United States of Entropy

[Irvine511]

So the answer is no then. Gotcha.

Whatever works best for you.

You already had your answer before you asked the question.

 

[nbcrusader]

So the answer is no then. Gotcha.

Since we’re citing the “special code words” divined by the tin foil hat crowd at MSNBC, the answer must be “no”.

The left’s explanation for our economic woes fall into the same tired categories: it’s the GOP’s fault (those terrorists) and the racist Tea Party folks are extremists. Bush can be held responsible for any economic downturn, but Obama is merely a victim.

And I thought we were talking about big government vs limited government. Instead, the dialogue is redirected since

Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

If the Democrats rely on the youth vote, they aren’t doing a good job meeting their needs.

Youth Unemployment: 15 Percent Of American Youth Out Of School And Work, Study Finds

 

[PhilsFan]

Wait, why is it the Democrats' fault that I can't find work?

 

[nathan1977]

Whatever works best for you.

You already had your answer before you asked the question.

Sadly, I suppose I did. I'm not sure why I wouldn't -- after all, you're the one who attempted an incredible feat of intellectual acrobaticism by arguing that the Tea Party's resentment of taxation has to be racist, because what else could it possibly be? After all, it's not like Americans have had a scornful perspective on taxation going back to -- oh, I don't know -- the Revolutionary War? And how practically every President since has had a platform that includes lowering taxes?

You're smarter than arguing that the Tea Party's raison d'être is racist. It is however a convenient way of explaining away the ideological purposes for which your neighbors and fellow citizens have any right to be angry, without having to engage in any significant way. But whatever works best for you

I do agree with you about the disgusting people who are almost professional race-baiters out there, who exploit race for their own ends and use it as a wedge issue.

Al Sharpton in particular is a real problem.

 

[PhilsFan]

But what is it that Tea Party people think wasteful spending is? Isn't it welfare?

Also:

I do agree with you about the disgusting people who are almost professional race-baiters out there, who exploit race for their own ends and use it as a wedge issue.

Al Sharpton in particular is a real problem.

Yes, there are no race-baiters on the right, just Al fucking Sharpton.

 

[BVS]

And I thought we were talking about big government vs limited government. Instead, the dialogue is redirected since

One only needs to listen to know this isn't true. It's about which big government? One claims to be limited government and fiscally responsible, but they don't count military as big government, or infringing on civil rights, or reproductive rights as big government. Whoops And their fiscal policies don't make any real solutions to the issues at hand.

The other big government has it's issues as well. The monitoring and implementation to its solutions have been mishandled and allowed for out of control abuse of the systems.

 

[anitram]

You're smarter than arguing that the Tea Party's raison d'être is racist.

Where did Irvine state that?

 

[nathan1977]

Where did Irvine state that?

the leaders of the Tea Party absolutely feel as if race motivates their constituents.

The anti-tax impulse has historically had racism as one of its motivators.

We have a black president now.

It's not that shocking. We have a black president.

.

 

[Irvine511]

Where did Irvine state that?

All Nathan and NBC can do is pretend -- as I predicted earlier -- that I'm saying that race is the ONLY motivator, or go in full on denial that this is some "tin foil hat" conspiracy. There's an entire industry of political strategists who would beg to differ.

One only needed to have paid a modicum of attention to Tea Oarty rallies, and even the Oalin events in late 2008, to see exactly what I'm talking about.

Creating a caricature or denying everything is easier than having to actually present arguments.

Or admit that, yes, shockingly, race does play a part in American politics.

It's not like we fought a Civil War or anything over race.

 

[nathan1977]

All Nathan and NBC can do is pretend -- as I predicted earlier -- that I'm saying that race is the ONLY motivator, or that this is some "tin foil hat" conspiracy.

You've said what you've said. That's just in the last three pages of one thread.

Creating a caricature or denying everything is easier than having to actually present arguments.

Oh I agree.

"BECAUSE RACISM" is not an argument, any more than "BECAUSE SOCIALISM" is.

Edited to add:

I don't deny that race is a factor. As you have rightly pointed out in other posts, race is never something you can ignore. However, race-baiting happens on both sides, and it's disgusting when it happens, in part because it's far easier to demonize something that is less apparent than it is to honestly engage with the facts at hand. We've had some good substantive debate and discussion in this thread about how to go about reducing debt as a percentage of GDP, as well as some actual hard numbers on the effectiveness (or to some, lack thereof) of the ACA thus far, as well as the tax ramifications on states, the rising costs of healthcare, etc.

All of those are far more intellectually honest and substantive than "the Tea Party hates our black president."

And it's sure as hell just easier to post stupid pictures of stupid people with stupid signs at rallies.

 

[anitram]

.

Nathan, none of those show what you say they show.

In fact, there is the explicit statement that racism is "one of" the motivators.

Strawman.

 

[Irvine511]

Right. I never present arguments.

But, yes, BECAUSE RACISM is why we had the Birther crowd, why we had the Palin rallies pining for "real Americans," and why many counties in Appalachia and the Deep South are redder in 2012 than they were in 2004.

I could also say BECAUSE HISTORY.

But then some of us would have to admit we're in bed with some nasty people.

 

[Irvine511]

Since we’re citing the “special code words” divined by the tin foil hat crowd at MSNBC, the answer must be “no”.

Put down the Koran.

 

[anitram]

From Tea Party rallies:

 

[nathan1977]

Hey look, other signs.

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4977945548359833&pid=15.1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4560642290615890&pid=15.1

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4560642290615885&pid=15.1

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4513354689152103&pid=15.1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4630946604256282&pid=15.1

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.5000756121305560&pid=15.1

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4757953085639753&pid=15.1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4934098235752930&pid=15.1

 

[Irvine511]

So it's entirely fair to conclude that racism is one motivator for some members of the Tea Party. We've all demonstrated as much.

Next?

 

[PhilsFan]

I don't deny that race is a factor.

SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYlNG IS THAT YOU AGREE WITH IRVINE AND THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS IDIOTIC.

 

[Irvine511]

Wait, why is it the Democrats' fault that I can't find work?

He was redirecting you.

 

[nathan1977]

SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYlNG IS THAT YOU AGREE WITH IRVINE AND THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS IDIOTIC.

No, it's not. I don't disagree that race is a factor. The question is to what extent, and to what extent we can then disregard them because racism.

As Digitize and others have posted repeatedly in this thread, there are cogent reasons for the Tea Party movement, and for a resurgent push on the Right for substantial economic reform. I believe that both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement had a great deal in common, including an anger motivated by profound economic inequalities brought about by twenty years of unregulated capitalism (though they obviously drew different conclusions). But I don't believe that Occupy was a bunch of unruly lazy hippies (although there were clearly a few), and I don't believe that the Tea Party is a bunch of people mad about having a black president (although there are clearly a few). I cry foul on the attempts by some on this thread to disregard the Right because it's easier to chortle about how much our black President pisses off one side than to actually engage the economic issues at hand.

 

[Irvine511]

While I agree with much of what you just wrote, the biggest issue preventing any sort of compromise in DC is that you really do have 30 or so GOP House members who are reactionary, by any measure, and you have another block of Representatives who are in safely Red districts who are terrified of being primaried. And in such districts, where the further right you go the more popular you become, and especially if you look at geography and history, yes, race and Obama's "otherness" are major factors that motivate primary voters (the GOP voters who vote in primaries in off years).

Pretending this doesn't exist -- tin-foil hats! -- is as lazy and dismissive as pretending that this is all there is. Reality is much more complex, as is racism.

OWS is basically over, it has not even a fraction of the influence that the TP has on the right. To pretend they are the same in size, scope, scale, and influence is preposterous.

There are idiots on both sides, but the crazy of the moment is located squarely on the Right.

 

[PhilsFan]

No, it's not. I don't disagree that race is a factor. The question is to what extent, and to what extent we can then disregard them because racism.

Which is completely fair, but is simply not how you have been framing this. You've been acting as if Irvine is saying it's the only factor.

As Digitize and others have posted repeatedly in this thread, there are cogent reasons for the Tea Party movement, and for a resurgent push on the Right for substantial economic reform. I believe that both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement had a great deal in common, including an anger motivated by profound economic inequalities brought about by twenty years of unregulated capitalism (though they obviously drew different conclusions). But I don't believe that Occupy was a bunch of unruly lazy hippies (although there were clearly a few), and I don't believe that the Tea Party is a bunch of people mad about having a black president (although there are clearly a few). I cry foul on the attempts by some on this thread to disregard the Right because it's easier to chortle about how much our black President pisses off one side than to actually engage the economic issues at hand.

I tend to avoid talking about the racism that influences segments of the Tea Party because it ends in multi-page arguments like this about the extent of the racism that miss the larger point. The larger point is that it's not a grassroots movement. It was a movement that was carefully constructed by big right-wing donors like the Koch's with the specific intent of taking the fury of a zestful but uninformed segment of the population with only a basic understand of national economics and direct that fury entirely at the left. It had a relatively simple strategy: warp the debate on health care into a battle of free markets vs. socialism and then tag every move the left tries to make subsequently as a continuance on that "march to socialism." And these people, who don't understand these economic issues all that much, bought it hook, line and sinker, exactly as the Tea Party organizers assumed they would.

I think where Irvine is beating you in this argument has nothing to do with race. It has to do with who is getting credit for the sustained life of the Tea Party. You think it has to do with citizens who had righteous, earned anger over the economic state of the US. What it really has to do with is intelligent political consultants who know how to twist things just right to get their way. They preyed upon the anger of those people and have led them into supporting and voting for policies that go against their own interests.

 

[Irvine511]

Very well said.

 

[U2DMfan]

I believe that both the Tea Party and the Occupy movement had a great deal in common, including an anger motivated by profound economic inequalities brought about by twenty years of unregulated capitalism (though they obviously drew different conclusions).

And driven apart and kept separated by the corporate sell outs in both major parties and the corporate media that loves to sell the perpetual conflict.

Us vs Them, always.

 

[the tourist]

I tend to avoid talking about the racism that influences segments of the Tea Party because it ends in multi-page arguments like this about the extent of the racism that miss the larger point. The larger point is that it's not a grassroots movement. It was a movement that was carefully constructed by big right-wing donors like the Koch's with the specific intent of taking the fury of a zestful but uninformed segment of the population with only a basic understand of national economics and direct that fury entirely at the left. It had a relatively simple strategy: warp the debate on health care into a battle of free markets vs. socialism and then tag every move the left tries to make subsequently as a continuance on that "march to socialism." And these people, who don't understand these economic issues all that much, bought it hook, line and sinker, exactly as the Tea Party organizers assumed they would.

I think where Irvine is beating you in this argument has nothing to do with race. It has to do with who is getting credit for the sustained life of the Tea Party. You think it has to do with citizens who had righteous, earned anger over the economic state of the US. What it really has to do with is intelligent political consultants who know how to twist things just right to get their way. They preyed upon the anger of those people and have led them into supporting and voting for policies that go against their own interests.

Fantastically stated.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

And driven apart and kept separated by the corporate sell outs in both major parties and the corporate media that loves to sell the perpetual conflict.

Us vs Them, always.

 

[INDY500]

Like, if you think gay marriage should be illegal, that's not your opinion, you're just wrong. You're the guy who thought inter-racial marriage should have been illegal 50 years ago.

That's your false analogy which is why blacks, especially religious blacks, remain opposed to SSM.

That guy was wrong, and so are you.

Wasn't President Obama that guy up until last year?

 

[Jive Turkey]

That's your false analogy which is why blacks, especially religious blacks, remain opposed to SSM.

The power of indoctrination plain to see.

Interesting that homophobia is also prevalent in black culture. You're showing your hand, Indy

 

[INDY500]

.

 

[INDY500]

The larger point is that it's not a grassroots movement.

Well it sure isn't an establishment, Karl Rove funded movement either. They don't care for the Tea Party anymore than you do.

It was a movement that was carefully constructed by big right-wing donors like the Koch's

Does your concern for big money in politics include big left-wing donors like George Soros?

with the specific intent of taking the fury of a zestful but uninformed segment of the population with only a basic understand of national economics

I would say the core belief of "uninformed" Tea Party types -- that this country is on an unsustainable debt trajectory fueled by reckless spending that can only be reversed by a return to our founding principles of limited government, federalism, private property rights and constitutional republicanism -- is a much more informed understanding of national economics than most of our national leaders... including the president.

 

[Jive Turkey]

.

This is where Indy responded to me, then remembered he pretends to have me on ignore and would like to carry on the charade