United States of Entropy

[Irvine511]

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

You really don't know anything about this. I get embarrassed for you when you bring it up.

 

[Irvine511]

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

INDY, like the Tea Party, is showing us the intersection of religion and politics.

Not the politicalization of Christianity like we saw in its apex during the first W term. That has passed, thankfully. Fallwell is dead, the gays are getting married, and everyone is just fine.

Rather, the understanding of politics as a religion, with faith based policies, the refusal of facts and evidence from people who actually know things, and the fundamentalist tendency to shape the entire world through a single moment of clarity, as well as a fervent belief in the inerrancy of the "founding fathers." It's like talking to a bunch of dry drunks.

While debt is important, it is not the most pressing issue facing the economy.

 

[PhilsFan]

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

I have no idea what you are talking about.

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

Yes. If you recall, I specifically stated on this forum that I was only going to vote for him if he came out on the right side of that issue. He ended up doing so (which was a pleasant surprise) and I did indeed end up voting for him.

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

The right has become a bit fractured recently in that sense, I suppose.

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

Certainly. I am all for overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics on both sides. But you are kidding yourself if you think George Soros is as influential as people like the Koch brothers.

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.

The core belief of the uninformed Tea Party types is that Obama is taking their paychecks and giving them to lazy poor people who won't just go out and get a job, isn't it? Which is way less informed than most of our national leaders, including the president.

You are, like Nathan earlier, giving the members of the Tea Party way too much credit. All of that business about private property and limited government and the constitution is a bunch of empty platitudes that they'll cheer for if they hear shouted at a rally. What they really don't like is the idea that their money is being "given" to someone else, because that's the image of government that's been painted into their heads.

I fear that I'm wasting my efforts if I continue on with this line of thinking, so I'd ask for the time that you simply respond to what I've stated so far in this post.

 

[nathan1977]

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.

Then maybe he should talking about other factors. He's started to do that, after my prodding. So, kudos to him. Irvine -- like several posters in FYM -- tend to play a little fast and loose at times with irresponsible, reductionist comments that read as empirical statements (as we all do). I like to try to even the field a bit, since the middle is usually where the truth lies.

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.

You mean like the Soroses of the world who fund similar movements on the left towards the right?

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."

There's plenty to dislike about the ACA without BECAUSE SOCIALISM. Any rational person with a basic grasp of finances -- or who has gone to a hospital only to find egregious issues with the healthcare system -- is right to be suspicious when the government decides to feed a broken system rather than try to fix it. The Koches certainly haven't given me a check to say that, either.

I think where Irvine is beating you in this argument has nothing to do with race.

I didn't realize people were keeping score. In any event, I don't see calling out Irvine for accusing the Tea Party of racism as a win/loss argument. I simply pointed out that Irvine continues to harp on the President's race as a motivating factor for Tea Party anger, and pointed out four separate times in this thread when he's made either the assertion or the implication. He might say that there are other factors that drive opposition to the ACA, but he sure seems to be focused on the President's skin color. I prefer a more intellectually honest evaluation of the situation; BECAUSE RACISM isn't it.

This again goes back to my earlier question: can anyone on the left in FYM see any reasons why conservatives are legitimately frustrated and concerned by the President and the Congress' fiscal policy these days, or is just because they're mad that there's a black guy in the White House? Because the answer to that question is telling. Is race a factor? I'm willing to agree that it probably is for some constituents. Do I think it's the only or even the primary motivating factor? No, I do not. I've posted links to various articles in that conservative rag the NY Times about concerns related to the costs associated with the ACA; I think that maybe there are some smart conservatives who don't give a shit about the President's race, who do care very much about fiscal policy and have cause for concern. But that's, you know, me.

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.

This post only reiterates my earlier question -- do the posters on the left on this board accept that there is any legitimate opposition to the ACA? Or is all opposition either A) racially-motivated, B) politically manipulated, or C) some horrid intermixing of the two?

 

[nathan1977]

Certainly. I am all for overturning Citizens United and getting big money out of politics on both sides.

Agree.

All of that business about private property and limited government and the constitution is a bunch of empty platitudes that they'll cheer for if they hear shouted at a rally.

Wow.

This proves my earlier point even better than BECAUSE RACISM. Sadly. I guess you're right though -- why do these silly uninformed plebes care about the ideals they've been raised with, or the notion that bloated government isn't a great idea, or keeping their houses anyway?

The core belief of the uninformed Tea Party types is that Obama is taking their paychecks and giving them to lazy poor people who won't just go out and get a job, isn't it?

No. It's that they don't have jobs, a lot of them, or are working two and three part-time jobs to make ends meet. That they can't afford to stay in their houses, a lot of them. That they already can't afford healthcare, and now they can't afford it even more. That they can't afford the taxes they pay, and their taxes are going up, and the taxes that they are paying aren't actually going to a balanced budget, or to succeeding schools, or sensible economic policy. (Whatever that means, these days.)

I realize it's easier to look down your nose at these people than to engage with them and understand why they're more than a little frustrated. But if you did, I think what you'd find is an awful lot of people trying to do their best, and feeling frustrated that their government seems to be either A) failing them or B) not giving a rip about them one way or the other.

 

[cobl04]

From Tea Party rallies:

Holy shit. These are legitimate signs from real people?

Even the extremists here struggle to come up with anything this outrageous

 

[Irvine511]

I suppose I'll be needed to apologize for correctly pointing out that the Tea Party is, indeed, motivated in part by racism towards a black president with a Muslim name even as we've all amply demonstrated that, yes, race -- and the regular race baiting of the right wing media (just because Al Sharpton may do it too doesn't cancel out the fact that ALL of Fox and Drudge do it) -- fuels large parts of the Tea Party fervor.

Again, I point you to the Palin rallies of 2008, and lots of talk about how "Obama isn't a real American, like you and me."

I'm feeling done with this particular topic. I will always bring up race when it matters, but this last retread to fix the narrative is a little desperate.

Finally, I think Nathan greatly misunderstands who the Tea Party is. It is not the working poor. It is not single mothers working three jobs (they are too busy to dress up in colonial costumes).

 

[anitram]

No. It's that they don't have jobs, a lot of them, or are working two and three part-time jobs to make ends meet.

I asked this already and you didn't respond, but if the Tea Party is motivated by lack of jobs, then I can understand anger at the government, which includes President Obama.

What I don't understand is the hypocrisy. "Where are the jobs?" was the hallmark of the 2010 Republican platform. So much so that party leadership (Boehner) explicitly instructed Republican candidates to repeat this phrase over and over and over again at rallies, town hall meetings, television and print interviews, etc. Then they got elected, and what did they do? Attempt to defund/repeal the ACA 43 (!!) times and spent most of 2012 discussing women's "issues" in various degrees of offensiveness.

But we don't see that anger directed at the Republicans. What has Boehner done for jobs? Better yet, what have the glorious Tea Party representatives done? Goehmert? Michele "Marantha Lord!" Bachmann? Steve King? Where are the irate protests against them?

That they can't afford the taxes they pay, and their taxes are going up

Well this is actually a lie.

Unless this poor, suffering, unemployed teabagger is also bringing in an income of $420K per year.

 

[PhilsFan]

Then maybe he should talking about other factors. He's started to do that, after my prodding. So, kudos to him. Irvine -- like several posters in FYM -- tend to play a little fast and loose at times with irresponsible, reductionist comments that read as empirical statements (as we all do). I like to try to even the field a bit, since the middle is usually where the truth lies.

I think the entire point I'm trying to make here is that the middle is no longer where the truth lies on a lot of these issues, but that's neither here nor there. Either way, I think you're misrepresenting Irvine's comments a bit and exaggerating the extent to which he's playing fast and loose with any type of comments. But, as I said before, I find that to be an exhausting digression that we should attempt to avoid.

You mean like the Soroses of the world who fund similar movements on the left towards the right?

You and INDY love to drop Soros into these conversations. Name one movement even remotely like the Tea Party that Soros has bankrolled and we'll discuss that. Otherwise it's a non-sequitur.

There's plenty to dislike about the ACA without BECAUSE SOCIALISM. Any rational person with a basic grasp of finances -- or who has gone to a hospital only to find egregious issues with the healthcare system -- is right to be suspicious when the government decides to feed a broken system rather than try to fix it. The Koches certainly haven't given me a check to say that, either.

"Feeding a broken system." Is that how you felt about Mitt Romney's health plan? Would you have preferred that the health plan be a single-payer system? Genuinely interested to hear specifically what you think is wrong with the ACA. There's a good chance we agree on what's wrong with it.

I didn't realize people were keeping score. In any event, I don't see calling out Irvine for accusing the Tea Party of racism as a win/loss argument. I simply pointed out that Irvine continues to harp on the President's race as a motivating factor for Tea Party anger, and pointed out four separate times in this thread when he's made either the assertion or the implication. He might say that there are other factors that drive opposition to the ACA, but he sure seems to be focused on the President's skin color. I prefer a more intellectually honest evaluation of the situation; BECAUSE RACISM isn't it.

I wasn't trying to keep score, it was a turn of phrase to try to move the discussion past the race issue. Again, Irvine wasn't saying BECAUSE RACISM begins and ends the discussion. He was simply saying you can't take racism out of it.

This again goes back to my earlier question: can anyone on the left in FYM see any reasons why conservatives are legitimately frustrated and concerned by the President and the Congress' fiscal policy these days, or is just because they're mad that there's a black guy in the White House? Because the answer to that question is telling. Is race a factor? I'm willing to agree that it probably is for some constituents. Do I think it's the only or even the primary motivating factor? No, I do not. I've posted links to various articles in that conservative rag the NY Times about concerns related to the costs associated with the ACA; I think that maybe there are some smart conservatives who don't give a shit about the President's race, who do care very much about fiscal policy and have cause for concern. But that's, you know, me.

My personal belief is that if anyone willing to engage in a discussion of this detail over fiscal policy is a racist, I wouldn't know one way or the other because they seem engaged and intelligent enough to discuss it. My personal belief is also that conservatives aren't blaming the right people for our fiscal problems. That's what I would like to discuss, rather than the race issue.

This post only reiterates my earlier question -- do the posters on the left on this board accept that there is any legitimate opposition to the ACA? Or is all opposition either A) racially-motivated, B) politically manipulated, or C) some horrid intermixing of the two?

What is your opposition? That's what I want to know. You keep using the world "telling" to describe our hypothetical responses. I think your answer to my question could be "telling" as well.

 

[PhilsFan]

Agree.

I find that this is one issue where most on the left and right agree.

Wow.

This proves my earlier point even better than BECAUSE RACISM. Sadly. I guess you're right though -- why do these silly uninformed plebes care about the ideals they've been raised with, or the notion that bloated government isn't a great idea, or keeping their houses anyway?

How does it prove anything about "BECAUSE RACISM"?

My point is that those things are nice little statements that don't actually have any meaning when tossed around the way they're tossed around. It's like walking into an ACA debate and shouting "This is a constitutional republic with 50 states!" What does that have to do with what we're talking about?

I know it's a rally. Rallies aren't breeding grounds for in-depth political discourse. But the Tea Party doesn't seem to get any further than rally-speak, from what I've observed (which is, unfortunately, a lot).

No. It's that they don't have jobs, a lot of them, or are working two and three part-time jobs to make ends meet. That they can't afford to stay in their houses, a lot of them. That they already can't afford healthcare, and now they can't afford it even more. That they can't afford the taxes they pay, and their taxes are going up, and the taxes that they are paying aren't actually going to a balanced budget, or to succeeding schools, or sensible economic policy. (Whatever that means, these days.)

I realize it's easier to look down your nose at these people than to engage with them and understand why they're more than a little frustrated. But if you did, I think what you'd find is an awful lot of people trying to do their best, and feeling frustrated that their government seems to be either A) failing them or B) not giving a rip about them one way or the other.

I don't look down my nose at anyone because of their politics. I don't get annoyed when people disagree with me. I get annoyed when people can't tell me why or can't defend a counter-argument. That's the only thing. Believe what you want. I come from a long line of Republicans. I can get along just fine with people who disagree with me. But have something to back it up. That's what I want.

And I think your analysis of the demographics of a Tea Party rally is really off.

 

[nathan1977]

I asked this already and you didn't respond, but if the Tea Party is motivated by lack of jobs, then I can understand anger at the government, which includes President Obama.

I guess I didn't realize you were asking me. My bad.

You and I both know there's only so much the government can do to create jobs (ie., not a lot, unless you create new bureaucracies and hire a lot of new people...which I suppose the ACA has done). What the government can do is stimulate the economy, and given how the economy continues to lurch listlessly in terms of actual jobs delivery, this has been problematic at best -- and despite the naïveté of the Tea Party candidates who rolled into office in 2010, there's not a whole lot they're actually able to do to provide jobs for their constituents. What thy can do is address massive government spending. Which is I suppose where opposition to the ACA comes in -- it's what they can do, so that's what they focus on.

Well this is actually a lie.

Is or is not the ACA a tax?

 

[nathan1977]

I think the entire point I'm trying to make here is that the middle is no longer where the truth lies on a lot of these issues, but that's neither here nor there.

No one on one side or other of an issue ever thinks that the middle is the right course. Nonetheless...

Genuinely interested to hear specifically what you think is wrong with the ACA. There's a good chance we agree on what's wrong with it.

The whole notion of "if you want to know what's in the plan you'll have to vote for it to find out" chicanery aside, I've been very clear about the issues, in that it doesn't actually address the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. Not does it address the fact that the quality of public health is already not great in this country, and forcing millions of new customers into the system -- when there are only so many doctors who are already overworked -- will be an additional drain on resources. Again, there are major structural inefficiencies and inequalities in our system that the ACA does not address -- not to mention the fact that the costs will go up dramatically for states in three years, and many states won't be able to afford it.

Affordability is the issue. Romney's plan made sense for MA because it's already a fairly healthy state, with a specific constituency, with the state as the final arbiter in terms of allocations for MedicAid funds. Expanding to a one-size-fits-most national system did nothing to address the fact that the poorest states simply can't afford the plan.

For me it's a simple cost issue, and nothing is being done to address those costs.

 

[nbcrusader]

Between our current economic malaise (a repeat of the Carter years without the inflation) and the launch of the expensive, broken ACA, the cries of BECAUSE RACISM is just a diversion from the economic reality faced by the US. No one is claiming racism doesn’t exist but we’ve reach a point in political discourse where actual evidence of racism is not necessary.

It is abundantly clear that the rollout of the ACA should have been delayed for individuals (just as it was delayed at the corporate level (even though the law is the law)) to, at a minimum, get the basic system to work. Delay was not an option for Obama. Even a 6 month delay proposed the GOP was shot down.

Not only is BECAUSE RACISM a handy diversion from our nation's economic failings, we can see the true reason for the message from the left (it certainly isn’t to address, correct or solve racism) – money. The left is acutely aware of the profitability of the BECAUSE RACISM message.

 

[Irvine511]

BECAUSE HISTORY (a more accurate term) isn't a deflection away from the present economy. It IS an explanation of the vitriol and irrationality of 30ish members of Congress and many of their constituents, none of whom have presented any useful economic proposals, let alone, as had been pointed out, done anything about jobs, jobs, jobs. This is evidence of the fact that BECAUSE THE ECONOMY has no substance behind it, and it's a mask for irrational anti-Obama hatred BECAUSE RACISM.

Forced transvaginal ultrasounds and shuttering abortion clinics in Texas doesn't do much for the economy, neither does lowering taxes on the wealthy. When people point to debt as the #1 issue affecting the country, but then fight to the death to avoid sunsetting the very unsubsidized tax cuts that have created the debt to begin with, when they refuse to acknowledge that the deficit is tumbling, and when food stamps and Head Start and PBS (1/1000ths of pennies on the dollar!) are presented as drivers of this debt, it doesn't seem as if anyone is actually serious about dealing with what is presented as the greatest crisis of our time (debt).

All this, plus the fact that no one on the right cared about debt until 1/21/09. Deficits sure didn't matter to Cheney.

One can see how BECAUSE RACISM is a compelling explanation for the free pass Bush gets and the blaming of the 2008/9 Great Recession on Obama.

 

[namkcuR]

The whole notion of "if you want to know what's in the plan you'll have to vote for it to find out" chicanery aside, I've been very clear about the issues, in that it doesn't actually address the skyrocketing costs of healthcare. Not does it address the fact that the quality of public health is already not great in this country, and forcing millions of new customers into the system -- when there are only so many doctors who are already overworked -- will be an additional drain on resources. Again, there are major structural inefficiencies and inequalities in our system that the ACA does not address -- not to mention the fact that the costs will go up dramatically for states in three years, and many states won't be able to afford it.

Affordability is the issue. Romney's plan made sense for MA because it's already a fairly healthy state, with a specific constituency, with the state as the final arbiter in terms of allocations for MedicAid funds. Expanding to a one-size-fits-most national system did nothing to address the fact that the poorest states simply can't afford the plan.

For me it's a simple cost issue, and nothing is being done to address those costs.

Nathan, why does it have to be an either/or proposition? The health insurance industry and the healthcare industry are two different industries. I agree with you that the actual costs of healthcare are insane and that something should be done about it. But just because nothing is being done about the cost of healthcare, why does that mean that trying do something about the cost of health insurance is a bad thing?

Do you support insurance companies no longer being able to lock people out on the basis of pre-existing conditions?

Do you support the ban on rescission?

Do you support people being able to stay on their parents' plans for a longer time?

If you do, well, those things could've happened without the individual mandate. The insurance companies wouldn't have allowed it.

You think we shouldn't have been doing business with them in the first place? I agree. I wanted a single-payer system.

If you think there was a way to get those concessions without giving the insurance companies what they wanted, and without going to a single-payer system, I would love to know what it is.

 

[nathan1977]

BECAUSE HISTORY (a more accurate term) isn't a deflection away from the present economy. It IS an explanation of the vitriol and irrationality of 30ish members of Congress and many of their constituents, none of whom have presented any useful economic proposals, let alone, as had been pointed out, done anything about jobs, jobs, jobs. This is evidence of the fact that BECAUSE THE ECONOMY has no substance behind it, and it's a mask for irrational anti-Obama hatred BECAUSE RACISM.

...

All this, plus the fact that no one on the right cared about debt until 1/21/09. Deficits sure didn't matter to Cheney.

If you'll remember, Bush's first attempt at TARP -- which would have exploded the debt and the deficit -- went down to shocking defeat in both houses of Congress. No one at the time wanted to incur the bill for that one. It was deeply unpopular publicly, it was unpopular politically, and there was nothing racist about that opposition then when it was a white man in the office.

 

[anitram]

If you'll remember, Bush's first attempt at TARP -- which would have exploded the debt and the deficit -- went down to shocking defeat in both houses of Congress. No one at the time wanted to incur the bill for that one.

That's a very simplistic (and inaccurate) way to describe the opposition.

It wasn't simply about running up debt, it was that the first attempt at TARP was shoved down everyone's throats and the country was expected to sign up to $700bn of spending which was outlined in a ridiculous 3-page document that gave Hank Paulson broad powers to spend the money largely as he deemed it fit. It didn't go down to "shocking defeat", but was defeated rather narrowly at 228-205 and the amended version which last I recall was some 500-odd pages and actually provided detailed threshold tests and an outline of the risk appetite passed.

 

[BVS]

The very first real Tea Party gathering was on April 15th, 2009, on tax day, taxes from the PREVIOUS president. YET all the signs and all the speeches were about Obama and Obama's taxes, which he had yet passed one... To me that speaks volumes as to the Tea Party's motivations. I think if you're trying to sweep under the rug the role race plays, then you're purposely being obtuse.

 

[Pearl]

The very first real Tea Party gathering was on April 15th, 2009, on tax day, taxes from the PREVIOUS president. YET all the signs and all the speeches were about Obama and Obama's taxes, which he had yet passed one... To me that speaks volumes as to the Tea Party's motivations. I think if you're trying to sweep under the rug the role race plays, then you're purposely being obtuse.

It certainly speaks to the anxiety many were feeling over Obama. So many believe, and still do, that he intended to make the country socialist. There were others who did, and still, believe that he will set up a communist state, gulags and secret agents and all. This stems from his grandparents' and his mother's political beliefs, and also when he told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to "spread the wealth". Race did play a role, as shown with all those incredibly racist signs at rallies. But the major anxiety over anything communist related with some was definitely a fuel.

 

[INDY500]

AFL-CIO Labor Group Warns Democrats About Proposed Medicare Cuts: 'Don't Try It... We Will Never Forget'

AFL-CIO Labor Group Warns Democrats About Proposed Medicare Cuts: 'Don't Try It... We Will Never Forget'
By Matthew Mientka | Oct 22, 2013

As conservatives praise Congressional Republicans for this month’s government shutdown, liberal leaders on the left likewise sought to lockdown Democrats in the looming fight over entitlement spending in Washington.

“No politician… and I don’t care the political party… will get away with cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. Don’t try it,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a speech to be given in Las Vegas, on Tuesday. “This warning goes double for Democrats,” he said. “We will never forget. We will never forgive. And we will never stop working to end your career.”

Like leaders of the right-wing Tea Party, left-wing labor unions are threatening to punish any bi-partisan dealmakers with political termination. Whereas AFL-CIO leaders had in the past threatened to merely withhold support for such Democrats, Trumka said they would now actively oppose them during future primary races, using massive amounts of political money.

I'm not hearing "compromise" or "bi-partisanship" or "reform."

I'm hearing extremism, Left-wing extremism. Democratic base extremism.

 

[INDY500]

INDY, like the Tea Party, is showing us the intersection of religion and politics.

... the understanding of politics as a religion, with faith based policies, the refusal of facts and evidence from people who actually know things, and the fundamentalist tendency to shape the entire world through a single moment of clarity, as well as a fervent belief in the inerrancy of the "founding fathers." It's like talking to a bunch of dry drunks.

While debt is important, it is not the most pressing issue facing the economy.

You're projecting again.

As a secularist you would conflate political principles with religious orthodoxy. It's you that recognizes no power higher than The State, I do. I believe our unalienable rights can only come from God, you have to reject that. My faith preaches personal salvation, you place faith in the collective salvation of a powerful egalitarian government.

Everyone has a religion. I know what mine is, please don't project yours on me.

 

[PhilsFan]

It's you that recognizes no power higher than The State, I do. I believe our unalienable rights can only come from God, you have to reject that. My faith preaches personal salvation, you place faith in the collective salvation of a powerful egalitarian government.

This is the stupidest thing I have ever read.

 

[Diemen]

You're projecting again.

As a secularist you would conflate political principles with religious orthodoxy. It's you that recognizes no power higher than The State, I do. I believe our unalienable rights can only come from God, you have to reject that. My faith preaches personal salvation, you place faith in the collective salvation of a powerful egalitarian government.

Talk about projecting.

 

[nathan1977]

I agree with you that the actual costs of healthcare are insane and that something should be done about it.

...

You think we shouldn't have been doing business with them in the first place? I agree. I wanted a single-payer system.

So did I.

Instead, we got a $700M website that doesn't work weeks later. We got an affordable care act that the nation's poorest states can't afford. And that millions of other Americans can't afford either. Read the below, and buckle up -- it's kind of an overwhelming ride.

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10...o-how-obamacare-is-destroying-american-lives/

Someone, tell me how this is helping.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Those referring to a 'single payer system' (I guess that's supposed to be something like Australian or UK style public health care?)... if the Tea Party was willing to wreck the joint over Obamacare, how on earth would the votes ever be there for honest to god socialised healthcare?

How?

 

[anitram]

Nevermind the Tea Party - try finding a handful of "regular" Republicans to support this clearly "liberal" measure. Good luck!

"Many Republicans searching for something to say in defense of the disastrous shutdown strategy will say President Obama just doesn't try hard enough to communicate with Republicans," Durbin said. "But in a 'negotiation' meeting with the president, one GOP House Leader told the president: "I cannot even stand to look at you.'"

"What are the chances of an honest conversation with someone who has just said something so disrespectful?" the Illinois Democrat added.

 

[INDY500]

AFL-CIO Labor Group Warns Democrats About Proposed Medicare Cuts: 'Don't Try It... We Will Never Forget'

Just doesn't fit the narrative of "all the crazy" being on the Right does it?

 

[anitram]

That's actually fairly typical lobbying which is done not just by unions but by all sorts of conservative organizations as well, particularly the socially conservative ones. If you think that this is something unique, you don't know how Washington works.

The difference may be that the Wall Street bankers won't say out loud what the unions or the religious groups will.

When the Democrats elect 50 union leaders who the hijack Congress, we can talk.

 

[LJT]

You're projecting again.

As a secularist you would conflate political principles with religious orthodoxy. It's you that recognizes no power higher than The State, I do. I believe our unalienable rights can only come from God, you have to reject that. My faith preaches personal salvation, you place faith in the collective salvation of a powerful egalitarian government.

Everyone has a religion. I know what mine is, please don't project yours on me.

This is incredibly moronic. Rights existed long before God came on the scene in varying forms, and will continue to exist long after God is forgotten, precisely because they are man made, something we collectively decided were 'good' things. So yeah I reject that those unalienable rights come from God. I place my faith in the power of people to do good for themselves and oh so importantly for each other, that is what the state is. I grant you that there has become a disconnect between the people and a the political class that runs most states now, who mainly work for lobbyists and corporations, but that is I imagine what most of us here do not want the state to be, it just so happens that universal healthcare is one of those things that is actually for the people, by the people.

You seem to view the state as some disembodied devil no matter what it does, separate from the people. Your not fighting for the state to be better than it is, your fighting for the destruction of any good it can still do, in effect your personal salvation is making you incredibly selfish towards those who have not or will not have your chances in life.

I also find it funny that unions remain portrayed as the devil as well, especially since its they who gave you your workplace protections, your weekend etc. You know they are made up of ordinary people to. They are not some whack jobs out to mug you.

Anyway I'm not incredibly sure about this ACA business, I mean I generally think you guys should go for the single payer system (if it is like the NHS here or in Australia), but it's a bit early to judge the effect of a policy that has only been implemented a few weeks ago? Its a bit hard to judge how the land lies.

It's odd to see a country polarised between the centre-right and the far right.

 

[nbcrusader]

The very first real Tea Party gathering was on April 15th, 2009, on tax day, taxes from the PREVIOUS president. YET all the signs and all the speeches were about Obama and Obama's taxes, which he had yet passed one... To me that speaks volumes as to the Tea Party's motivations. I think if you're trying to sweep under the rug the role race plays, then you're purposely being obtuse.

This really doesn’t add anything to the BECAUSE RACISM dynamic. Obama ran for office on a big government (thus, higher taxes) platform. Opposition to the big government approach wasn’t going to disappear after the 2008 election.

As for some of the signs that appear at rallies, while I am not going to support or defend any specific sign, I would note there is a long history of using caricatures and effigies in political protest. And this forum was no different for sharing of demeaning illustrations during the prior administration. Can the current President be subject to the same level of political protest? How do we avoid a chilling of political speech?