United States of Entropy

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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]

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

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]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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]

Originally Posted by INDY500

.

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

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

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.

Originally Posted by INDY500

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]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

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]

Originally Posted by anitram

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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]

Originally Posted by nathan1977

Agree.

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

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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).

Originally Posted by nathan1977

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.