-semitic, misogynistic and violent garbage, short of tracts advocating the overthrow of the country, without fearing that my neighbors, community or state governments will suppress it, because of the first amendement; that I have the liberty of trial by a jury of my peers and habeus corpus, rather than being subjected to a lynch mob or a kangaroo court, courtesy of the sixth amendment; that I have the liberty to enjoy certian natural wilderness areas without having to worry that they will be raped by energy companies, miners, and strip mall developers, courtesy of federal land protection policies.
So, you know, everyone's definition of liberty and tyranny is different. Even a libertarian like Thomas Jefferson became a semi-federalist when president by authorizing the Louisiana purchases and changing his mind about utilizing a federal banking system.
But, it's a big ol' world out there, and free for views of all kinds. Politically, your mileage may vary.
FYI, far left and far right are exactly where they used to be, because the political spectrum is actually static. Political parties move along the spectrum, but, just like a thermometer reading is constant, the spectrum itself doesn't change. All that has changed is the amount of propaganda trying to convince people that far right is actually center, and that left of center moderates are Marxists.
Funding from rich guys? Can you say George Soros, the marxist devil himself?
We'll see what happens in the future. And it really doesn't matter to me who is in office, because I will still hold to my core beliefs and vote for the lesser of 2 evils.JMO
Let's be honest here - you don't call the President African-American with your friends any more than I do or anymore than the Congressional Black Congress does - we all say he's black.
I've never met a black guy who's offended by being called black, but I've known some African-Americans as friends (read: Ghana/Nigeria immigrants) who get mightily offended by being called African-American, wanting only to be called an American. They sincerely don't like being singled out/referred to like that. Yet the term is considered politically correct when referencing native born black Americans. Something I've never really understood as anything more than PC run amok
I'll leave the argument "The only reason ppl hate Obama is because of his skin color" for another day
Xmacro, you are free to speak for yourself, but you are not free to speak for me. I DO refer to him as an African-American, both in public and with my friends. I consider it an expression of respect. Until you know who you are talking about, I'd suggest not making assumptions about that person, because you are very likely to be wrong.
noun /?self'sent .s?.??p//-s?-/
control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary
Didn't think I'd find someone who self-censors outside certain countries. Go figure.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Wire/2013/0125/The-stupid-party-Is-GOP-s-concern-what-s-said-or-how-it-s-said
Washington
It's the stupidity, stupid. That's essentially the warning to fellow Republicans from party heavyweights like former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
At a gathering Thursday of the Republican National Committee (RNC) in Charlotte, N.C., Governor Jindal a potential presidential candidate in 2016 called on the GOP to "stop being the stupid party." "I'm serious," he added. "Its time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults.... It's no secret we had a number of Republicans that damaged the brand [last] year with offensive and bizarre comments. I'm here to say weve had enough of that."
Mr. Barbour, a former RNC chairman, made essentially the same charge Friday on "CBS This Morning," saying comments about rape and abortion in the past election cycle from several Republican Senate candidates hurt the entire party. "The comments they made were stupid comments, offensive comments, and in todays world when a candidate in one state says something, the negative effect of that can spill over to other candidates," he said.
Both men were referring to the much-publicized, and much-derided, remarks of former Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri ("if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down") and former Indiana state Treasurer Richard Mourdock ("even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen").
That is not true. While I'm sure some people in the tea party are actually every day joes who at one "time" believed in some of the stuff they have advocated for (the teaparty) however the "tea party" or "tea baggers" as they once called themselves is not a grass roots organization. It was funded by american crossroads, american's for prosperity and other organizations greatly funded by Carl Rove and the Koch Brothers. This is no secret. Corporate money being used to manipulate people.
Totally unlike, for example, the Democratic Party, which strictly eschews all such contributions .
If there is a split, I predict that the Tea Party will own the far right, and all the nutters out there in that world. If the Republicans are smart, they will re-form themselves into a centrist, right of center party that would be fiscally conservative and socially tolerant, or libertarian (however you want to look at it), with a possible alignment with the "no lables" movement. If they did that, they would be in office for the next hundred years, because I believe that's where the US majority really is. Unfortunately for the Republicans, it will take a considerable amount of time to accomplish this, and during that time, expect to see Democrats win more and more elections. Good job, Tea Party!
Let the Tea Party flail around on the far right fringes preaching Social Darwinist economic purity, anti- immigrant, anti-"minority" populations, along with anti-gay and and mysoginistic dogma mixed with a heavy dose of States Right confederacy and hatred of the Federal Government. That's not where the majority of the US is, and it never will be will be.
Rather than trying to attack the Tea Party via guilt by association with an unavoidable donor, or via guilt by association with some talking head who you don't like on a radio station you don't need to listen to... instead try grasping the truth of their thesis. Lay off those guys and open your ears. It's the same with Occupy. Instead of attacking them for their unkempt moonbeam airhead lunacy, grasp their central truth.
We are Taxed Enough Already.
The 99% ought not be serfs of the 1%
Both are right.
Government bleeds us dry to fund far too many broken projects which are too intrusive, too wasteful, too stupid, too wicked, too often already proven doomed to failure, always preferential to special interest. The answer is not to collect more taxes to waste stupidly on wicked failed special interests. That's like a Victorian doctor bleeding his anaemic patient. He ain't going to get any better that way, Doc. The only answer is less profligate spending -- not more. You can throw money at Asscrackistan from now until the camels come home and those knuckleheads still won't crawl out of the eighth century. All that happens is, the Military Industrial Complex gets fat. Same principle applies to War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Carbon, you name it. It ain't working. Stop it. Knock it off.
This is where modern Liberals and Conservatives both have their heads up where the sun don't shine. The days when a rational person can in any way pretend that if you throw government money at it a problem it will go away have come and gone. It does not work.
When you're broke, Cut Back.
I think it a shame that the other extreme couldn't get their poop all in a poke to have an effect the same way the Tea Party did. Their thesis is equally true: The 99% ought not be serfs to the 1%. The solution is not to appoint more Goldman Sachs execs to the cabinet, not to appoint Covington Burling to Attorney General, not unlimited largesse to Wall Street and Too Big to Jail. Not 450 million hollow point rounds and half tracks for DHS, not a fleet of drones overhead, but fair play for all. I don't care who funds Occupy nor what radio jock talks them up. They do have a point.
The Establishment is well-funded. They rape you and I for funding.
I'd much rather see twenty Tea Party senators and twenty Occupy senators jamming up the works rather than the continual wall to wall donor bought unprincipled compromisers who have brought us to this mess. Time to listen to the truth on both extremes. Time to stop compromising. Time for principles.
Hope and Change, not Hype and Chains.
I agree with much of this, but I also believe your view of fiscal policy, the role of government in a capitalistic society, and how our form of government should function is nihilistic, based on inaccurate assumptions, and Social Darwinism. You are advocating destruction, obstruction, and a pathway to third world status for the US because you want to prevent our representative democracy from working as designed. You are proposing that the extremes should prevent government from functioning, in order to be "pure" in the pursuit of "truth". Our form of government was never designed to function this way. It is, by design, built on the idea of compromise. Without compromise and deliberative consensus, our Republic of representative democracy does not function, and that is exactly what you advocate.
I also believe that is exactly why the Tea Party will fail. Americans want the Congress to work cooperatively, not to continue this stupid obstructionism in the name of "purity".
from wiki
"Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or of evolutionary theory to sociology and politics, often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones".
Now I ask you. Which party tends to segregate the society into different factions most? The Democratic side is often legislating separate laws for separate groups (women, gays, blacks, hispanics, native Americans, etc.). They continuously vie for their share of the pot. The Tea Party echoes the founding fathers' ideas of ALL of us being Americans. Same laws, same rules, same opportunities, etc. I hate when liberals change the meaning of things.
His was one of the most influential voices during the Irish potato famine when millions starved to death. He advocated that government must not interfere with the starvation because he argued that it was an economic problem, and the poor had brought these conditions on themselves, and it would be wrong to expect the wealthy (Protestants) to assist the poor. During the entire famine, Ireland EXPORTED FOOD while almost 1/3 of the population (Catholic) perished; starved with their mouths green from eating grass. When the famine ended, the Noble gentry (Protestants) assumed control of the lands recently vacated by the dead. The strong crushed the weak; in a country of 9 million, 3 milllion starved and 1 million fled, while the strong profited from the suffering.
One only has to study the working conditions and living standards that prevailed during the Industrial Revolution to understand what Social Darwinism did to working class people in Europe and the United States, and why there was radical social change in reaction to the effect of Social Darwinism at the begining of the 20th Century. Today, Social Darwinism has a shiny new coat; it's called Globalization, but it still is allowing European and American capitalists to treat workers in China, India, Vietnam, Mexico, and other "developing" countries to the same kinds of working and living standards that were prevelant during the Industrial Revolution. The economic pressures from globalism on our own working class is huge, and if not checked, we could well see similar working and living conditions return to the US, encouraged and supported by the Tea Party because they consistently advocate for completely unregulated capital markets and businesses. That's the libertarianism of the Koch boys.
Ayn Rand was influenced by Mr. Spencer, and her novels are filled with Social Darwinist ideology. The Tea Party admires Ms. Rand and holds her writings up as a terrific model of capitalist economic theory. I do not, and reject her as being outright anti-Christian and cruel.
"...The Tea Party echoes the founding fathers' ideas of ALL of us being Americans. ..."
Except many of the Founding Fathers had slaves, and considered them to have fewer rights than their horses, and even wrote laws against interracial "cohabitation", which most of them broke anyway. Women weren't allowed to vote until the 1920's, either, so I really don't think the founding fathers had a good idea of us ALL being Americans. They moved the ball forward as far as they could, and left it up to future generations to build on their foundation. If you want to go back to the 1790's, you can count me out.
The American Revolution was, I believe, one of the finest expressions of liberality in human history. Benjamin Franklin might well be known as our First Liberal, and I would also suggest to you that liberals have been advocating that the groups you mention be allowed equal protection under the law with everybody else for a long time. Liberals have been fighting segregation in this country since the 1850's; the Abolitionists were liberals, the Party of Lincoln was a liberal Party then, and it was liberal Democrats and Republicans who finally ended the American aparthied of Jim Crow in the 1960's.
In short, I think it would be safe to say that liberals have been expanding personal liberty since 1776, and may God bless them every one for their efforts.
If you advised a 900 pound man to lose 600, does that mean you advocate bulimia?
Stop using labels to close your mind.
Nihilism is the belief that established authority is corrupt and must be destroyed in order to rebuild a just society. That sounds exactly like what Tea Party advocates are trying to accomplish, especially in regards to the Republican Party, and our Federal Government.
The Tea Party has consistently and rigidly insisted that the US follow Europe in the application of austerity drastic cuts in spending in order to lower national deficits, with no new revenues. However, in Europe, austerity has not produced the desired results. Instead it has created higher deficits, higher unemployment rates and slower economic growth.
I view this approach as nihilistic a deliberately destructive approach to solving the deficit problem that is rooted, not in sound economic theory, but in a desire to destroy the influence of government (and government itself) along with social programs like Social Security and Medicare and food stamps, The Affordable Care Act, etc. and a willingness to use the economic crisis as an excuse to accomplish those goals .
European "austerity" can easily be compared to the constraints Germany was was forced to concede to after WW1, which led to a complete collapse of their currency and economy, with unemployment levels that led to social unrest. While not nearly as severe as the Treaty of Versailles, but similar in structure and effect, the application of austerity by Germany on economically weaker states today is completely ironic. It can also be argued that the Treaty of Versailles was a nhilistic approach toward Germany, designed more to punish than to solve anything.
I am actually surprised that Europe has not adopted more of a "Marshall Plan" approach, whereby bad debt in war ravaged Europe was completely written off, and government stimulus was provided which allowed Europe to rise from the ashes of WWII to become the economic powerhouse it is today.
I would prefer to see a more balanced approach to our deficit problem, than what the Tea Party offers; one that incorporates a combination of both spending cuts and increased revenues (taxes) designed, not to slow economic growth, but to increase growth and lower unemployment so that revenues will be increased - just as they were during the Clinton Administration.
Additionally, the use of obstructionism and filibuster to prevent government from working is, in my view, a nihilistic approach to the function of government.
2 : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility
good lookin out
im the Nihilist now.