DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:27 pm**

When I hear someone wants to help the tea party come to it's senses, I often just want to say this, which is probably true about Karl Rove, Palin, Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:47 pm**

Those Tea Party people genuinely scare me. They use reasonable sounding words like "partriotism" and "family values" in order to further their hateful agenda. Not to mention they have almost no understanding of who our founders were or what they stood for.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 6:49 pm**

Here's some recent news article in relations to this topic and shows how ignorant many of these Tea party people are.

Mary Rakovich cannot pinpoint the moment she realised she was losing her country. But she started to get that feeling in early 2008 during a very heated phase of the Democratic primary contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The TV networks had picked up tapes of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermons and were replaying the most incendiary clips over and over: “God damn America”, “God damn America,” “God damn America.”

The internet was awash with rumours that the clips of Obama’s Chicago pastor would be followed by another even more troubling release. One persistent rumour had it that Michelle Obama was on tape condemning “whiteys”. Conservative websites focused on the fact that Obama, unlike other presidential candidates, tended not to wear the American flag pin on his lapel. Already there were rumours that he had not been born in America and was a closet Muslim.

For 53-year-old Mary, an automotive engineer who had recently lost her job at General Motors in Detroit and moved with her husband to Florida, it was a moment of awakening. For the first time in her life she began to surf the internet. “I never realised how much you could learn,” she said over a seafood meal near her new home in Cedar Key, central Florida. “It opened up a new world to me.”

Mary looked up the website of the Revd Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ. “I came across black liberation theology, which I’d never heard of before,” she said. “It really freaked me out. I mean, if you went on to John McCain’s website and found all this stuff about white liberation theology wouldn’t you be freaked?” I nodded in agreement.

Socrates said that to understand a thing you must first name it. It was not until February 2009 that the Tea Party movement got its name (after the 1773 Boston protest against punitive British taxes). That was when Rick Santelli, the CNBC anchor, erupted into his now famous live “rant” in which he stuck the moniker on the growing but inchoate conservative backlash against Barack Obama. President Obama had yet to complete a month in office.

It could just as easily have happened during the election. At their rallies, John McCain and Sarah Palin would often be drowned out by beer hall chants of “USA”, “USA”. (Palin surfed it, McCain just looked awkward.) It could have happened on October 3 2008, when Congress passed the $700bn Wall Street bailout unleashing a flood of hate mail to lawmakers who had voted in favour.

It might have happened six weeks earlier when Obama addressed the Hollywoodesque Democratic convention at the Mile High stadium in Denver – an event that sent liberal spirits soaring but which only deepened the foreboding of conservatives. “We kept thinking, who is this guy? Do we know anything about him?” says Ron Rakovich, Mary’s husband, 52, who, like his wife, had recently been evicted from his job at GM.

But it was Santelli on February 19 2009 who put a name to the feelings of the Rakoviches and millions like them. His angry soliloquy was sparked by Obama’s announcement of an otherwise unexceptionable – and ineffectual – plan to stem the ... floodtide of home foreclosures. For Santelli it was another wasteful bailout for the undeserving – although in this case the undeserving were poor.

continue more in the article link
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/88143c46-e...44feabdc0.html

LOL to bolded.
&
I founded this hilarious

The US constitution was God’s gift to the world.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:09 pm**

The_Iceflash wrote:I'm not attacking it. I clearly said if. I'm for the health care bill since it just gave me some more years of healthcare that I would have lost come January. If I were going to attack it there would be no question whether I was or not. Don't insult me like that again.

It turns out I was wrong. I judged too quickly. I apologize.

Disney's Divinity wrote:If there were a moderate contender (that people would take seriously), they'd most likely always have my vote.

For that to happen, the system has to be overhauled. You'd have to do away with the Electoral College and replace it with instant-runoff voting. The 'winner takes all' formula should be abolished. Otherwise, no third party would ever gain any significance.

Super Aurora wrote:Here's some recent news article in relations to this topic and shows how ignorant many of these Tea party people are.

[...] It was not until February 2009 that the Tea Party movement got its name (after the 1773 Boston protest against punitive British taxes). That was when Rick Santelli, the CNBC anchor, erupted into his now famous live “rant” in which he stuck the moniker on the growing but inchoate conservative backlash against Barack Obama. President Obama had yet to complete a month in office.

This is very significant. Just today I was reading about this. The 'grassroots' movement started with Rick Santelli yelling he was going to organize a Tea Party. But remember *why* Santelli was so pissed off. Not because of TARP, or because of the Stimulus Bill or other legislation handing out billions to Wall Street and banks. No, Santelli was pissed because Obama did sign a bill that would help ordinary working class Americans by preventing they got kicked out of their homes, because they couldn't pay for their overpriced, 'subprime' mortages.

That's the Tea Party in a nutshell: they blast ordinary working class people for getting 'government handouts' (even though they themselves are often working class people who receive Medicaid or Medicare), while at the same time advocating *less* oversight and regulation for big business.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:14 pm**

I think the whole political party process is what tears this country apart and makes it so hard for ANYTHING to get done.

Frankly, I think to FORCE voters to RESEARCH candidates before they vote, they should no longer list the parties next to each candidates names. I know too many people who have said they vote simply on what party is next to their name. This is stupid, IMO.

People need to know who they vote for, what they stand for, and what their plans are. "REP/DEM/LIB/etc" is not enough!!

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:16 pm**

Siren wrote:I think the whole political party process is what tears this country apart and makes it so hard for ANYTHING to get done.

Pretty much.

Posted: **Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:19 pm**

Goliath wrote:
The_Iceflash wrote:I'm not attacking it. I clearly said if. I'm for the health care bill since it just gave me some more years of healthcare that I would have lost come January. If I were going to attack it there would be no question whether I was or not. Don't insult me like that again.
It turns out I was wrong. I judged too quickly. I apologize.

No harm done.

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2010 3:26 am**

Disney's Divinity wrote:Do you live in Canada or the UK? I've always thought about moving to one of those countries in the future (for reasons like gay marriage, no crazies, etc.), though in some ways I'd feel like I was abandoning the gay rights movement in the US. But who wants to wait on the US to stop acting like a theocracy?

If you moved to Canada I don't think you'd be abandoning the movement. You could still help out in some other ways (like online) while still having those constitutional rights and provincial human rights (like protection in the workplace). Interestingly though you can't donate blood if you've ever had sex and are gay. That's another issue though for another thread possibly (like the all purpose gay one).

As for politics in Canada although we have five major political parties, one is only located in Quebec and two (Liberals and Conservatives of course) end up begin the front-runner parties. I don't think we're necessarily perfect either.

And the US Constitution is God's gift to the world? Way to undermine the people who actually made it. You know, the patriots you so apparently idolize.

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:49 am**

Flanger-Hanger wrote:
And the US Constitution is God's gift to the world? Way to undermine the people who actually made it. You know, the patriots you so apparently idolize.

Even funnier is that the founders weren't even christian. They were Deist.

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:18 pm**

Super Aurora wrote:Even funnier is that the founders weren't even christian. They were Deist.

Not according to Christine O'Donell, they weren't!

Posted: **Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:56 pm**

I won’t comment on this Tea Party bashing, as I didn’t really care to read the whole thing but there was just a couple of things that caught my eye as I skimmed through really quick:

Goliath wrote:The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate in the Indiana 9th, Todd Young, says "Social Security, as so many of you know is a Ponzi scheme."

The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Wisconsin 8th, Reid Ribble, disagrees. Social Security "is, in fact, a Ponzi scheme."

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. When Social Security was first created, the life expectancy was lower then the age at which you collect. The government implemented it to make people feel good while they secretly took money out of the Social Security funds to spend on other projects; they had no intention of ever paying out. When they made their first payouts, they were ridiculous and completely unsustainable (this was to add encouragement among skeptics that this was a good idea, most people saw that something was wrong and worried it wouldn't be around when it their turn to collect). Now that people are living longer and collecting, and Social Security is billions in a hole in which it will never get out of (all while taking in less then it gives out), there can be no doubt it was and is a Ponzi scheme. The pyramid collapsed a long time ago. I want the option to opt out of Social Security. I want to take the personal responsibility of saving for my own retirement and not paying for someone else's through wasteful government middlemen.

Anyways, some interesting reads:

http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2010/So ... tfall.html

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... secur.html

Also...

Goliath wrote:The inheritance tax applies only to estates larger than $3.5 million. For the 99.8 percent of Americans not affected by the estate tax, there is the minimum wage, which Mr. Raese also wants abolished. Or there is Social Security.

My Grandma just died and I know for a fact that Ohio's estate tax affected us, as she left us $600,000 (over 60 years of her life savings), and the government took near 50% of that. Add to it being split among her 4 kids and you're not left with much. Once again, this just convinces me even further that the only tax that should be implemented is the Fair Tax. The current egregious tax system just encourages corruption, fraud and wasteful spending.

Lastly, the real reason democracy in America is fading away: Gerrymandering (The Incumbent Protection Racket)

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YXPWLSQorXE?fs ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YXPWLSQorXE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2010 12:24 pm**

Isn't Social Security a good idea if it actually works?

Also, I don't understand why the Tea Party or generally Republicans are allowed to do a lot of what they do. A lot of what they do is clearly religiously-backed, but there is a seperation of church and state. Isn't some of what they do obviously unlawfulor even illegal?

Like, with gay rights, I don't understand why someone doesn't step in and say, "You know, you can't really keep certain people from not marrying. It's not really up to voters. It's clearly unconstitional and against our laws."

I also can't believe they have taken over the house. But I guess it's becasue everyone's scared and hates how things are going right now, even though we haven't had terrorits attacks lately and we're coming out of the recession.

Posted: **Wed Nov 03, 2010 5:51 pm**

@ jpanimation:

I don't know enough about Social Security in the US to debate this. What you quoted, was taken from Keith Olbermann's transcript. You'll have to take it up with him. I don't know if you're right about the Estate Tax in that particular case; it's impossible for me to judge that. But that doesn't matter anyway, because that was not the point I was making with this thread, and not the point Olbermann was making with his Special Comment. We were warning about the clearly theocratic, idiotic, unrealistic, unfair and dangerous statements and proposals Tea Party-candidates have made. You have picked out two issues that can be discussed rationally. But most of the points being made aren't rational at all and they threaten democracy. (Even though I use that word very loosely after the 1963 and 2000 coup d'états.)

The fact is that the Tea Party movement isn't really about lower taxes and smaller government and deficit reduction. If that were true, we would've heard from these people years and years ago, when the Bush-administration started two wars without funding, creating a 300 billion dollar deficit, while in the meantime lowering taxes for the richest 1% of Americans, but doing nothing for the middle class. Where were these people? Oh, that's right, Fox News and talk radio didn't instruct them to be angry because they said Bush was the greatest president ever. And Bush was white.

95% of the people got their taxes reduced under Obama, and compared to the rest of the modern Western world, Americans' taxes are ridiculously low. So why are these people mad? Because they don't know anything and don't want to know anything. They scream: "yet your government's hands of my Medicare" and compare the centrist corporatist Obama to Chairman Mao.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:58 pm**

This is from the "How to be Tactful" thread and CJ asked for us not to discuss politics there.

Goliath wrote:
The_Iceflash wrote:We'll use your tea party thread as an example. What if there were any UD members that were tea party members? Did you even consider that or did you say "If there are any tea party members on UD I don't like them so it doesn't matter if I offend them"? Saying American Democracy is in danger and then putting blame onto a group and trashing them is going to greatly offend any member who is of that group.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I'm not going to watch my language because Tea Party members might get offended. They have no reason to be offended. They should apologize to the rest of America, for having offended so many groups of people in the last years (African Americans, Latinos, immigrants, homosexuals, progressives etc.). I wouldn't lower my tone for them. Just like I wouldn't lower my tone to appease gay-bashers or racists or anti-semites. If one is a UD member who is also in the Tea Party, they deserve to get called on the stupid and dangerous things their movement's leaders are spouting. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If one chooses to be in a fanatical cult like the Tea Party, one has to bear the consequences.

Iceflash - I'm with G on this one.

And I'll tell you what I think about potential UD'ers supporting the Tea Party movement: Some people won't see the damage they're causing until it's too late. Some people can see the damage they're doing right now. Go ahead and support them, it's any individual's right. But most people will see upon reflection - if there's a world left by then - that they made a huge mistake in doing so.

I personally am getting more and more Doomsday...by the day. Time progresses and absolutely nothing else does. It was anger years ago. Now it's bordering on apathy. There are just too many freaking idiots out there. They really do outnumber everyone else right about now. The people in the middle, who aren't taking a strong stance, could help... but they're too busy. Or they're just not into bloodsports.

Posted: **Thu Nov 04, 2010 5:05 pm**

What you guys think about the Tea Party is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. This thread was just a small example about tact. You guys may not "give a damn" but that's entirely the point about tact. It's exactly the problem you have with the tact thread. It's not "giving a damn" about what others think nor "giving a damn" about whether or not something we say will offend someone else. Being outspoken and opinionated is not a good trait. Making obnoxious comments toward others isn't a good thing and it doesn't make for a good environment. Politics and Religion are two things people are very passionate about because for many it defines who they are. Being tactful there to me is more important than anywhere else. Most people are going to shrug off remarks about a favorite movie or character. When remarks are made toward issues involving Politics and Religion people take that personally. As a result, we should be more sensitive to that.

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:18 pm**

The_Iceflash wrote:What you guys think about the Tea Party is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Think? Glenn Beck is an idiot and Sarah Palin is a wholly worthless individual. Based on that alone, I know any party that would have them, let alone hold them up as media heroes, is seriously messed up from the start!

The_Iceflash wrote:Being outspoken and opinionated is not a good trait.

Did you mean to say that? Am I reading that correctly? Look that over now, please. And fix it if that's not what you meant to say. Because otherwise, you believe we should all be impressionable to the point of inaction and should keep everything to ourselves. They invented something called speech for a reason. Nobody with any common sense discourages us from telling others what we think. What we should be doing is making sure the more greedy, hateful people actually do put some thought into the opinions they express. But you're betraying your own belief right now- doing something you've just told us you believe is wrong: sharing your opinion.

The_Iceflash wrote:Making obnoxious comments toward others isn't a good thing and it doesn't make for a good environment. Politics and Religion are two things people are very passionate about because for many it defines who they are. Being tactful there to me is more important than anywhere else. Most people are going to shrug off remarks about a favorite movie or character. When remarks are made toward issues involving Politics and Religion people take that personally. As a result, we should be more sensitive to that.

But it simply isn't likely to happen. And the fact is- the Political "Right" started this years ago and polluted the entire nature of discourse. The Left learned that the only way to be heard through this was to shout and shock. The same way their opponents made a name for themselves.

Should we change all that? You lean more toward the Right than the Left yourself, if I'm not mistaken- don't you? That's why I personally find it a little hard to listen to this coming from someone who might not have tried to figure out how this mess started. You just want to tell us how we should fix it? Too little, too late now. I quote the great Karen Walker: "grab a bottle, hunker down, and pray for daylight!"

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:53 pm**

Wait?! Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. That must be a fun party.

Their main target audience: Hockey moms, rednecks (dey took er jobs!!!), hicks, conspiracy theorists, Elizabeth Hasselbeck.

Hmmm, well, that is about 50% of the US, so I guess you're all screwed.

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:37 pm**

Duckburger wrote:Hmmm, well, that is about 50% of the US, so I guess you're all screwed.

And don't we know it too. That's why we have Iceflash acting as our Voice of Sensitivity. Take your pick;

1. "Can't we all just get along?"
2. "Is there no morality left in this world?"
3. "Mean people suck."

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:19 pm**

Disney's Divinity wrote: Do you live in Canada or the UK? I've always thought about moving to one of those countries in the future (for reasons like gay marriage, no crazies, etc.), though in some ways I'd feel like I was abandoning the gay rights movement in the US. But who wants to wait on the US to stop acting like a theocracy?

I'm in Canada and although I'm quite happy here, I fear that there is somewhat of a growing "Americanization" of our Political culture. Heck, our own Prime Minister hired former Bush people (such as Ari Fleischer) a couple years ago as advisers/consultants.

Elections, especially federally, have become more about personal attacks and creating issue-less campaigns. Voting keeps going down and there seems to be a growing apathy towards politics in general. Our PM Stephen Harper only remains sorta/kinda popular because there is no opposition that inspires people. As a country, our policies keep trending to the "right" despite having a Minority Government who received 36% of the popular vote. (whereas the 4 other parties received 63% combined and are all Center or Left. Led by the Liberals with 30%) In the end, this country will eventually go back to Liberals, but the people of Canada (or at least the 54% that voted/stayed home out of "protest") have sent them a message to get their act together.

Not getting a seat on the UN Security council recently was an embarrassment and we've gotten called out for our diminishing quality/effort when it comes to foreign policy. A lot of what has made me proud of Canada seems to be slowly withering away, as our attention to social issues and programs is being pushed by the wayside it seems. I'm by no means anti-capitalist or against private business, (I work for a bank) but I also understand the importance of public funding and social amenities. Sometimes compassion and taking a little less can go a long way.

But on the plus side, being in Vancouver I have access to some excellent Sushi, my favorite food.

I just wish we got more snow up here, the rest of Canada hogs it all.

Posted: **Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:30 pm**

Actually, I don't think The-Iceflash's message was all that bad. He may have worded it a bit clumsy, but in essence an appeal to decency in discourse is very welcome, especially in American politics. I do object to his wish that we appease the nutty part of the spectrum (the Tea Party) just to keep the peace. But trying to get back to a normal tone in the political discourse is not a bad thing. That's why Jon Stewart's 'Rally to restore sanity' got 250.000 people to the National Mall. That rally was targeted toward the 80% of Americans who don't feel represented by the extreme people and voices we see in Congress and on the cable channels.

I mean, who really believes that Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz are a good representation of all Americans? Or that Alan Grayson and Rand Paul stand for the common political views of most citizens? Yes, there are certainly enough people who support those extremists (hence the ratings and voting results), but it's hardly a majority.

I was glad to see some of the better politicians keep on to their seats, like Barbara Boxer, but was also upset that such a good Senator like Russ Feingold got defeated.

DVDizzy Forum

American Democracy in serious danger

Re: American Democracy in serious danger