Quote from Ash

Me too, because THAT would be an interesting debate: the righteousness of a 200-year-old war.

But anyway, these idiots are insane. Firstly, the entire poitn of the original teaparty was that it was a VIOLENT BOYCOTT, not a mere disgruntled protest. It seems like modern "revolutionaies" like Glenn Beck don't have the courage of their convictions.

How do these people think a revolution works? Do they think that they can just walk up to the government, say "We don't like you and would like to replace you", and the government is just going to immediately throw in the towel? NO. You have to ****ing FIGHT tooth and nail, FORCE off tyranny.



Oh wait a minute. I know why these idiots aren't living up to the name they've highjacked because they AREN'T EXPERIENCING TYRANNY.

What? Your government wants to give healthcare to people who can't afford their own? Those MONSTERS!

I don't think the Tea Party's goal is to spark a violent revolution.

That's my point. They are high-jacking the term "Tea Party", making comparisons between themselves and revolutionaries, but aren't actually doing anything comparable to the American revolution.

Well, now that healthcare is passed, all they can do is call John Lewis a nigger and Barney Frank a faggot like any civilized protesters would.

Believe it or not there's actually an educated and intelligent republican minority who develops and professes articulately the ideas the protesters are simply required to learn as a mantra.

From what I've heard from talk radio (about as unbiased as you can get, right?) The idea of the tea party movement is to get back to constitutional values (which is another debate | but one that I think I personally agree with) - There are actually clear and articulate ideas behind the madness that these people perpetuate.

However the people that protest are never the most intelligent or the most educated, they are the people with the most free time on their hands; and generally people with masters degrees working white collar jobs don't have the care or time to go out and protest. It's the disenfranchised blue-collar (note: uneducated) lower middle-class that participates in these protests at the behest of more articulate minds.

-------------------

With that said even though I may agree with some of the sentiments they try and gurgle out I can never, and will never, support ignorance; willful or otherwise. As such I think the tea party is terrible, it's a bunch of uneducated people who may have vague values and beliefs; but they just take what they're told and regurgitate it without even digesting it, it's like sticking food in your mouth and spitting it out and expecting someone else to eat it. Realistically it's just as good as it was before, but it's just nastier and nobody's going to touch it no matter how much like regular food it is. The only way someone is going to eat that's been in your mouth is if it's thoroughly digested - broken down by bacteria and reabsorbed by other plants which become food. An idea has to be digested and understood in it's component parts, not just regurgitated blindly because you 'know' deep down that it's right.

That's like saying, "Well, I may not understand why I should kill this man, but he told me too and he had an aura of authority and I feel deep down that he's right" Err, no, that doesn't work.

And before I stop typing stuff I'd just like to make it perfectly clear that my problem isn't with ideaology (actually I have a huge problem with how people use ideaology, but that is neither here nor there or even over there) - It's not because they are or aren't republicans or democrats it's that ignorance is never laudable. And it's not just republicans that are guilty of being ignorant sheep, but democrats too and even, yes even, green party voters (just blew your mind, I know).

It will do. Really, i think this thread is going to turn out to be the next revolutionary war.

Also @ Ash

The allusion to the Tea Party does not necessarily denote them as considering themselves on par with the founding fathers. It could easily represent several less easily ridiculeable (not a word) things.

- The ideology behind their mantras of getting back to constitutional roots. Getting back in touch with the ideas that founded this nation.

- Recalling when people stood up for what they believed in rather than just sitting down in complacency. You know those retarded signs "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" (again, another debate) ? They've decided to pursue their views rather than not contributing.

---------

You're just trying to pick something simple that you can easily rip on without focusing on real issues. Since when is people standing up for what they believe in something to laugh at? Sure, their views may be laughable but the fact that they have the drive to go out and do something is not something to ridicule.

America has a voter turn out of barely more than 50% (last time that information was pounded into my head, I think) - If people being politically active is something to laugh at we might as well tell people to stop going to the polls to avoid ridicule; "Ha, you want to express an opinion? You're ridiculous, go home" - Maybe that's the problem, because having a strong opinion is considered ridiculous.

--------------

The simple fact of the matter is that they're doing more than most of the country in politically participating (even if that just involves watching fox news and writing the slogans on your hands) - Apathy de-legitimizes the political system and breeds discontent. You can't encourage apathy.

In a teeny tiny little way what they're doing is a revolution, it's revolutionary to not be apathetic and to actually express your opinion (no matter how unfounded it might be). But people don't do that, they don't make their voices heard, they're just content with posting their opinions on the internet and watching the news. - To publicize your unpopular view in today's society in such a public way is as close to a violent revolution as you can get.

-And yes, like you said they're not being oppressed. But to them they are fighting against future oppression. The difference is that they believe in the legitimacy of the US Government and the constitution it's founded on (yes, there is actually a document the government is founded on, believe it or not) To attempt a violent revolution would be counterproductive (unlike in the case of the founding fathers, where there was no other recourse).

----

Also I've gotten offtopic in making poorly reasoned points; basically I think it's stupid that you insult the movement on something so ambiguous and trivial instead of anything substantive.

(In case I need to reiterate the fact here from my previous post, I think they are all ignorant and I despise ignorance but I admire passion)

(Not like, lust and sex and stuff)

(just clearing that up)

Quote from Schwa

The allusion to the Tea Party does not necessarily denote them as considering themselves on par with the founding fathers. It could easily represent several less easily ridiculeable (not a word) things.

- The ideology behind their mantras of getting back to constitutional roots. Getting back in touch with the ideas that founded this nation.

- Recalling when people stood up for what they believed in rather than just sitting down in complacency. You know those retarded signs "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" (again, another debate) ? They've decided to pursue their views rather than not contributing.

- A desire to sit civilly around a table with drinks and cakes to discuss how the rest of the family's getting along these days :)


I broadly agree with you, I think. I've been sitting with this post open for the best part of five minutes trying to word "If they are so passionate about getting it right then they should go and educate themselves about what the 'right' thing is" in such a way as to not be replied by "they think they already know what's right and that Fox is educating them" and I just can't do it.

Quote from Schwa

From what I've heard from talk radio (about as unbiased as you can get, right?) The idea of the tea party movement is to get back to constitutional values (which is another debate | but one that I think I personally agree with) - There are actually clear and articulate ideas behind the madness that these people perpetuate.

how exactly have we strayed from constitutional values in order to warrant such a movement?

Quote from Gavel

how exactly have we strayed from constitutional values in order to warrant such a movement?

I'm pretty sure I denoted that this was another debate topic and not entirely relevant to this debate. That's what they believe, which is important for making my point, why the believe it is not.

But okay, let me throw out some examples;

Show me where in the constitution that the legislative branch has the right to pass a law concerning healthcare? Their enumerated powers include collecting taxes for the carrying out of the governments enumerated power (Which include to make war, enforce laws, etc. but not healthcare)

Show me where in the constitution they have the right to tax someone simply because they live. By the sole fact that you are alive you must pay a tax or we will fine you. Taxation is only applicable under the constitution when it supports the funding of enumerated powers. Providing healthcare is not an enumerated power (in that case neither is medicare, medicaid or social security).

Many people would claim that the commerce clause allows them to do that, but even in the most broad and ambiguous definition of commerce health care is not part of that. Health care is not interstate commerce. The entire point of the commerce clause, besides, is to regulate trade between states so as to prevent the rising of tariffs and other such trade barriers for the good of the state and the detriment of the country. The government does not have the right to provide every or any form of interstate commerce it wills under a broad and ambiguous definition.

The constitution is a document of negative powers (what the national government can't do) it gives all powers not expressly delegated to the national government to the state government. Providing health care is the duty of the state government (if they so wish) and not the national government. The state government can do whatever the hell they want, the national government cannot.

-Also, the government is an institution by the people for the people, it is held by the consent of the governed. Polls show (at least some) that most people in the United States do not want this health care bill to pass; sure this may be due to greed or ignorance (or it may be due to intelligence, which is sometimes an option even in the most unpopular opinions, weird, right?) but that doesn't change the fact that the governments job is to represent the will of the people. It is not the government's job to tell people what is good for them, because they know better, because believe it or not, they don't.

The simple fact that 14 (I'm pretty sure it's 14) are bringing a lawsuit to the national government shows that they have strayed from their purpose. The senators in congress are supposed to represent the will of the state, and the representatives the will of the people - apparently neither of these wills have been followed.

The national government has no constitutional basis for what it is doing and has done. And if you can prove to me that it does I will eat my words.

@ Zed; What is the right thing though? Who determines that?

Is it maintaining the republic by maintaining the values it was founded on or is it to provide a fair standard of living by the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor even if it means straying from the constitution?

Both of them are equally valid but it depends on what your values are and how you view the world and your country. You can't say that a single viewpoint is right for everybody because the things that determine whether or not it is right vary depending on the person.

-With that said, I hate anything that relies on emotional appeals from both sides
"Oh look at this poor minority child who's going to die from pneumonia because (her parents are illegal immigrants and can't find work because they have no valuable skills) her parents can't afford healthcare"
"Oh look at this lovely old lady, she's going to die because (anyone in any insurance business is going to pull the plug because she's a high cost for no benefit and she'll only live three more weeks any way) because of government death panels"

Pathos and Ethos disgust me :)

Quote from Schwa

From what I've heard from talk radio (about as unbiased as you can get, right?)

I dunno if this is a joke or not, but Radio can be just as if not more biased than any other for of newscasting.

Quote from Schwa

@ Zed; What is the right thing though? Who determines that?

Is it maintaining the republic by maintaining the values it was founded on or is it to provide a fair standard of living by the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor even if it means straying from the constitution?

Both of them are equally valid but it depends on what your values are and how you view the world and your country. You can't say that a single viewpoint is right for everybody because the things that determine whether or not it is right vary depending on the person.

What is right is to succeed all power to Her Majesty's Government. This is absolute.



I don't think I actually contradicted you in my post. I said that "they think they're right and educated". I don't want to get into an absolutist argument right now to try to prove that they're not. I just don't think that they are in exactly the same way as they don't think I am.

Quote from Wartooth

I dunno if this is a joke or not, but Radio can be just as if not more biased than any other for of newscasting.

Studies have shown that talk radio is the most reliable source of information that exists! Which studies you ask? The ones performed by experts!


The tea party obviously took their name because they are anti-tax. It is as simple as that.

Quote from alive

Studies have shown that talk radio is the most reliable source of information that exists! Which studies you ask? The ones performed by experts!


The tea party obviously took their name because they are anti-tax. It is as simple as that.

It is actually not as simple as that?

Oh they're anti-tax, great, but what does that mean? Does it mean they simply think we should stop taxing and still try and run all of our obscenely convoluted and inefficient programs?

Or does it mean that we should cut these wasteful unconstitutional programs which would thereby cut taxes?

If you try and simplify something down like that all you do is simplify the issue in order to tear apart an argument and paint it as ridiculous (or conversely use it to support your side) without actually looking at the argument behind it.

Sure, what you said is technically correct - but it hides the issue.

For example, I could say:
"Why did Alive post this message?"
"Because he wanted to"

Well great, that's some useless information that I can use to tear apart your character and say that you really only care about your post count.

That's useful ... right?

------

@Zed

I know old boy, I was just agreeing with you and further expounding why you couldn't create that message :)

It is irrelevant what it "means" to be anti-tax in regards to why they chose that name. You seem to misunderstand my post on several aspects. First of all, I am not saying that their ideology "is as simple as that", I am saying that the issue of the name is very simple: it is an allusion to an iconic anti-tax event in american history. Their tax politics may be as complex as the human mind, but their choice of name is still simple. Second of all, my post was not an argument for either side of the debate, it wasn't an argument at all. I am not trying to "simplify the issue in order to tear apart an argument and paint it as ridiculous", I am merely attempting to clear the confusion you people seem to have with the name, as it halted the debate. In all honesty, the name they have chosen for themselves shouldn't be relevant in this debate at all, what matters is what they believe, and two words will always fail to represent their beliefs entirely.

You are an entirely correct and I apologize.

I perceive slights everywhere and jump on them with the ferocity of a lustful Bengal tiger in heat.