http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39320.html

Quote :

"79 percent of tea party supporters say they are Republicans."

Granted, the polling already showed as much, but the news is that they're no longer hiding it:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

7/23/2010 12:13:36 PM

Quote :

"It's like a big sandwich of crazy."

This is the problem. If "racist" doesn't work, call them some other dismissive and polarizing thing.

And is every left-wing group completely sane and free of any sort of improper discrimination?



Have you heard of this guy?

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2010 12:18:12 PM

Well, the bread definitely is crazy.

7/23/2010 12:20:15 PM

My problem with the tea party is that they focus on being anti-democrat instead of being anti-establishment (republican & democrat)

I think half of the so-called republican/democrat battle that is always portrayed by the media is a facade. In my opinion the real power struture running this country (and causing the problems) is a lot deeper and complex than most people believe. This system is what the tea party should be attacking.

7/23/2010 12:29:27 PM

Alan Grayson is my personal hero because he actually has a spine.

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ]

7/23/2010 12:35:05 PM

^ You don't mind him looking (and acting) like a Klingon with rabies?

7/23/2010 12:36:53 PM

I have no problem calling any group Representative Michelle Bachman founds as crazy

7/23/2010 12:39:50 PM

^^ What about Henry Waxman...

7/23/2010 12:42:35 PM

^^ So, it's really more about ideology than "crazy" for you, right?

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason : ^ You mean, "Snoots" Waxman? ]

7/23/2010 12:43:15 PM

I stand by everything Grayson has done.

7/23/2010 12:44:17 PM

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/republicans/a/michele-bachmann-quotes.htm

Quote :

"Top 10 Craziest Michele Bachmann Quotes 1. "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, on the 1976 Swine Flu outbreak that happened when Gerald Ford, a Republican, was president, April 28, 2009 2. "I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?" -Rep. Michelle Bachmann, calling for a new McCarthyism, Oct. 2008 3. "Take this into consideration. If we look at American history, between 1942 and 1947, the data that was collected by the Census Bureau was handed over to the FBI and other organizations at the request of President Roosevelt, and that's how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I'm not saying that that's what the Administration is planning to do, but I am saying that private personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up, in a violation of their constitutional rights, and put the Japanese in internment camps." -Rep. Michele Bachmann, June 2009"

It's lucky that she's not saying a lot of inflammatory crazy stuff, can you imagine if she did? Even Glenn Beck might shake his head in disbelief.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#.22Armed_and_dangerous.22_quote

Quote :

"Bachmann said she wanted Minnesotans "armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back." In the interview, she also stated that Thomas Jefferson had said that "having a revolution every now and then is a good thing."

But lets give the Tea Party Republican Caucus their due:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-22/michele-bachmanns-crazy-tea-party-caucus/

Quote :

"• Paul Broun (R-GA)—the first congressman to compare Obama to Hitler—one week after the election. • Trent Franks (R-AZ)—called President Obama an “enemy of humanity” • Steve King (R-IA)—said that “al Qaeda, and the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11” if Obama were elected. • Louie Gohmert (R-TX)—compared homosexuality to bestiality and necrophilia in a debate over hate crimes on the House floor. • Randy Neugebauer (R-TX)—screamed “baby killer” at Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) after the health-care bill vote on the House floor. • Lamar Smith (R-TX)—told students that “the greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack…The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias.” • Joe Wilson (R-SC)—“You Lie!” This is just a partial list of their greatest hits, recited more or less from memory. But if you’re looking for more substantive evidence of the schism, here’s something to consider: Seven of the 12 co-sponsors of the Birther Bill are charter members of the Tea Party Caucus."

7/23/2010 1:09:26 PM

^ Do you really want me to list all the "crazy" things Democrats have said? Just admit that it's about ideology and not crazy for you and we'll call it even.

7/23/2010 1:25:24 PM

Quote :

"If "racist" doesn't work, call them some other dismissive and polarizing thing."

Like 'left wing moonbats' perhaps?

7/23/2010 1:29:32 PM

When people like Representative Bachman, or Senator Burr for that matter, waste time pushing for constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, then I oppose them ideologically.

Quote :

"Seven of the 12 co-sponsors of the Birther Bill are charter members of the Tea Party Caucus."

^^When someone asks where's the birth certificate, and are then shown the birth certificate, and then demand to see the birth certificate, that seems like something different. But sure, if you prefer I'll call it ideological differences. I disagree with the Birther political ideology.

[Edited on July 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/23/2010 1:34:40 PM

Quote :

" Tea Partiers may share the Kochs’ detestation of taxes, big government and Obama. But there’s a difference between mainstream conservatism and a fringe agenda that tilts completely toward big business, whether on Wall Street or in the Gulf of Mexico, while dismantling fundamental government safety nets designed to protect the unemployed, public health, workplace safety and the subsistence of the elderly. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/opinion/29rich.html

8/29/2010 10:30:01 AM

Maybe they aren't uniting so well.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/13/threat-against-delaware-republican-chair/

Quote :

"Washington (CNN) – The Chairman of the Delaware Republican Party received a death threat recently over his support for Republican Congressman Mike Castle in Tuesday's Senate primary, according to an official in the Delaware GOP office. The official tells CNN, state GOP Chair Tom Ross received the threat via e-mail last week, and Ross and his family have since had to move out of their house. Ross is backing Castle against Tea Party-backed candidate Christine O'Donnell in Tuesday's Republican primary, which has become an increasingly contentious race with incendiary rhetoric from both sides."

Quote :

"It is one thing to have your country screwed over by socialists, it is far worse to be backstabbed by people pretending to be your friends. Political ass-kissing RINO's [Republicans In Name Only] like you deserve a bullet in the head. We will either rid the GOP of pieces of ____ like you, or we will start a new 'Common Sense Conservative' party and render you all useless." "It is just scary what is going on right now," the state GOP official said."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/13/lewes-delaware-bbq-and-a-bitter-campaign/

Quote :

"On the road to Rehoboth beach Delaware for an interview with Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell. Stopped for BBQ at Belly's Deli – pulled pork on salad. A measure of how bitter this GOP primary has become? Sarah Palin recorded a robocall for her new endorsee, tea-party favorite Christine O'Donnell, in which she accuses the "Republican establishment" of making "vicious personal attacks on Christine." She calls it "desperation." And the state Republican party says one of their officers got a death threat via email, subject line: "You deserve a bullet in the head!" The email accuses this person of being a "political ass-kissing RINO"."

Lock and load! (figuratively)

9/13/2010 5:14:32 PM

Who ISN’T receiving a death threat these days though?

First it was the Imam Fiesal, then it was the book burning pastor, then Jan Brewer, now some GOP guy.

It’s scary though that some people are buying into the obviously bullshit fear mongering that “socialists (if they even know what the word means) are destroying the country.” Scary and sickening.

9/13/2010 7:44:13 PM

Pic from the 9/12 rally in DC.

Quote :

"This Statue of Liberty was gifted to us by foreign leaders, really as a warning to us, it was a warning to us to stay unique and to stay exceptional from other countries. Certainly not to go down the path of other countries that adopted socialist policies."

So sayeth Sarah Palin at her 9/11 thing. Lot of socialism going around in the 1870s, Sarah?

9/13/2010 7:49:05 PM

Obligatory "the Tea Party has been co-opted by the neocons from the good Dr. Paul's supporters" post.

9/13/2010 8:13:51 PM

If the ballot is rigged...if candidates that advocate significant change aren't allowed to run...if the democratic process is indirect and gerrymandered...I don't see what option we have left.

9/13/2010 8:32:32 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/14/primary.elections/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

Quote :

"Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell defeated her mainstream Republican opponent in Delaware's GOP U.S. Senate primary Tuesday, extending the run of victories by conservative candidates in what is considered an anti-incumbent atmosphere in the country. Other results from the final day of major primary balloting before the November congressional elections showed another Tea Party-backed candidate holding a solid lead in New Hampshire, and former Gov. Robert Ehrlich winning the GOP gubernatorial primary in Maryland."

Quote :

"The bitterly contested campaign saw O'Donnell receive the endorsement of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and more than $150,000 in late spending from the Tea Party Express."

Great night for the tea party taking down GOP incumbents.

(Just heard for Delaware the NRSC wont fund her, & the GOP guy that lost to the Tea Party person did not endorse her)

[Edited on September 14, 2010 at 11:57 PM. Reason : .]

9/14/2010 11:38:11 PM

Sarah Palin has shown herself once again to be a goddam idiot: Back when the Statue of Liberty was being built, France had just beaten back Napoleon III and the Monarchists to bring forth liberty in the French Third Republic; France didn't become a welfare state until some time after its liberation from the Nazis about 70 years later.

9/14/2010 11:49:58 PM

Look at all the beautiful sheeple of the Tea Party.


So trusting and so mislead. But they don't care as long as the person next to them is doing it

9/14/2010 11:52:37 PM

Rasmussen gives the GOP that got defeated an 11 point lead on the Dem for the general election.

Rasmussen gives the Tea Party that won the race a 13 point shortfall on the Dem for the general election.

This was from 9/2/10 so its recent, and its Rasmussen which you wouldn't expect to falsely give a Dem a double digit lead. (also credit to PPP, who unlike the other poll I saw, called it right as a narrow win for O'Donnell rather than Castle for the primary)

9/15/2010 12:52:01 AM

^
At this stage yes the Tea Party may be weak against the establishment democrats. But give it a few years.

You know.. if there ever comes a time when the grass root progressives see the need to wrestle control of their party away from the democrat establishment...they will also be tarred as Loons and radicals just like the tea party people.

The political in-fighting in the republican party is ultimately a good thing. The country should have a better choice than just either between a radical liberal (the dems) and a moderate liberal (the current GOP).

9/15/2010 10:29:03 AM

Democrats will try to frame the internal party struggle as a sign of the inevitable downfall or marginalization of the Republican party. What's really happening is the "Tea Party" (and other factions) are trying to rip power away from the mainstream "we'll compromise on anything if it seems politically expedient" Republicans.

9/15/2010 11:15:46 AM

Yeah, once the democrats win again you'll start seeing more socially liberal, financially conservatives pull votes away from the democrats. I had high hopes for the tea party, but they let the bigots, religious leaders and republicans corrupt their platform. I expect that the establishment will push even harder against third party candidates in the future and set ever higher barriers to entry in their own primaries.

9/15/2010 8:06:56 PM

Quote :

"the tea party... let the bigots, religious leaders and republicans corrupt their platform"

yep

When you have Michelle Bachmann on your side, you're on the wrong side.

9/15/2010 8:14:38 PM

Quote :

"I had high hopes for the tea party, but they let the bigots, religious leaders and republicans corrupt their platform."

So you had high hopes for less taxes, smaller gov't and less gov't spending? That's what the Tea Party stands for... so Good for You!

As for being called a bigot.. reminds me of the definition of a racist: someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.

9/15/2010 11:14:40 PM

Quote :

"So you had high hopes for less taxes, smaller gov't and less gov't spending?"

Isn't it just great to be for something yet have no idea how you want to even accomplish it?

9/15/2010 11:22:25 PM

Quote :

"The country should have a better choice than just either between a radical liberal (the dems) and a moderate liberal (the current GOP)."

More like

the dems = liberal corporatists and the current GOP = radical corporatists

amirite?

9/15/2010 11:47:06 PM

Quote :

"...yet have no idea how you want to even accomplish it? "

There are many ways to reduce gov't. The hard part is having the will to do it. Do you?

Quote :

"radical corporatists"

True. We have a so-called separation of Church and State. what we need is a separation of Economy and State.

9/16/2010 12:17:41 AM

Quote :

"There are many ways to reduce gov't."

Examples please, other than pork barrel spending on pet projects, I'll give you that one for free. I want ways to sizably reduce federal spending. Cutting 8 million on a project doesn't mean jack shit in terms of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget.

I'll start you off with a relatively detailed break down of the budget:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

And just some quick math to help you out. All but 664.6 Billion comes from Welfare, Pensions (which is almost all Social Security), Health Care (including Medicare and Medicaid grant money to states), Defense.

Now, before you get started, I'm talking about strictly things that are planned out in the budget. I already know about how you feel about the stimulus and other things that I don't think were ever included in the budget. I want ways to take existing programs and either get rid of them or to cut them back (with justification).


I want to list some things of mine. I would largely want to cut military spending. As you can see in the link, it is the single most cost that's consuming our budget (about 24% of it). I would want to reduce war efforts in the Middle East and withdraw some of our support of Israel. With reducing our war efforts, we can reduce the size of our active military along with a reduction of our reserves. Also, with the reduction of our military troops, I would want to mothball some of our ships that serve on the Navy. If we want to reduce our central government, reducing the military is a great way to do it.

9/16/2010 12:49:37 AM

the Tea Party, as a grassroots conservative activist group, is a sham

it is a PR campaign on the part of the Koch brothers

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

9/16/2010 12:55:13 AM

Quote :

"I would largely want to cut military spending."

I agree with you somewhat. Protecting the nation from attack and invasion is actually one of the responsibilities of the federal gov't. I don't think we can afford or need the current war in Afghanistan.

The other things you mention..welfare, social security, medicare etc would all be on my list. None of those things were intended to be provided by the federal gov't. They are all the result of good intentions with caustic consequences.

We need to switch these public programs back to the Free Market. Remember I asked you if you had the will for real reform.

9/16/2010 10:31:42 AM

I don't consider getting rid of welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, ect, to be "real reform." I prefer a government that actually cares about it's people. I can't stand behind an attitude that will drive us back to the 1800s. I really can't. Just because there's no mention of it in the constitution, doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.

Getting rid of all of those would just show that we have a government that simply doesn't care. I want reform, but I want reform for the better.

And remember, I asked you to be specific. Simply saying the Free Market will provide welfare, social security, medicare and medicaid to poor people or old people is such a broad statement. How do you propose that the private sector will provide this in a reliable and effective manner? You have to remember, the entire concept of the "Free Market" isn't to benefit everyone, it's not a charity. It's a system of self-interest, where people aren't just going to do it because they simply feel there is some moral obligation. Hell, many corporations hand out donations because they're encouraged by the government. If Wal-Mart couldn't write off their charitable donations on their taxes, I somehow doubt they would be willing to donate money to charities.

And even still, where does this expectation that people are simply going to give the needy money or help on their own volition? Especially to the point of helping everyone who needs help, not just a select few or based on luck.

9/16/2010 3:33:30 PM

Quote :

"I don't consider getting rid of welfare, social security, medicare, medicaid, ect, to be "real reform." I prefer a government that actually cares about it's people. I can't stand behind an attitude that will drive us back to the 1800s. I really can't. Just because there's no mention of it in the constitution, doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. Getting rid of all of those would just show that we have a government that simply doesn't care. I want reform, but I want reform for the better."

This sums up the mindset of many liberals. Reforming our pensions/entitlements is equated with "not caring."

Here's the problem: these programs are in no way sustainable. It's taking more and more people just to provide for a single person. We either reform these programs so they can be worked into a legitimate budget, or we're going to have old people dying on the street because their social security check doesn't buy anything. Whether or not you think these entitlements should exist, we have to deal with it. No politician wants to talk about it. No pundit wants to talk about it. Unfortunately, we have to start talking about it now, or there will be serious consequences.

I reject the idea of social safety nets altogether, though. There's this absurd idea that people are not smart enough to save, so we have to make them save. And, when the forced savings aren't enough, we need to supplement it by confiscating wages from workers that can barely make ends meet as it is. You know, the rich are not the ones getting bombarded by FICA taxes. After 110k, or whatever it is, they don't have to pay into social security or medicare for the year. The lower and middle class are the ones supporting this stupid ponzi scheme. At least with a ponzi scheme, I'd be allowed to get out. With this, I'm forced to participate, despite the fact that I will not get any return on my investment.

9/16/2010 3:52:02 PM

Quote :

"Just because there's no mention of it in the constitution, doesn't mean we shouldn't have it."

Actually, that's precisely the reason we shouldn't have it. durrrr

Quote :

"It's a system of self-interest, where people aren't just going to do it because they simply feel there is some moral obligation."

Yep. people never gave to charities before welfare and SS existed. it never happened.

9/16/2010 4:27:37 PM

Quote :

"This sums up the mindset of many liberals. Reforming our pensions/entitlements is equated with "not caring.""

I read EarthDogg response as reform being "getting rid of social welfare." Not as actually reforming the programs to be cheaper and maintainable by our budget without running a deficit. A read his comment of "real reform" as him meaning that we need to change the entire government and get rid of social welfare programs. Go ahead and say this is the "mindset of many liberals," but it seems as though you and I are actually agreeing to the same thing. We need to reform our social welfare programs to be more efficient.

What I guess you missed was EarthDogg saying that "there are many ways to reduce gov't." I asked how how?

Quote :

"Here's the problem: these programs are in no way sustainable. It's taking more and more people just to provide for a single person."

You're preaching to the choir.

Quote :

"We either reform these programs so they can be worked into a legitimate budget, or we're going to have old people dying on the street because their social security check doesn't buy anything."

I agree, but how are we going to reform all of these programs? It's no secret Social Security takes up a large chunk of our budget. It's one program that I would want to reduce, and maybe you will disagree with me when I say this, but I would start by weening people off of social security. I would make it so that if people made of $x amount of dollars wouldn't be eligible to receive social security. Not because I don't think they don't deserve it, because by all accounts, they did invest money into it, but by your own admission, it didn't work. Instead, I would set the cut off limit at a spot where the people on social security actually need it. A retired billionaire doesn't need some $500 check each month. But this would directly allow us to reduce the payout on social security, because admittedly, we can't cut off an 80 year old woman who relies on that money to live. And it will take years for us to end the program, but I personally am not going to plan my retirement around receiving SS, and that SS would be like a "bonus," so to speak.

But then we have other programs like Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, Unemployment, ect, where it's not so simple. How should we reform welfare? I thought a good step was making it available for a limited amount of time (2 years, IIRC), and I think that unfortunately Obama undid that act. This would keep people from being able to perpetually withdraw off of welfare. But what about Medicaid? Where do we cut from that? Medicare? What about that one? Unemployment? What about that one?

Quote :

"There's this absurd idea that people are not smart enough to save, so we have to make them save. And, when the forced savings aren't enough, we need to supplement it by confiscating wages from workers that can barely make ends meet as it is."

Ok, and the workers who can't make ends meet as it is? Without any social safety nets, what are they to do? Not everyone can have the luxury of getting a college degree. We need poor people just as much as we need a middle class and upper class. We need someone to put operate the machines. Even if we forced people to go to college, we'll just have an abundance of all majors. We'll still need workers. Machines can't do everything. You have to admit that the way that society as a whole is setup, that we need poor people. Getting rid of social safety nets just condemns them to a life of servitude. Even though I'm pessimistic about charity, I admit I'm an idealist in that I think everyone should be happy (no, I don't think everyone should be entitled to a Porsche, but I don't think everyone should be condemned to a difficult life, I still want people to have to work hard to improve themselves).

Quote :

"Actually, that's precisely the reason we shouldn't have it. durrrr"

That's a pretty bad reason.

Quote :

"Yep. people never gave to charities before welfare and SS existed. it never happened."

Not reliably. Not like how a government can. What groups existed before Welfare and SS that provided poor people with money to live and buy necessities to anyone who needed it without worry of running out of money? What groups existed to provide old people with money to live if they worked a job that paid them enough to save money in addition to paying all of their necessary expenses? Not to mention they would need to save enough money to not only live a good 20 years after retiring, but they would have to hope that money didn't inflate too quickly.

9/16/2010 5:01:37 PM

Quote :

"That's a pretty bad reason."

So what you are saying is that the law means nothing to you. if the gov't wants to say that Islam is outlawed, that's OK with you. if the government wants to lock you up without a trial for 20 years, that's OK with you.

Quote :

"Not reliably. Not like how a government can."

You might want to brush up on history, dude. And the irony is that we are learning today that the gov't can't reliably do these things. Not without going bankrupt!

9/16/2010 5:15:53 PM

Quote :

"So what you are saying is that the law means nothing to you."

No. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to let the Constitution keep the government from doing something that I think is morally right. Even if you're a Christian, you should think that it's a good thing to help poor people and elderly, so why be against the government doing it? Have you ever stopped to think that the law is wrong? You seem to think that the Constitution is the end-all-be-all of how to properly run a government, yet you fail to consider that the Constitution could be wrong.

Quote :

"if the gov't wants to say that Islam is outlawed, that's OK with you. if the government wants to lock you up without a trial for 20 years, that's OK with you."

And here you are, arguing from extremes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You aren't exactly the most logical person on here. You have the nasty habit of twisting someone's words around. Let me use a real example. The 18th amendment banned the sale of alcohol in the US. It was a Constitutional amendment. Does that make the Constitution right? It certainly doesn't mean you want to invalidate the entire Constitution just because you disagree with it. Again, the Constitution isn't the end-all-be-all in defining what should be allowed or not allowed by the government.

Similarly, just because I feel that it's ok to have social welfare programs even though the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow the Federal Government to establish such programs doesn't mean that I think the entire Constitution should be thrown away.

Quote :

"You might want to brush up on history, dude."

Nice copout. Instead of showing me that I'm wrong, you just claim that I am without justification. I asked you some simple questions, and you're not able to. If you can prove to me that charities are able to fulfill the same roles welfare fulfills and do it just as effectively or even more effectively, then I'd be all for it.

Quote :

"And the irony is that we are learning today that the gov't can't reliably do these things. Not without going bankrupt!"

So, because the government can't reliably provide welfare without going bankrupt, it means that means it can never happen. As much as you want to say that welfare is bankrupting us, our military is bankrupting us as well, as it alone consumes 24% of our budget.

9/16/2010 5:51:41 PM

Quote :

"Again, the Constitution isn't the end-all-be-all in defining what should be allowed or not allowed by the government."

ahahahahahaha. you do realize that the Constitution is the very fucking thing that defines our government, right? hahahaha.

Quote :

"So, because the government can't reliably provide welfare without going bankrupt, it means that means it can never happen."

well, yeah. that's exactly what you are saying. it can't do it, so it can't happen. DURRRRRRRRRRRR

Quote :

"Nice copout. Instead of showing me that I'm wrong, you just claim that I am without justification"

Why should I have to prove to you what is common fucking knowledge. That there were many charities that helped the poor before SS an welfare is common fucking knowledge. It's not my job to teach you history.

Quote :

"And here you are, arguing from extremes."

Actually I'm not. The "extremes" are the reason the Constitution was written in the first place.

Quote :

"I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You aren't exactly the most logical person on here."

I'm not the one arguing that our government shouldn't be constrained by the document that established what it can and can't do.

Quote :

"Let me use a real example. The 18th amendment banned the sale of alcohol in the US. It was a Constitutional amendment. Does that make the Constitution right?"

You do realize that the 18th amendment was repealed, right?

9/16/2010 6:33:24 PM

Quote :

"That there were many charities that helped the poor before SS an welfare is common fucking knowledge."

If they had done enough and to enough of the negrneedy there would have been no need; sure private charity went down following the rise of welfare but it was well more than compensated for by that social safety net.

[Edited on September 16, 2010 at 9:05 PM. Reason : and no Atlas didn't shrug

9/16/2010 9:04:42 PM

Quote :

"If they had done enough and to enough of the negrneedy there would have been no need"

Who says they weren't doing enough. Simple passage of these absurd programs doesn't mean they were needed.

Quote :

"sure private charity went down following the rise of welfare but it was well more than compensated for by that social safety net."

Really? Is that why you can't live on what SS gives out today?

The real reason those programs were passed is because some people wanted to determine where everyone's money went, instead of letting the people determine that through giving to their preferred charities. it is absolutely immoral to deny people that right. Add to that the fact that the government is HORRIBLY inefficient at doing charity work, and we have a far-worse method of doing charity.

9/16/2010 9:11:59 PM

Quote :

"ahahahahahaha. you do realize that the Constitution is the very fucking thing that defines our government, right? hahahaha."

You do realize that the Constitution is nothing more than a framework. Just because it doesn't explicitly establish welfare doesn't mean that our government can't provide such systems. Just like the Constitution doesn't explicitly allow the government to setup an Interstate Highway, yet they did it anyway.

Quote :

"well, yeah. that's exactly what you are saying. it can't do it, so it can't happen. DURRRRRRRRRRRR"

I was in a rush to finish. What I meant was that just because the government currently provide welfare without creating a deficit doesn't mean that we won't figure out a way to do it in the future.

Quote :

"Why should I have to prove to you what is common fucking knowledge."

Again, you're copping out. If this is "common fucking knowledge," then it should be easy for you to prove me wrong. This is what you do. When you take a stance and you can't back it up, you claim it's common knowledge or you tell someone to look up your claim. If before government welfare, private charities were successfully filling that role, why was it that people were living in shacks during the Great Depression? It's common knowledge that people lived in extremely poor living conditions during this time period. Where were the charities then to help the needy and place them in suitably living places?

You know you're full of shit and now you can't back it up. So now you're copping out by saying it's common fucking knowledge, like it some how refutes what I'm saying. Either put up or shut up.

Quote :

"Actually I'm not. The "extremes" are the reason the Constitution was written in the first place."

And yet Gays still can't get married. YAY CONSTITUTION!

Quote :

"I'm not the one arguing that our government shouldn't be constrained by the document that established what it can and can't do. "

Right, you're arguing that even if a government can improve the life and well being of other people that it still shouldn't do it. You're advocating for a government that simply doesn't care. That seems pretty irrational and cold to me.

Quote :

"You do realize that the 18th amendment was repealed, right?"

Of course. It still doesn't refute the point that for a period of some 10 years it was WRONG, yet according to you, BECAUSE it was in the Constitution, it must have been right and permissible. God forbid you stand up to the Constitution, think for yourself, and realize that on a far greater ethical level that there are areas in our every day life, and in people's everyday life, where the Constitution simply fails to account for. Instead, you want to manipulate it in such a way to work in your selfish best interest.

I don't know about you, but I prefer a benevolent government that acts in the best interests of all its citizens and serves the people in the best manner. I don't want a government that's apathy. That allows people to act selfishly and to allow personal greed to ruin other people's lives. Sorry, but that's not how we progress as a country or as a civilization. You either have this naive optimism in humanity that allows you to think that rich people are all good and kind in their heart and that they genuinely want to give back to the community and to this country to help poor people, or you simply spout that load of bullshit to some how justify allowing a government to act apathetic in serving its people.

9/16/2010 9:55:46 PM

Quote :

"Just because it doesn't explicitly establish welfare doesn't mean that our government can't provide such systems."

So, just because it doesn't say the government can throw you in jail for 30 years for no reason, that doesn't mean it can't, right?

Quote :

"Right, you're arguing that even if a government can improve the life and well being of other people that it still shouldn't do it. You're advocating for a government that simply doesn't care. That seems pretty irrational and cold to me."

Not at all. If you feel so fucking strongly about, PASS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. Then it will be legit! I'm not advocating for a government that "doesn't care." I'm advocating for one that follows the fucking rules and the Constitution. Because one that doesn't follow the Constitution can then do whatever the fuck it pleases.

Quote :

"Of course. It still doesn't refute the point that for a period of some 10 years it was WRONG, yet according to you, BECAUSE it was in the Constitution, it must have been right and permissible. "

Not at all true. At no point did I say it was "right." But it was the law of the land. However, we recognized it was wrong and, *gasp*, AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION.

9/16/2010 11:21:29 PM

Quote :

"So, just because it doesn't say the government can throw you in jail for 30 years for no reason, that doesn't mean it can't, right?"

I consider imprisoning someone for 30 years for no reason to be immoral. Meanwhile, I think charitable donations are a moral act. Last time I checked, the Constitution didn't define morality, contrary to a seemingly popular belief. But go ahead and stick words in my mouth by saying that I'm suggesting that my support of something you feel is unconstitutional means that I'm also supporting immoral acts by our government. We both know that you're full of shit.

Quote :

"If you feel so fucking strongly about, PASS AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION."

Why? They don't need an amendment that allows them to spend money on welfare. Just like they didn't need an amendment to build a fucking interstate, or an amendment establishing the education system. Should we get rid of that too? Should we ditch our education system and completely privatize it based on the fact that it's not in the Constitution.

Quote :

"Because one that doesn't follow the Constitution can then do whatever the fuck it pleases."

Bullshit. Notice, I'm not saying to throw out the Constitution, but I'm saying that it shouldn't stay in the way of our liberties, our happiness or in doing what's morally right. When you are able to use the Constitution to advocate a government that doesn't do morally right actions, then maybe it is time that we investigate where we stand as a society.

Quote :

"Not at all true. At no point did I say it was "right." But it was the law of the land. However, we recognized it was wrong and, *gasp*, AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION."

But it was amended the first time because it was felt that we need to do the "right" thing and push this Southern Bullshit Baptist idea of alcohol=bad onto everyone. You're making the argument that the Constitution should be followed. I'm using that 10 year period in which it was WRONG. Just like I think it's WRONG if it stands in the way of allowing our government do do something morally right. Just because that wrong was corrected, doesn't refute the fact that the Constitution was reprehensibly wrong for a period of 10 years. It was oppressive and violated our liberties. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Similarly, people are trying to introduce a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. If such an amendment was to be put in, would you then support the government in the ban because it's "in the Constitution?" I'm glad to see that our public school system is being used to indoctrinate the students to blindly follow the Constitution, no matter how stupid something may be.

[Edited on September 17, 2010 at 1:22 AM. Reason : un]

9/17/2010 1:21:58 AM

Quote :

"you should think that it's a good thing to help poor people and elderly, so why be against the government doing it?"

That really is the basic question.

You have to keep in mind that gov't is force. It can only accomplish it's goals by threatening punishment if you don't do what it wants.

It's a worn example but still a good one. Suppose you and I are walking down the street and happen upon a destitute beggar in the street. Do you have the right to pull $10 out of your pocket and give it to the guy? Sure.

But now do you have a right to pull out a gun, point it at me and order me to give the guy $10 bucks? Of course not. Well if it's wrong for you to do it..it's also wrong for a gov't to do it.

You and I agree that there are some who need help. We both want to help them. But Charity should be done by charitable people and charitable organizations in a voluntary fashion. It shouldn't be done by self-serving politicians who game the system for their personal power-highs.

9/17/2010 1:42:41 AM

Quote :

"You have to keep in mind that gov't is force. It can only accomplish it's goals by threatening punishment if you don't do what it wants."

Yes. That is what a government is. That is how all governments work. I don't know of any that hand out hookers and handjobs for all.

Quote :

"It's a worn example but still a good one. Suppose you and I are walking down the street and happen upon a destitute beggar in the street. Do you have the right to pull $10 out of your pocket and give it to the guy? Sure. But now do you have a right to pull out a gun, point it at me and order me to give the guy $10 bucks? Of course not. Well if it's wrong for you to do it..it's also wrong for a gov't to do it."

The problem with this is that you're equating the rights each human (the right to not be stolen from) to the right of what a government can do. But the key difference is that in an organized society, we don't get our rights and privileges from each individual human, we get it from a government. They dictate what we can and can't do. All governments dictate what our rights are. You're basically making an argument against any organized government.

The government's role is to provide for the people, whether it be to provide a system of rights and laws designed to protect each of our individual liberties (like a law mandating that we not kill each other), or to provide a system of mediation (civil courts), or to provide us with basic necessities for us to have a healthy environment or an efficient environment (imagine how bad travel would be if we didn't have roads, or even if it's just public transportation), or to help the poor. Many of the services that the government provides, whether it be available to all of us or only available to those that "need" it are around to ensure that we all have a decent quality of life. Granted, they don't exist to ensure that we can have a luxurious life, and they shouldn't exist to do that. But they should exist so that we don't have people on the street living in shacks, or people starving, or people who are sick who go without treatment.

We've come from a society that would shame a single mother raising her child for working and making money because she left him at home as well as shaming that same mother for not having a job and making money. We've gone from a society that would send poor people to poorhouses (I'm sure you've heard that term, we really did have poorhouses) or to poor farms (people who were able to work were forced to do hard labor to live there) where the conditions would be deliberately harsh and substandard to "motivate" people to get a job. We've gone from a society that would force anyone who took "handouts" to do hard labor by forcing them to cut wood and maintain roads.

I like to think that we've evolved into a nation better than that.

Quote :

"But Charity should be done by charitable people and charitable organizations in a voluntary fashion."

Have you noticed one word that I keep using to say why I feel the government should provide welfare? It's the word "reliable." Do you honestly think that charity can provide the same level of help that the government can to the same number of people? Do you think people are just going to open up free medical insurance and just pay poor people's hospital bills? Do you think charities are just going to help the elderly? I'm sorry, but even history tells us that Charity alone doesn't provide a reliable social safety net in the even someone loses their job. Take the Great Depression. Millons of people homeless and unemployed, food riots, shanty towns. Simply God awful living conditions riddled with malnourishment and disease. You and I both agree that charity is something that should be encouraged, but you would be naive to think that if welfare disappeared, that suddenly rich people and corporations with all that extra money they wouldn't be handing over to the government just so the government can turn around and hand it out to poor people that these people/organizations would do it anyway.

I'm sorry, but you're either ignorantly or willfully disregarding the overall greed present in humans and our desire to acquire more and better things, as well as to acquire more money. Be honest with yourself, do you really give as much as you could give to charity? Instead of buying that new LCD TV, or a new computer, or replacing your perfectly fine car, why not give that money to charity? After all, there are people out there who could use that money more than you. Simply put, many, if not most, people when faced between the dilemma of putting down 700 USD on a new TV or giving that money to someone who really could use that money, are going to buy the TV, assuming the thought that their current CRT TV is good enough and that they think about giving that money to someone who needs it crosses their mind, they're going to buy the new LCD.

9/17/2010 5:03:15 AM

Quote :

"But the key difference is that in an organized society, we don't get our rights and privileges from each individual human, we get it from a government."

Basic human rights are not granted by the government, they are inherent. Any government that tries to withhold said rights is an unjust government...

That said, what exactly constitutes a basic human right is a debatable subject, but a government doesn't just give people rights out of the goodness of its heart. Those rights exist for everyone regardless of whether or not a government or other forceful party is trying to deny them.

9/17/2010 6:40:16 AM