149 replies to this topic

[bacopa]

Glen Beck, famous on Fox news and everyone has heard of him, and Sarah Palin made a huge speech at Lincoln Memorial, and it was scary to hear them talk out of their asses, now seemingly they act as though they truly care about civil rights. My guess is they are trying to appeal to the African American vote too, but I suspect it's more complex than this.

It is also truly scary to see how many people truly still have such deep religious faith in this country. I never thought religion magically went away, overnight, but to hear comments like, paraphrasing here, it is God's will that we are here today. I mean at least the Obama campaign has a reasonably light focus on religion, where faith plays a role, but doesn't control actual decision making.

The Tea Party, it seems, have a divine destiny to spread their no government, no regulation, seemingly no any of the social programs that I deem important, message around, and God is on their side on this one.

In recent times I am getting even more depressed at flag waiving and their version of "America is so great", which makes me sick to my stomach when I realize their message is so convoluted.

I support our troops, and like this country, but I like Obama's more worldly message far better, where America isn't the only great country out there, but co-exists in a world nation where every nation counts.

Maybe some people can bring more insight to the Tea Party's tactics as I am not an expert at this point.

[rwac]

I just want to point out that this was specifically not a tea party event. The Tea party, to the extent that it is a coherent entity, is not religious.

There's probably some overlap in membership though.

Edited by rwac, 30 August 2010 - 01:59 AM.

[the_colossus]

America is going down the path to bankruptcy and both mainstream parties keep condemning it yet never suggesting doing any unpopular measure to fix it.

Tea Partiers actually do. It would be good to have some people in the senate who actually care about the financial future of the country.

Like rwac said, it isn't a religious movement, it is about philosophy of the size and role of government.

[tunt01]

Maybe some people can bring more insight to the Tea Party's tactics as I am not an expert at this point.

It's the politics of fear.

When people are in distress, it's easy to prey upon their fears. we saw bush/cheney get away with this when they built up Iraq into a demon that it never really proved to be.

Obama is guilty of the same thing when he bashes bankers and wall street for "creating the economic mess". Tea party people like to blame immigrants or Obama for their economic woes. Obama likes to slam Bush and wall street bankers. It's all class warfare garbage using fear to gain support for their goals.

I miss the days of Jack Kemp, who was a fan of every American. He fought for inner city kids as much as he did for corporate America.

[the_colossus]

The tea party isn't primary about bashing others. Their message is about the role of government and bringing emphasis about the looming debt crisis.

It isn't based on fear when it is undeniable true and needs to be discussed and addressed. Can anyone say that the US doesn't have a debt crisis that something will have to be done to fix it?

People can argue in a couple years once the economy picks up, but within 10 years serious cuts will have to happen. Around 2020 at this rate is when it comes to a breaking point.

The poster didn't mention anything that was remotely class warfare or bashing others. Saying God is guiding them to do something is neither.

The goal needs to be discussed and is noble. Who cares if God is the reason they are doing it, the voice in there head or pure reason alone.

Would you bring yourself and others to doom because you don't like their inspiration for doing so? Not wanting to turn into Greece isn't using religion as an excuse for conquest. You should judge what someone says based on your own assessment of the merits of the statements, not the reason for it.

If Palin wanted to give a million dollars for research would you say no if she said because God said so? I should hope not.

Edited by the_colossus, 09 September 2010 - 11:57 PM.

[bacopa]

The tea party isn't primary about bashing others. Their message is about the role of government and bringing emphasis about the looming debt crisis.

It isn't based on fear when it is undeniable true and needs to be discussed and addressed. Can anyone say that the US doesn't have a debt crisis that something will have to be done to fix it?

People can argue in a couple years once the economy picks up, but within 10 years serious cuts will have to happen. Around 2020 at this rate is when it comes to a breaking point.

The poster didn't mention anything that was remotely class warfare or bashing others. Saying God is guiding them to do something is neither.

The goal needs to be discussed and is noble. Who cares if God is the reason they are doing it, the voice in there head or pure reason alone.

Would you bring yourself and others to doom because you don't like their inspiration for doing so? Not wanting to turn into Greece isn't using religion as an excuse for conquest. You should judge what someone says based on your own assessment of the merits of the statements, not the reason for it.

If Palin wanted to give a million dollars for research would you say no if she said because God said so? I should hope not.

I agree some financial cuts have to happen. Obama approved tax cuts for everyone making under a quarter mil, which is 98% of the country, but liberals say he is merely kissing up to Repubs, and probalby Tea Party folk as well. Those cuts will only drive the deficit to become worse. It's interesting how every politician is so influenced by lobby groups and other politicians, and my friend made the point that it's more having to give into the powers that be, because Obama probably realized he stood no chance at getting things his way....it's not that he decided to go against his campaign promises, imo.

Anyway, I totally agree that it doesn't matter where the politician, like Palin, is coming from religiously, but I am very skeptical that Palin would be in favor of radical life extension, fearing instead she might think it's against God's will, or some crap like that.

In fact it's downright scary to have people so influenced by religion, and every life extension enthusiased should be weary of what that might mean, as I've said.

It will be very interesting to see what happens when the life extension orgs, start picking up REAL steam...then we'll see how great the Tea Party movement is.

[bacopa]

I think Tea Party people like Beck are really good speakers, but good at winning friends and influencing ignorant people as well. Beck and Palin seem to hit on all the patriotic sentiments that Americans eat up so well, of course Obama does this, but to an extent. Beck goes overboard practically crying like a televangilist. Can I conclusively prove he's wrong in everything he says? No, and not being a policial insider, or much into politics, I'm going by a gut instinct that his/her agenda may be quite different then what he preaches. I'm not bashing him, I'm just worried what direction these guys would take the country if they got into office. I mean they seem to disapprove of any gov regulation from what I gather. Do they care about global warming? Or are they the types who might think it's a myth? What about important social programs for the disabled mentally and physically? They only really say they want small gov and never seem to address what they would do with so many, imo, worthwhile programs that keep the disenfranchised afloat. And yes, I smell a rat, when they go on about civil rights. In fact Becks speech was supposed to be about just that, and Al Sharpton pointed out, he never really addressed any real civil rights issue.

The Koche brothers are hugely wealthy billionaires with multibillion dollar companies, and they are also huge Tea Party supporters, giving over a hundred million to their cause. They also were huge polluters some years back, and when the gov regulated them, they came out saying global warming is a fabrication. Does their support for this movement not worry me knowing this? It should worry everyone. Also the Koche brothers are total right wing libertarians, and i heard they are against pretty much every gov regulation.

Edited by dfowler, 10 September 2010 - 04:35 AM.

[the_colossus]

It is impossible to know how much of what Palin believes is because of religion or is she using religion to justify her opinions?

I Don't think the bible weighs in on the debate how how big government should be. Just like the constitution doesn't either, yet doesn't stop people from saying health care bill violates the constitution.

I wouldn't worry about life extension be threatened. Big companies will make a ton of money selling products that extend life.

[rwac]

I wouldn't worry about life extension be threatened. Big companies will make a ton of money selling products that extend life.

I think it would probably be best if the life extension movement did not rely on the government for funding.
It's really hard to predict the swings of politics, and surely, we want to avoid the possibility of Leon Kass, or someone like him cutting off research.

[the_colossus]

I think it would probably be best if the life extension movement did not rely on the government for funding.
It's really hard to predict the swings of politics, and surely, we want to avoid the possibility of Leon Kass, or someone like him cutting off research.

With a debt crisis coming research will get cut.

I have great faith in capitalism and free markets doing much more then government does.

Edited by the_colossus, 10 September 2010 - 09:43 PM.

[i!i]

Wrong forum.

[bacopa]

I have a strong feeling that most people who have the type of hubris that many Republicans seem to have, at least the ones on Fox News, politicians, and other bigger named Repubs, probably will jump on the life extension/anti-aging bandwagon, if it's shown it is possible in whatever trials it will take.

Even Palin herself, I can't imagine denying slowing her aging, just like any other person who has vanity, or any form of utility in this life.

I think religious people WILL want to extend their youth, live longer, etc. if it can be shown it can be done, for basic human fear of death, and there are no studies that I have seen that show Republicans or other conservatives, dislike life less than liberals.

The "80 years is good enough for me" crowd will always be there, but when they see people they look up to one day being able to extend their life, I believe even substantial life extension will be simply adopted, like we adopt new technologies. If a pro deathist trance can be a popular meme, (and I think it only is because, we don't have anything else at this point as alternative,) then surely something as cool as extending life, and/or youth, will quickly spiral into a hugely desired thing for most people, imo.

My simple point is, people will adopt most anything, especially when it is new, is catching on, and perhaps the most influential reason of all is, when a new trend, technology, or even philosophy is in vogue with people the general public admire and look up to, then people flock to that. And finally, life extension, especially youth extension, has always been a sexy concept, to say the least, and is and will be highly marketable, as can be seen with superficial life extension creams and the like.

Edited by dfowler, 11 September 2010 - 04:26 PM.

[medicineman]

I think it would probably be best if the life extension movement did not rely on the government for funding.
It's really hard to predict the swings of politics, and surely, we want to avoid the possibility of Leon Kass, or someone like him cutting off research.

With a debt crisis coming research will get cut.

I have great faith in capitalism and free markets doing much more then government does.

lol.

ok.

Edited by medicineman, 09 October 2010 - 12:18 AM.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, along with most of the 'tea party', are nothing but populist morons focusing on the most irrelevant drivel. However, given that there is some sort of Marxist-Anarchist running the American military and nationalizing the financial sector I hardly find this disturbing. Relatively speaking.

[niner]

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, along with most of the 'tea party', are nothing but populist morons focusing on the most irrelevant drivel. However, given that there is some sort of Marxist-Anarchist running the American military and nationalizing the financial sector I hardly find this disturbing. Relatively speaking.

You're right about Beck and Palin. But who is the "Marxist-Anarchist" running the military and who is "nationalizing" the financial sector? I'm going to assume that you have some weird definitions here, because otherwise this last part would either be profoundly ignorant or crazy.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

But who is the "Marxist-Anarchist" running the military

Obama, the guy who was taught and acted as the lawyer for a post-Marxist professor and his wacky band of crypto-socialists.

and who is "nationalizing" the financial sector?

When the government uses funny-money to buy up vast swaths of the financial sector and expand their already totalitarian and draconian regulations of the capital markets that is nationalizing the financial sector. Unless you're one of those goofballs who think the Nazis were free-market because they retained de jure 'property'.

[niner]

But who is the "Marxist-Anarchist" running the military

Obama, the guy who was taught and acted as the lawyer for a post-Marxist professor and his wacky band of crypto-socialists.

and who is "nationalizing" the financial sector?

When the government uses funny-money to buy up vast swaths of the financial sector and expand their already totalitarian and draconian regulations of the capital markets that is nationalizing the financial sector. Unless you're one of those goofballs who think the Nazis were free-market because they retained de jure 'property'.

m'kay. I think the facts run counter to both of these views. Probably pointless to argue about it, though.

[rwac]

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin, along with most of the 'tea party', are nothing but populist morons focusing on the most irrelevant drivel.

It's easy to criticize them as being populist, but we really need to stop Obama right now. And how better to stop him than with a populist movement.

You always claim the superiority of your system, of (non)governance but you don't seem to realize the need to convince people about how and why it's better than the current system.

[ChromodynamicGirl]

It's easy to criticize them as being populist, but we really need to stop Obama right now.

We need to stop the government in general, whatever figurehead goldenboy they put on the throne. And most of these creeps were sucking G.W. off when he was doing the same crap Obama did.

[niner]

but we really need to stop Obama right now.

Why?

[rwac]

Why?

1. Obamacare
2. Cap-and-Trade
3. Keynesian-ism isn't working.
4. Anti-free-speech bills like the DISCLOSE act.

Edit: how could I forget Cap-and-Trade!

Edited by rwac, 14 October 2010 - 04:43 PM.

[niner]

Why?

1. Obamacare
2. Cap-and-Trade
3. Keynesian-ism isn't working.
4. Anti-free-speech bills like the DISCLOSE act.

What part of (the reform of health insurance known colloquially as) Obamacare don't you like? Most people think it's good that insurance companies will not be able to deny care to sick people.

Isn't cap and trade dead?

How can you say that Keynesianism isn't working? To be able to say that, you'd need to know what things would have looked like without intervention. All you can say is that the stimulus didn't fix all the problems, but the problems were huge. Much of the Tea Party's anger is based on a failure to recognize what a dire economic situation we were in. Had nothing been done, the economy would be dead in the water now, and we would be in the middle of a worldwide depression.

DISCLOSE act: Contains provisions that disallow secret funding of political campaigns, if I understand correctly. That seems like a good thing. Are you opposed to that aspect of it, or is there more to it that's broken?

[ChromodynamicGirl]

What part of (the reform of health insurance known colloquially as) Obamacare don't you like? Most people think it's good that insurance companies will not be able to deny care to sick people.

Most people are imbeciles who don't know their ass from their elbow, much less economic science. They think everyone owes them something, except for themselves of course - why should they have to pay for things other people produced?

Pathetic.

[maxwatt]

Straw man argument.

[rwac]

What part of (the reform of health insurance known colloquially as) Obamacare don't you like? Most people think it's good that insurance companies will not be able to deny care to sick people.

Sounds really good, except it's similar to allowing people to buy insurance after the accident.
People will be able to pay the penalty and avoid buying insurance until they get sick.

Insurance costs are already going up, causing employers to reduce or drop employee insurance plans.
The destruction of the previous health insurance system is already underway.

Isn't cap and trade dead?

Maybe, but someone will have to stop the EPA from regulating CO2 as a pollutant ...

How can you say that Keynesianism isn't working? To be able to say that, you'd need to know what things would have looked like without intervention. All you can say is that the stimulus didn't fix all the problems, but the problems were huge. Much of the Tea Party's anger is based on a failure to recognize what a dire economic situation we were in. Had nothing been done, the economy would be dead in the water now, and we would be in the middle of a worldwide depression.

Dunno. Recessions are generally short, unless people spook the markets ...
The uncertainty Obama and his policies are creating is scaring people into putting off spending money and hiring.

DISCLOSE act: Contains provisions that disallow secret funding of political campaigns, if I understand correctly. That seems like a good thing. Are you opposed to that aspect of it, or is there more to it that's broken?

Except that making donor info public can lead to intimidation of donors. This happened with proposition 8 in California.
I don't support it, but people do have a right to support political campaigns without having to fear intimidation.

[niner]

What part of (the reform of health insurance known colloquially as) Obamacare don't you like? Most people think it's good that insurance companies will not be able to deny care to sick people.

Sounds really good, except it's similar to allowing people to buy insurance after the accident.
People will be able to pay the penalty and avoid buying insurance until they get sick.

Insurance costs are already going up, causing employers to reduce or drop employee insurance plans.
The destruction of the previous health insurance system is already underway.

Insurance costs were going up before, too. We were heading for an untenable situation any way you look at it. You're absolutely right about the penalty; it's a joke. Needs to be a lot higher in order to work well, I would think.

How can you say that Keynesianism isn't working? To be able to say that, you'd need to know what things would have looked like without intervention. All you can say is that the stimulus didn't fix all the problems, but the problems were huge. Much of the Tea Party's anger is based on a failure to recognize what a dire economic situation we were in. Had nothing been done, the economy would be dead in the water now, and we would be in the middle of a worldwide depression.

Dunno. Recessions are generally short, unless people spook the markets ...
The uncertainty Obama and his policies are creating is scaring people into putting off spending money and hiring.

But that's the thing; this isn't an ordinary recession. The only real comparison is the 1930's. It's not Obama's policies that are scaring people into putting off spending and hiring, it's the shock of what happened to their balance sheets and their need to deleverage.

[maxwatt]

...

How can you say that Keynesianism isn't working? To be able to say that, you'd need to know what things would have looked like without intervention. All you can say is that the stimulus didn't fix all the problems, but the problems were huge. Much of the Tea Party's anger is based on a failure to recognize what a dire economic situation we were in. Had nothing been done, the economy would be dead in the water now, and we would be in the middle of a worldwide depression.

Dunno. Recessions are generally short, unless people spook the markets ...
The uncertainty Obama and his policies are creating is scaring people into putting off spending money and hiring.

But that's the thing; this isn't an ordinary recession. The only real comparison is the 1930's. It's not Obama's policies that are scaring people into putting off spending and hiring, it's the shock of what happened to their balance sheets and their need to deleverage.

Keynesianism isn't working because it hasn't been tried. For the stimulus to have worked in a classical Keynesian manner, it would have to have been twice as big, according to at least one Nobel laureate economist. But it was politically untenable. Before economic and political reactionary revisionism, those of us who came of age while memories of the Depression were fresh, recognize we've forgotten everything we learned. We are not only repeating the mistakes, we are doubling down. History repeats itself, but the second time is supposed to be farce instead of tragedy. Come to think of it, the Tea Party is a farce, sponsored by billionaires to win votes from the very people they intend to screw. Why don't they nominate a hippopotamus in the zoo, like they did in Brazil some decades ago, instead of lackwits like Sharon Angle? The hippopotamus did win a seat in the legislature....

The thirties were worse, at least so far. Maybe next year with a million foreclosures?

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Keynesianism isn't working because it hasn't been tried.

Keynesianism doesn't work because it's crack-pot nonsense, propaganda for statism in pseudoscientific clothes. Everything that was true in Keynes was unoriginal, everything that was original in Keynes was false, and there was much he wrote that was both unoriginal and false.

[medicineman]

Keynesianism isn't working because it hasn't been tried.

Keynesianism doesn't work because it's crack-pot nonsense, propaganda for statism in pseudoscientific clothes. Everything that was true in Keynes was unoriginal, everything that was original in Keynes was false, and there was much he wrote that was both unoriginal and false.

Do you ever back your claims with anything other than insults, unfalsifiable claims, and non-academic material?

Edited by medicineman, 15 October 2010 - 09:04 AM.

[JLL]

...

How can you say that Keynesianism isn't working? To be able to say that, you'd need to know what things would have looked like without intervention. All you can say is that the stimulus didn't fix all the problems, but the problems were huge. Much of the Tea Party's anger is based on a failure to recognize what a dire economic situation we were in. Had nothing been done, the economy would be dead in the water now, and we would be in the middle of a worldwide depression.

Dunno. Recessions are generally short, unless people spook the markets ...
The uncertainty Obama and his policies are creating is scaring people into putting off spending money and hiring.

But that's the thing; this isn't an ordinary recession. The only real comparison is the 1930's. It's not Obama's policies that are scaring people into putting off spending and hiring, it's the shock of what happened to their balance sheets and their need to deleverage.

Keynesianism isn't working because it hasn't been tried. For the stimulus to have worked in a classical Keynesian manner, it would have to have been twice as big, according to at least one Nobel laureate economist. But it was politically untenable. Before economic and political reactionary revisionism, those of us who came of age while memories of the Depression were fresh, recognize we've forgotten everything we learned. We are not only repeating the mistakes, we are doubling down. History repeats itself, but the second time is supposed to be farce instead of tragedy. Come to think of it, the Tea Party is a farce, sponsored by billionaires to win votes from the very people they intend to screw. Why don't they nominate a hippopotamus in the zoo, like they did in Brazil some decades ago, instead of lackwits like Sharon Angle? The hippopotamus did win a seat in the legislature....

The thirties were worse, at least so far. Maybe next year with a million foreclosures?

The usual rhetoric of Keynesians...

"Sure, the stimulus package didn't fix all the problems, but without it, things would be even worse!"

Now, if this logic was applied to things like medicine, y'all would be laughing your asses off. Replace "stimulus package" with "homeopathic medicine" and you get the point.

Maybe, just maybe, it's possible that the stimulus package actually made things worse? How can you know for sure when we don't have an alternative universe to test these assumptions? I'm sure that once the catastrophic consequences of printing billions of dollars of paper money are revealed, politicians will still be congratulating themselves, saying that they saved us -- because things could *always* be worse.

But anyone with half a brain who spends five minutes thinking about the problem should realize that the very idea of creating money out of thin air to fix monetary problems is so laughable that people who believe in it should be whacked over the head. It's a bad joke wrapped in fancy language, and unfortunately the joke is on the people.