User Tag List

First 14222324

Results 231 to 239 of 239

  1. #231
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that the Tea Partiers will be first up against the wall, come the Revolution crackdown.



    EDIT: Actually, my suspicions are not all that extreme. We're nowhere near that stage at this point.

  2. #232
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    You know, just for myself, I decided to write an essay on my concept of objective truth vs subjective value and how they interact, but that document would take up many, many, full posts, so I doubt you'd want to read it. So I'm going to give the simplest answer I can, in spite of all of it's insufficiencies.

    Yes. I'm aiming for being objectively correct. I may not have a perfect understanding, but I am sure I have a better one than them.
    By which criteria?


    Has not occured, for the most part no. Of course, all instance of mass violence were preceded by non-violent times. Just because it's not happening now doesn't mean it isn't a danger. That is the logic of the child who wants to run with scissors.
    The onus is on you to show the reason you have legitimate fear of violence, not on them to assuage you. You're the one making assertions/predictions.


    As for being on their agenda, I disagree. Keep reading.

    All of the other points regarding the subject of their aggression and extremism amount to the reasoning for this point.

    You might be right about the middle-aged part. Youngsters usually riot. But, it so happens that I'm in the midsts of reading a book about collective behavior, and just last I night I got to a section about the study of 20 some urban riots in 1967. The studies found that the rioters were on average more educated than no-rioters, and did not have a stastically singificanlty lower income. So, shit definitely happens.
    I'd imagine the Detroit riots were in there. That was particularly violent and multiracial, as well. And there were certainly very educated rabble-rousers in the '60s. College campuses were the breeding grounds for many of them, and most Americans did NOT go to college back then. Still, middle-class people in their 40s and 50s generally don't go around destroying things, as they generally own a lot of things that would be destroyed in a riot.


    Subtle.
    Referring to Obamacare? Yeah, that's definitely extreme.


    Threat of execution.
    Pointing out perceived hypocrisy to me. Politicians aren't exempt from treason laws.


    Revolution.
    Just like that horrifically violent "Republican Revolution" of 1994? These people see themselves as inheritors to the Founding Fathers who DID start a revolution, but they are a political group, not a militia shooting at targets.


    I just wanted to note how much I like the choice of pitchfork.
    What's wrong with that one?


    And hanging, too? Ahh, lynching.
    Quite extreme and nothing I like to see.


    And watch this video!
    [YOUTUBE="PWbmEUIQOCQ"]Paranoia, malice, and prejudice.[/YOUTUBE]

    Now, in that video, truly only a minority was of the explicitly violent kind, but it was still there. Furthmore, other signs indicate what I consider a dangerous amount of delusion and hostility, even if they don't call for violence. And also consider that anyone who believe they are being threatened with death or slavery is a strong suspect for future violence, so it's not a stretch of the imagination to read violence into those signs, either.
    Yeah, it is. You want violence to be there, so you see it where you want to. Weak sauce. I still think it's ridiculous to compare the 2010s to the 1960s, let alone the 1850s and 1860s.


    And for future reference, try to count everyone of these flags you see with tea partiers.



    What message could they possibly be trying to send?
    I've seen almost no Rebel Flags, and what's wrong with the Gadsden Flag, exactly?


    First of all, let's be clear on what I said, since you change my statement, there. I think it is as bad as the 1960s, or at the worst, aproximately equal to the 1860s. I never said worse than the 1860s.

    And it's so obvious that I know about the civil war as to make that question stupid. If I can be faulted for anything, then perhaps it would be more accurate to say we are, at worst, at the 1850s right now, since the 1860s bearly got started before the civil war took place, and we obviously aren't in one yet. Even in the worst case, though, it wouldn't be like the civil war because that was regional succession. I mean, who knows, maybe that would happen, but I think if large scale conflict began, it would be more of the pan-national insurgent kind.
    Man, you sound really close to the Millennialist Christians waiting for the imminent Rapture. You've become a funhouse mirror version of the true right-wing religious whackjobs. Congrats.


    I made no contradictions.

    Crazy: Yes.
    Extreme: Yes.
    Spoiled: I'm not sure how this is defined.
    Wealthy: Sure, why not? But I know many of them are blue collar and suffering from the affects of the recession, even if the group is on average wealthier than the norm

    So far, none of these have even been mutually exclusive.
    I'd be lying if I said I don't see any crazies in the Tea Parties ranks, but I don't see their PRINCIPLES as particularly crazy. I still don't think you are seeing the difference there. If you really think that these people are crazy AND everything they believe is crazy, then you really are way outside the mainstream. And not in a good way, either.


    Mainstream: The people who are actual ideologues are not mainstream at all. The mainstream may, however, be non-committally coralled by these ideologues.

    And it's worth noting that by many definitions of extreme, a position could be in the majority and still extreme. Relativity to others is not the only way to define extremism. But like I said, I do not think they are mainstream.
    Fair enough. The Nazi Party was mainstream in 1930s Germany, but pretty damn extreme. I just think you probably are underestimating the amount of Americans who agree with most of their platforms.



    Then I would still disgree. The views of the vague "average American" are mercurial. I don't believe there is really any solidarity or allegiance between the majority of American and the tea party.
    I think Tea Partiers represent a large minority of Americans, actually. Far more people believe their basic message than yours.


    Well, it's not binary. There are degrees of conviction. The highest are rabble-rousers. Some won't go that far, but are happy to be roused rabble. At slightly above zero are the people that let themselves be nudged around. Going into the negatives is moving toward people that have some degree of conviction against what the tea party stands for.

    Roughly, I imagine it would look like a hyperbolous graph, if these things could be quantified.
    Let's go for a hypothetical. What happens if Tea Party-backed candidates sweep into Washington, gain a lot of power and influence policy, and things improve in the country? Would you change your tune?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #233
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    By which criteria?
    Oh dear lord. By the creation, protection, and extension of life, and the amount of happiness experience by the living.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    The onus is on you to show the reason you have legitimate fear of violence, not on them to assuage you. You're the one making assertions/predictions.
    And we've been going back and forth on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I'd imagine the Detroit riots were in there. That was particularly violent and multiracial, as well. And there were certainly very educated rabble-rousers in the '60s. College campuses were the breeding grounds for many of them, and most Americans did NOT go to college back then. Still, middle-class people in their 40s and 50s generally don't go around destroying things, as they generally own a lot of things that would be destroyed in a riot.
    This would seem to have a lot to do with where they live, actually.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Referring to Obamacare? Yeah, that's definitely extreme.
    Okay.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Pointing out perceived hypocrisy to me. Politicians aren't exempt from treason laws.
    Maybe so. I don't really think Obama is guilty of treason and at any rate, the emphasis on punishment by death is disconcerting to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Just like that horrifically violent "Republican Revolution" of 1994? These people see themselves as inheritors to the Founding Fathers who DID start a revolution, but they are a political group, not a militia shooting at targets.
    I think the activity and the atmosphere was different in 1994, not that it was the sort of thing I exactly love...

    Incidentally (and I know most people aren't aware of this) the war of American independece was a seccession and actually wasn't very revolutionary. That's something of a misnomer. We wanted to be separate from Britain, we didn't want to take the fight to Britain and make them reform.
    The French revolution was the real thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    What's wrong with that one?
    There wasn't much to that one. I just like that the person actually had a pitchfork. I wonder if they just had it on hand, or made a point to get one for that occasion.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Quite extreme and nothing I like to see.
    Good.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Yeah, it is. You want violence to be there, so you see it where you want to. Weak sauce. I still think it's ridiculous to compare the 2010s to the 1960s, let alone the 1850s and 1860s.
    Even if you disagree with my comparisons to those other times, I find it unreasonable how much you downplay the hostility there. I grant it as a possiblity that my position is exaggerated, I do not consider it possible that it's imagined.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I've seen almost no Rebel Flags, and what's wrong with the Gadsden Flag, exactly?
    The point is that in both cases it's being used as a part of revoltionary symbolism.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Man, you sound really close to the Millennialist Christians waiting for the imminent Rapture. You've become a funhouse mirror version of the true right-wing religious whackjobs. Congrats.
    There is quite a number of vital differences between me and them, and it really shouldn't be my responsibility to point them out to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I'd be lying if I said I don't see any crazies in the Tea Parties ranks, but I don't see their PRINCIPLES as particularly crazy. I still don't think you are seeing the difference there. If you really think that these people are crazy AND everything they believe is crazy, then you really are way outside the mainstream. And not in a good way, either.
    Maybe not crazy, but I'd say the principles are misguided. Implimenting them itself would be dramatic and costly, and then the results of their implementation would be a calamity.

    [QUOTE=pure_mercury;1250910]
    Fair enough. The Nazi Party was mainstream in 1930s Germany, but pretty damn extreme. I just think you probably are underestimating the amount of Americans who agree with most of their platforms.

    It's possible. I presently don't believe it, though. And it wouldn't convince me of it's correctness anyhow.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I think Tea Partiers represent a large minority of Americans, actually. Far more people believe their basic message than yours.
    I wouldn't be surprised if that is true in the USA. I would beg to differ more if we were talking about the entire devloped world. But at any rate, we aren't. As I said, I don't think most of them are working consistently on the axioms of regulation and deragulation that much of our disagreements come from. At one of the attempted town hall meetings by a democratic congress men, a crowd member now famously said "keep your government hands off my medicare". In so few words, that said it all.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Let's go for a hypothetical. What happens if Tea Party-backed candidates sweep into Washington, gain a lot of power and influence policy, and things improve in the country? Would you change your tune?
    I prefer this direction.

    Defining an improvment in the country is complex, and I don't know if there's a point in writing it all here, but I know what I think it is. It mostly regards improved standards of living/quality of life, less social stratification, and more lex foreign/defense policies. There are other details, but whatever.

    Obviously things can't improve over night, and it's also difficult for someone to improve everything at once. But if, say, in 8 years of control (or mostly control) a majority of those things improved and the remainder did not become critically worse, I would have to adjust my understanding of the matter.

    And with that, I have to say that I could go on like this forever, but it gets rather monotonous and I get tired of it. So I wonder what you are looking to gain out of these debates. I have never known.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #234
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Oh dear lord. By the creation, protection, and extension of life, and the amount of happiness experience by the living.
    OK. There is still a huge amount of subjectivity as the "the amount of happiness experienced by the living," though. Not really an objective criterion.


    And we've been going back and forth on that.
    If there had been some confirmed cases of serious violence, even isolated ones, I'd be more convinced. I am not. Not yet, anyway.


    This would seem to have a lot to do with where they live, actually.
    Sure. I highly doubt that we will see a violent Tea Party mob destroying property, but I would also admit that it would be a lot more likely to happen (thought still unlikely) outside of the IRS or a Federal Reserve Bank than at the town square in Grover's Corners.


    Okay.
    Bitterly ironic that someone would protest expensive/intrusive health care by threatening bodily injury on others.


    Maybe so. I don't really think Obama is guilty of treason and at any rate, the emphasis on punishment by death is disconcerting to me.
    I don't think he is, either, although I firmly believe every POTUS since at least FDR has done something worthy of impeachment. As to treason being a capital crime, I think the idea behind the sign was that it's one of the few crimes EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution, and that is the maximum sentence that can be imposed. Remember, these are people who believe that the federal government has used the Constitution as toilet paper for decades, and I would tend to agree.


    I think the activity and the atmosphere was different in 1994, not that it was the sort of thing I exactly love...
    I wholeheartedly disagree. From 1994-2001, there was an extremely poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Republicans hated Clinton, and so did more than a handful of liberal Democrats. And, of course, the liberal Democrats hated the Republicans, and the Republicans dismissed the liberals as silly relics of a the big government past. We had a presidential impeachment, for Christ's sake. The only thing that is worse regarding Obama in particular is we have a racial element that is distasteful (from BOTH sides) and goes to prove we still have some seriously immature people in the country when it comes to race relations.


    Incidentally (and I know most people aren't aware of this) the war of American independece was a seccession and actually wasn't very revolutionary. That's something of a misnomer. We wanted to be separate from Britain, we didn't want to take the fight to Britain and make them reform.
    The French revolution was the real thing.
    And the wrong thing, as it turns out. As to the Colonies, challenging the power of the Crown was a pretty revolutionary act politically, even though it stopped way short of being a total social revolution. The Founding Fathers' ideals certainly were not unique to them at the time. What was unique was that they fought and won and didn't fall into complete chaos. They were able to institute a government largely along the line of classical liberal republican ideals.


    There wasn't much to that one. I just like that the person actually had a pitchfork. I wonder if they just had it on hand, or made a point to get one for that occasion.
    Maybe they can have a night rally and bring torches?


    Good.
    Threatening hanging a bunch of people doesn't really jive with "we want to be free to live our lives." It's nasty and hypocritical. Hopefully, that person was just overzealous with the "throw the bums out" attitude. If not, that is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be drummed out of this movement.


    Even if you disagree with my comparisons to those other times, I find it unreasonable how much you downplay the hostility there. I grant it as a possiblity that my position is exaggerated, I do not consider it possible that it's imagined.
    Hostility does not always end in violence, though. Nor does violence require hostility. I think it's a major exaggeration, since there hasn't been any harm done yet.



    The point is that in both cases it's being used as a part of revoltionary symbolism.
    First of all, as I now know, the first flag was actually the first U.S. Navy Jack, and it has apparently been used on some naval ships since 9/11, so I actually see that as a sign of solidarity. It was based on the Gadsden Flag, but is that really a big issue? A flag flown by the Founding Fathers shouldn't really frighten anyone, except for maybe a REALLY old British Naval officer. The Rebel Flag bothers me, naturally, especially when you read more about the CSA. Their "states' rights" rhetoric was just that.


    There is quite a number of vital differences between me and them, and it really shouldn't be my responsibility to point them out to you.
    Humor me!


    Maybe not crazy, but I'd say the principles are misguided. Implimenting them itself would be dramatic and costly, and then the results of their implementation would be a calamity.
    That's what I am asking: what if they aren't?


    It's possible. I presently don't believe it, though. And it wouldn't convince me of it's correctness anyhow.
    OK. At least we know where we stand there. I make the point all the time that democracy is a means, not an end.


    I wouldn't be surprised if that is true in the USA. I would beg to differ more if we were talking about the entire devloped world. But at any rate, we aren't. As I said, I don't think most of them are working consistently on the axioms of regulation and deragulation that much of our disagreements come from. At one of the attempted town hall meetings by a democratic congress men, a crowd member now famously said "keep your government hands off my medicare". In so few words, that said it all.
    And I agree with you on that, although I can actually see how "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" would make sense to someone who knows that health care was changing but didn't understand all the intricacies involved. Again, that is the kind of thing a more informed colleague should see and inform the person about.


    I prefer this direction.
    Glad to oblige.


    Defining an improvment in the country is complex, and I don't know if there's a point in writing it all here, but I know what I think it is. It mostly regards improved standards of living/quality of life, less social stratification, and more lex foreign/defense policies. There are other details, but whatever.
    What if there were MORE social stratification or economic inequality, but high growth, low inflation, and a general better experience and mood for the vast majority of people?


    Obviously things can't improve over night, and it's also difficult for someone to improve everything at once. But if, say, in 8 years of control (or mostly control) a majority of those things improved and the remainder did not become critically worse, I would have to adjust my understanding of the matter.
    Would you adjust your understanding, or your position?


    And with that, I have to say that I could go on like this forever, but it gets rather monotonous and I get tired of it. So I wonder what you are looking to gain out of these debates. I have never known.
    Articulation of positions and real vision for something better in the world, rather than platitudes and gotcha moments and Us vs. Them bullshit.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #235
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    OK. There is still a huge amount of subjectivity as the "the amount of happiness experienced by the living," though. Not really an objective criterion.
    I made that comment about my essay for a reason. How much detail am I going to have to go into? I will say that I think achieving happiness is at least a bit more objective than seems to be popular to think, probably because we are all the same species and can only be so different.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    If there had been some confirmed cases of serious violence, even isolated ones, I'd be more convinced. I am not. Not yet, anyway.
    I don't know what else to say. We're have different requirments.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Bitterly ironic that someone would protest expensive/intrusive health care by threatening bodily injury on others.
    Hah. I agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I don't think he is, either, although I firmly believe every POTUS since at least FDR has done something worthy of impeachment. As to treason being a capital crime, I think the idea behind the sign was that it's one of the few crimes EXPLICITLY mentioned in the Constitution, and that is the maximum sentence that can be imposed. Remember, these are people who believe that the federal government has used the Constitution as toilet paper for decades, and I would tend to agree.
    Well, every president has violated the consitution.

    I suppose these are both valid interpretations. I personally don't like alluding to sentencing our politicians to execution, though, and that's what I really got out of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I wholeheartedly disagree. From 1994-2001, there was an extremely poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Republicans hated Clinton, and so did more than a handful of liberal Democrats. And, of course, the liberal Democrats hated the Republicans, and the Republicans dismissed the liberals as silly relics of a the big government past. We had a presidential impeachment, for Christ's sake. The only thing that is worse regarding Obama in particular is we have a racial element that is distasteful (from BOTH sides) and goes to prove we still have some seriously immature people in the country when it comes to race relations.
    I think this whole thing has been getting gradually worse over time. I haven't done detailed research on it, but as it stands I have the impression that now is worse than then.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    And the wrong thing, as it turns out. As to the Colonies, challenging the power of the Crown was a pretty revolutionary act politically, even though it stopped way short of being a total social revolution. The Founding Fathers' ideals certainly were not unique to them at the time. What was unique was that they fought and won and didn't fall into complete chaos. They were able to institute a government largely along the line of classical liberal republican ideals.
    I know it was the wrong thing. I'm actually rather anti-revolutionary, if you couldn't guess.

    Well, it was rebellion, and there's no doubt in that. While forming a new country is always difficult, secessions do not have that same rate of catastrophic failure as authentic revolutions, so in that light the success of the USA wasn't quite so miraculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Maybe they can have a night rally and bring torches?
    That would be too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Threatening hanging a bunch of people doesn't really jive with "we want to be free to live our lives." It's nasty and hypocritical. Hopefully, that person was just overzealous with the "throw the bums out" attitude. If not, that is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be drummed out of this movement.
    That requires some intra-confrontation, though, and I'm not seeing enough of that to satisfy me. Canning the tea party express was a small change of pace, and there needs to be more of that. In any group, the most extreme people, while typically a minority, are also typically the most active and the loudest. They require extra attention to be held back.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Hostility does not always end in violence, though. Nor does violence require hostility. I think it's a major exaggeration, since there hasn't been any harm done yet.
    YET. And this is why my point about wanting radical change and not being open to compromise. Combine those with hostility, and violence does becomes disconcertingly probable.


    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    First of all, as I now know, the first flag was actually the first U.S. Navy Jack, and it has apparently been used on some naval ships since 9/11, so I actually see that as a sign of solidarity. It was based on the Gadsden Flag, but is that really a big issue? A flag flown by the Founding Fathers shouldn't really frighten anyone, except for maybe a REALLY old British Naval officer. The Rebel Flag bothers me, naturally, especially when you read more about the CSA. Their "states' rights" rhetoric was just that.
    They are both specifically selected, I think, because of a revolutionary association (that would include all those flags in relation to the Gadsden flag).

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Humor me!
    No, really, I don't want to. This is something you should absolutely know without help.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    That's what I am asking: what if they aren't?
    Then I would be wrong about a shit load of things. I'm very confident they are misguided, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    OK. At least we know where we stand there. I make the point all the time that democracy is a means, not an end.
    I say that all freedom is a means and not end, but that seems to really bother a lot of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    And I agree with you on that, although I can actually see how "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" would make sense to someone who knows that health care was changing but didn't understand all the intricacies involved. Again, that is the kind of thing a more informed colleague should see and inform the person about.
    The fact that it is self-contradictory through lack of knowledge is an example of the problem with trying to peg the political beliefs of the average American. Where would we say that person stands on the matter of goverment involvement?

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Glad to oblige.




    What if there were MORE social stratification or economic inequality, but high growth, low inflation, and a general better experience and mood for the vast majority of people?
    I said that if the majority improved and the remainder did not severely get worse, I would adjust. So technically I have to accept the possibility of inequality increasing as one of the remainder. But it is something I'm particularly sensitive about as the USA already has a marked problem with stratification and the affects of stratification on a society are great. Inequality can partially or completely mitigate increased wealth, advanced technology, and representative civic insitutions. It is also interesting to read research on how socially inequality directly affects psychology. It does not make people happy.

    In other words, I'm skeptical about society becoming more stratified and all those other things getting better. But if it somehow did, I would have to accept it under my conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Would you adjust your understanding, or your position?
    I guess in some ways I'd have to adjust my position. It's hard to say how much I would because so many different factors can be involved, working in different ways, to get to the same outcome. Even if things improved and all of that, the history of events leading up to that point would affect how much I could or couldn't hold against the tea party policies.

    But regardless, if things didn't go wrong, I'd have to change my position on the danger level of those policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Articulation of positions and real vision for something better in the world, rather than platitudes and gotcha moments and Us vs. Them bullshit.
    I try to go for articulation too, usually.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #236
    Senior Member Phoenix_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Some interesting back and forth goin' on in here. There's a couple of things I'll probably weigh in on later, but I'm a little pressed for time at the moment.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, do you all know what this thread is missing? A THEME SONG!!!

    Here's my nomination:
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNDcAWNscg8"]American Ride[/YOUTUBE]

    Just addin' a lil' touch of much needed humor.
    "People in glass houses shouldn't use Windex when living near bird sanctuaries."- myself

    "We are never alone my friend. We are constantly in the company of victories, losses, strengths and weaknesses. Make no mistake, life is war...and war is hell. Those who fight the hardest will suffer the most...but that's what you have to do: Fight. As long as you're feeling pain, then there's hope...because only the dead do not suffer." -RD Metcalf
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  7. #237
    Senior Member eagleseven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix_400 View Post
    Ladies and Gentlemen, do you all know what this thread is missing? A THEME SONG!!!
    Alternatively...

    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpPQ3oDDzPM"]Tea Party Anthem[/YOUTUBE]

    ...feeling corny?

  8. #238
    Senior Member Phoenix_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INxP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eagleseven View Post
    Alternatively...

    :video:

    ...feeling corny?
    LMAO! A lil' over-the-top, but damned if it ain't a catchy tune.

    I'm not gonna lie, I got up and danced to it.

    EDIT: I still prefer my pick. It appeals to the Cynical Optimist in me.

    How bout this one?
    [YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMx__6Zc3S0"]Shuttin' Detroit Down[/YOUTUBE]
    A little too much of a downer, maybe?
    "People in glass houses shouldn't use Windex when living near bird sanctuaries."- myself

    "We are never alone my friend. We are constantly in the company of victories, losses, strengths and weaknesses. Make no mistake, life is war...and war is hell. Those who fight the hardest will suffer the most...but that's what you have to do: Fight. As long as you're feeling pain, then there's hope...because only the dead do not suffer." -RD Metcalf
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  9. #239

    Default

    USATODAY July 21, 2010

    Obama, Republicans and the Tea Party eye each other warily

    The Obama White House isn't crazy about the attacks they take from the Republican Party and from "Tea Party" members, but officials there are enjoying signs of infighting between those two groups.

    Some House Republicans, for example, are undecided about whether to join the new Tea Party Caucus created by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., a prominent supporter of the insurgent conservative group.

    Meanwhile, the fact that Tea Party candidates Rand Paul and Sharron Angle won primaries over establishment Republicans in Kentucky and Nevada is making some GOP members nervous, fearing that pressure is pushing their party too far to the right.

    Former Senate Republican leader Trent Lott told the Washington Post that a big contingent of Tea Party types will only make the Senate harder to run, citing the anti-establishment example of Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

    "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said told the paper. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

    Lott added that he does expect a big Tea Party sweep: "I still have faith in the visceral judgment of the American people."

    Still, comments like these make White House officials smile, and are among the reasons that Obama, Vice President Biden and others predict that Democrats will surprise people in the upcoming elections.

    "I am absolutely confident when people take a look at what has happened since we've taken office in November and comparing it to the alternative ... we're going to be in great shape," Biden told ABC's This Week recently.

    Biden cited the Senate race in Nevada, where incumbent Harry Reid was considered an underdog until Tea Party member Angle won the Republican nomination.

    "I'll bet Harry Reid wins," Biden said. "You're going to see that repeated."

    (Posted by David Jackson)


Similar Threads

  1. media coverage of the tea parties Part 2, (the video they don't want you to see)
    By cogdecree in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-24-2009, 06:36 PM
  2. media coverage of the tea parties
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 03:22 PM
  3. Tax Day Tea Party Protests
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 04-15-2009, 10:47 PM
  4. Civil unrest: National tea party, tax revolt
    By Risen in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-18-2009, 04:14 PM
  5. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO