Tea Parties At it Again

[Jugs of Unicorns]

.

[Kalibarr]

you people are just plain WRONG! As a tea partier, I'll tell you what we hate;
1. big government (as in taxes and civil intervention etc.)

There you go! We aren't republicans, we aren't anarchists. Obama is a socialist because it is a fact that he wants universal health care. What is universal health care? A socialist idea. Don't even try to say that he isn't because he is by definition. If you don't know what socialism is, then by saying he isn't a socialist (as if socialists are bad things) you are insulting obama even moreso.

Often people look at conservatives these days and say that they just like to say No all the time and they never put forth ideas of their own. Well the fact is, we do have ideas, but you guys are too-close minded to listen to them. We've heard your's, we don't like them. Let us tell you our's. You don't have to like it.

you realize the US has technically been socialist from the moment it provided any service other than military protection, right?

This statement is false.

No it isn't, I am not referring to the doctrines of Marx or Lenin but to the simple scale between Pure Capitalism and Pure Communism, socialism is a blend, anything less that the non-existence of property/100 % State Run Industry is technically not a Communist state, anything more than military protection is not technically pure capitalist. America has services and regulations, meaning it is not pure capitalist, though it is on the capitalist side of the scale.

A better example of socialism would be nationalizing general motors. Giving old people money from a fund they paid for in taxes while working for being a productive member of society for decades is hardly socialism.

Social Security/Medicare are payed for by working people now, you don't pay for yourself you pay for those who are currently retired, they are taxes not investment funds

[Zephie]

you people are just plain WRONG! As a tea partier, I'll tell you what we hate;
1. big government (as in taxes and civil intervention etc.)

There you go! We aren't republicans, we aren't anarchists. Obama is a socialist because it is a fact that he wants universal health care. What is universal health care? A socialist idea. Don't even try to say that he isn't because he is by definition. If you don't know what socialism is, then by saying he isn't a socialist (as if socialists are bad things) you are insulting obama even moreso.

Often people look at conservatives these days and say that they just like to say No all the time and they never put forth ideas of their own. Well the fact is, we do have ideas, but you guys are too-close minded to listen to them. We've heard your's, we don't like them. Let us tell you our's. You don't have to like it.

you realize the US has technically been socialist from the moment it provided any service other than military protection, right?

This statement is false.

False?? Then how do you explain:
The national guard, police, fire servies, ambulances, roads, libraries, the postal service, highway management, air travel regulation, railway systems, subway systems, metro systems, public buses, any highway rest areas, sidewalks, water and sewer services, any public universities and colleges or primary and secondary public schools, public parks, state parks, national parks, public zoos, garbage services, recycling services, any medications that were created with the help of government research grants, insurance during unemployment, any food or crops that were grown with government subsidies, government office buildings including the Capitol in D.C., all monuments found in D.C., the State of Liberty, military memorials, military cemetaries, the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA, homeland security, the TSA, the Dept of Justice... etc.

Just to name a few.

Surely we're not socialist at all!

So a country having a police force makes it socialist now? I guess Lenin's dream came true, socialism worldwide!

You're right. The police force isn't paid for by the public. My mistake.

Also why did you ignore the rest of the list you big silly?

I stopped at police. You don't even know what socialism is.

[Kaputer]

The problem with the Tea Party is while about a 1/4 of it has legitimate concerns about the economy and other things the rest are just some crazy cooks who dress like idiots.

[Mama Chola]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10636746

Billboard says it all...

Am I the only one who thinks the Tea Party has got to calm down, just a bit? And Obama is hardly a Democratic Socialist... I think there are some Democratic Socialist that would actually take offense to that.

It gets even better than the billboard. A tea party leader recently sent an extremely racist letter to the NAACP. Check it out: http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201007150012

[OMGeverynameistaken]

The problem with the Tea Party is while about a 1/4 of it has legitimate concerns about the economy and other things the rest are just some crazy cooks who dress like idiots.

The Tea Party is kind of like Communism. A great idea in theory, but once you throw it out into the cold wasteland of reality, it's just a bunch of people screaming about something they don't understand while dancing like puppets on a string for the people at the top.

[You-Gi-Owe]

'sigh" This is old news. Someone dragged out this pic when they were looking for pix, reading "lynch our President" and "lynch Eric Holder" on the topic where NAACP's Ben Jealous was making a stink over TEA Party racism last week.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Welcome to my Tea Party, go ahead, feel free, pull up a chair! I just know there's an electric one somewhere...

[Zephie]

The problem with the Tea Party is while about a 1/4 of it has legitimate concerns about the economy and other things the rest are just some crazy cooks who dress like idiots.

The Tea Party is kind of like Communism. A great idea in theory, but once you throw it out into the cold wasteland of reality, it's just a bunch of people screaming about something they don't understand while dancing like puppets on a string for the people at the top.

I'm not part of the "Tea Party" but your ignorant statement even makes me feel offended.

[Kaputer]

The problem with the Tea Party is while about a 1/4 of it has legitimate concerns about the economy and other things the rest are just some crazy cooks who dress like idiots.

The Tea Party is kind of like Communism. A great idea in theory, but once you throw it out into the cold wasteland of reality, it's just a bunch of people screaming about something they don't understand while dancing like puppets on a string for the people at the top.

I'm not part of the "Tea Party" but your ignorant statement even makes me feel offended.

It is not an ignorant statement. I would like to ask you since when has a real Marx form of Communism existed?

[The Sapian Empire]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10636746

Billboard says it all...

Am I the only one who thinks the Tea Party has got to calm down, just a bit? And Obama is hardly a Democratic Socialist... I think there are some Democratic Socialist that would actually take offense to that.

c'mon man, it's funny. Maybe you should calm down. The right never gets a chance to be the oppressed.. to set up our own propaganda.. not the modern american right anyways. Now let us have fun, if i saw that billboard i would hate humanity a little less.. it's true.

[The Sapian Empire]

The problem with the Tea Party is while about a 1/4 of it has legitimate concerns about the economy and other things the rest are just some crazy cooks who dress like idiots.

The Tea Party is kind of like Communism. A great idea in theory, but once you throw it out into the cold wasteland of reality, it's just a bunch of people screaming about something they don't understand while dancing like puppets on a string for the people at the top.

I'm not part of the "Tea Party" but your ignorant statement even makes me feel offended.

It is not an ignorant statement. I would like to ask you since when has a real Marx form of Communism existed?

it cannot, humanity is imperfect. Communism cannot be successful. Between Socialism and Capitalism, humanity is greedy, and socialism tries to make the government into an all-pervasive god power; when it cannot because it's headed by humans... Capitalism gives freedom and allows greed to turn into profit instead of a target to shoot at.

[Dyakovo]

you people are just plain WRONG! As a tea partier, I'll tell you what we hate;
1. big government (as in taxes and civil intervention etc.)

There you go! We aren't republicans, we aren't anarchists. Obama is a socialist because it is a fact that he wants universal health care. What is universal health care? A socialist idea. Don't even try to say that he isn't because he is by definition. If you don't know what socialism is, then by saying he isn't a socialist (as if socialists are bad things) you are insulting obama even moreso.

Often people look at conservatives these days and say that they just like to say No all the time and they never put forth ideas of their own. Well the fact is, we do have ideas, but you guys are too-close minded to listen to them. We've heard your's, we don't like them. Let us tell you our's. You don't have to like it.

you realize the US has technically been socialist from the moment it provided any service other than military protection, right?

This statement is false.

No it isn't, I am not referring to the doctrines of Marx or Lenin but to the simple scale between Pure Capitalism and Pure Communism, socialism is a blend, anything less that the non-existence of property/100 % State Run Industry is technically not a Communist state, anything more than military protection is not technically pure capitalist. America has services and regulations, meaning it is not pure capitalist, though it is on the capitalist side of the scale.

A better example of socialism would be nationalizing general motors. Giving old people money from a fund they paid for in taxes while working for being a productive member of society for decades is hardly socialism.

GM wasn't nationalized.

[Zephie]

you people are just plain WRONG! As a tea partier, I'll tell you what we hate;
1. big government (as in taxes and civil intervention etc.)

There you go! We aren't republicans, we aren't anarchists. Obama is a socialist because it is a fact that he wants universal health care. What is universal health care? A socialist idea. Don't even try to say that he isn't because he is by definition. If you don't know what socialism is, then by saying he isn't a socialist (as if socialists are bad things) you are insulting obama even moreso.

Often people look at conservatives these days and say that they just like to say No all the time and they never put forth ideas of their own. Well the fact is, we do have ideas, but you guys are too-close minded to listen to them. We've heard your's, we don't like them. Let us tell you our's. You don't have to like it.

you realize the US has technically been socialist from the moment it provided any service other than military protection, right?

This statement is false.

No it isn't, I am not referring to the doctrines of Marx or Lenin but to the simple scale between Pure Capitalism and Pure Communism, socialism is a blend, anything less that the non-existence of property/100 % State Run Industry is technically not a Communist state, anything more than military protection is not technically pure capitalist. America has services and regulations, meaning it is not pure capitalist, though it is on the capitalist side of the scale.

A better example of socialism would be nationalizing general motors. Giving old people money from a fund they paid for in taxes while working for being a productive member of society for decades is hardly socialism.

GM wasn't nationalized.

Owner(s)

-United States Department of the Treasury (61%)
-United Auto Workers Union
-Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (17.5%)
-Canada Development Investment Corporation (7.9%)
-Government of Ontario (3.8%)
-Bond holders of Motors Liquidation Company (9.8%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_motors

[Dyakovo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us+canada-10636746

Billboard says it all...

Am I the only one who thinks the Tea Party has got to calm down, just a bit? And Obama is hardly a Democratic Socialist... I think there are some Democratic Socialist that would actually take offense to that.

c'mon man, it's funny. Maybe you should calm down. The right never gets a chance to be the oppressed.. to set up our own propaganda.. not the modern american right anyways. Now let us have fun, if i saw that billboard i would hate humanity a little less.. it's true.

No, it isn't. Saying otherwise is just demonstrating your ignorance.

[Dyakovo]

you people are just plain WRONG! As a tea partier, I'll tell you what we hate;
1. big government (as in taxes and civil intervention etc.)

There you go! We aren't republicans, we aren't anarchists. Obama is a socialist because it is a fact that he wants universal health care. What is universal health care? A socialist idea. Don't even try to say that he isn't because he is by definition. If you don't know what socialism is, then by saying he isn't a socialist (as if socialists are bad things) you are insulting obama even moreso.

Often people look at conservatives these days and say that they just like to say No all the time and they never put forth ideas of their own. Well the fact is, we do have ideas, but you guys are too-close minded to listen to them. We've heard your's, we don't like them. Let us tell you our's. You don't have to like it.

you realize the US has technically been socialist from the moment it provided any service other than military protection, right?

This statement is false.

No it isn't, I am not referring to the doctrines of Marx or Lenin but to the simple scale between Pure Capitalism and Pure Communism, socialism is a blend, anything less that the non-existence of property/100 % State Run Industry is technically not a Communist state, anything more than military protection is not technically pure capitalist. America has services and regulations, meaning it is not pure capitalist, though it is on the capitalist side of the scale.

A better example of socialism would be nationalizing general motors. Giving old people money from a fund they paid for in taxes while working for being a productive member of society for decades is hardly socialism.

GM wasn't nationalized.

Owner(s)

-United States Department of the Treasury (61%)
-United Auto Workers Union
-Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (17.5%)
-Canada Development Investment Corporation (7.9%)
-Government of Ontario (3.8%)
-Bond holders of Motors Liquidation Company (9.8%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_motors

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

[Zephie]

you people are just plain WRONG! As a tea partier, I'll tell you what we hate;
1. big government (as in taxes and civil intervention etc.)

There you go! We aren't republicans, we aren't anarchists. Obama is a socialist because it is a fact that he wants universal health care. What is universal health care? A socialist idea. Don't even try to say that he isn't because he is by definition. If you don't know what socialism is, then by saying he isn't a socialist (as if socialists are bad things) you are insulting obama even moreso.

Often people look at conservatives these days and say that they just like to say No all the time and they never put forth ideas of their own. Well the fact is, we do have ideas, but you guys are too-close minded to listen to them. We've heard your's, we don't like them. Let us tell you our's. You don't have to like it.

you realize the US has technically been socialist from the moment it provided any service other than military protection, right?

This statement is false.

No it isn't, I am not referring to the doctrines of Marx or Lenin but to the simple scale between Pure Capitalism and Pure Communism, socialism is a blend, anything less that the non-existence of property/100 % State Run Industry is technically not a Communist state, anything more than military protection is not technically pure capitalist. America has services and regulations, meaning it is not pure capitalist, though it is on the capitalist side of the scale.

A better example of socialism would be nationalizing general motors. Giving old people money from a fund they paid for in taxes while working for being a productive member of society for decades is hardly socialism.

GM wasn't nationalized.

Owner(s)

-United States Department of the Treasury (61%)
-United Auto Workers Union
-Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Association (17.5%)
-Canada Development Investment Corporation (7.9%)
-Government of Ontario (3.8%)
-Bond holders of Motors Liquidation Company (9.8%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_motors

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

The government controls GM. What else is there to understand? Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, and the Soviet Union nationalized everything.

[Dyakovo]

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

The government controls GM. What else is there to understand? Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, and the Soviet Union nationalized everything.

Until the moment the company is back on its feet and is a publicly traded company again.

[Zephie]

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

The government controls GM. What else is there to understand? Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, and the Soviet Union nationalized everything.

Until the moment the company is back on its feet and is a publicly traded company again.

You were claiming it wasn't nationalized. I don't care if it won't be nationalized in the future, if that's even true, the fact of the matter is right now, the present, it's nationalized. Thank you for your time.

[Dyakovo]

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

The government controls GM. What else is there to understand? Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, and the Soviet Union nationalized everything.

Until the moment the company is back on its feet and is a publicly traded company again.

You were claiming it wasn't nationalized. I don't care if it won't be nationalized in the future, if that's even true, the fact of the matter is right now, the present, it's nationalized. Thank you for your time.

*shrugs*
To me saying a company has been nationalized implies that the government has seized control and does not intend to relinquish control, neither of which is accurate in GM's situation.

[Resolute Prime]

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

The government controls GM. What else is there to understand? Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, and the Soviet Union nationalized everything.

Until the moment the company is back on its feet and is a publicly traded company again.

You were claiming it wasn't nationalized. I don't care if it won't be nationalized in the future, if that's even true, the fact of the matter is right now, the present, it's nationalized. Thank you for your time.

This all a pile of bull. By this logic, there is absolutely no difference between giving someone something permanently, and loaning it. And besides, pretty much all economists agree that had the bailout NOT occurred, GM and the other large auto companies will go under. this will lead to thousands of jobs loss, directly and indirectly, and then, no doubt, the tea partiers will all cry foul, point at Obama and blame him for the mess. So, nationalize or not, it was necessary, and indeed, it was the ONLY viable solution at that time. Mind you, eventually someone would point out and say "they could have done this" or "they could have done that" but at the end of the day, hindsight, as they say, is perfect and Obama did do his best at that time.

[Zephie]

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

The government controls GM. What else is there to understand? Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, and the Soviet Union nationalized everything.

Until the moment the company is back on its feet and is a publicly traded company again.

You were claiming it wasn't nationalized. I don't care if it won't be nationalized in the future, if that's even true, the fact of the matter is right now, the present, it's nationalized. Thank you for your time.

*shrugs*
To me saying a company has been nationalized implies that the government has seized control and does not intend to relinquish control, neither of which is accurate in GM's situation.

Government figures "intend" to do a lot of things for the benefit of the people, many of which never happen.

[Dyakovo]

Not familiar with the terms of the bailout are you?

The government controls GM. What else is there to understand? Nazi Germany nationalized many industries, and the Soviet Union nationalized everything.

Until the moment the company is back on its feet and is a publicly traded company again.

You were claiming it wasn't nationalized. I don't care if it won't be nationalized in the future, if that's even true, the fact of the matter is right now, the present, it's nationalized. Thank you for your time.

*shrugs*
To me saying a company has been nationalized implies that the government has seized control and does not intend to relinquish control, neither of which is accurate in GM's situation.

Government figures "intend" to do a lot of things for the benefit of the people, many of which never happen.

So you are arguing that the government does not actually intend to relinquish control?

[Sremski okrug]

GM and the rest of the big three cannot compete with their European and Asian rivals.

[DeusII]

Are they actually called the Tea Party? Does it stand for something?

its the Tea Party movment and the Tea Party is of course in remembrance to the famous act against the British.

I'm not familiar with that, care to elaborate?

a bunch of American went and dumped tea off a ship in defiance to british taxes.

Oh right, I have heard of that. They can't expected to be taken seriously with a name like that.

What would be a better name? The revolutionary party?

Because I was under the impression that this thread was about Tea Parties coming back into fashion, and clicked to find out when they hadn't been in fashion. I suppose to an American the name may immediately conjure the desired image but rather I think of women sitting drinking tea, or a hatter attempting to fit a dormouse into a teapot.

Well then, perhaps you shouldn't judge a book by its cover then :unsure:

That's completely unrelated, it has a very ambiguous name. It's like calling police The Gardeners and expecting me to know what they are.