|
|
Post by marchmadness on Sept 28, 2011 23:06:21 GMT -5
Busy day...didn't mean to ask you a question then not respond. I don't think Tea Partyers are much into the birth certificate thing. Those are birthers, which are different from the TP. Oh and the more radical-I don't believe are true TP members. Some people are just naturally over the top-which you'll find in every group, and some have been shown to be big union members sent to make the Tea Party look bad to the media. Generally speaking, TP members are sane people who are not racist and want our country to prosper. I agree it's totally wrong to dislike Obama because of his race. If someone brings that issue up with me I'm pretty much done talking to them. How can you have a reasonable conversation with someone like that? I can also see where living around radicals of any nature can turn you against them. Just know that most conservatives are not radical and most TP members aren't either. I keep in mind that most liberals aren't. I don't hold someone's views against them unless they're totally out there, racist, anti-American, etc. I'm not here to defend the Tea Party, but I do feel they've gotten a bad rap because the administration feels threatened by them and therefore the media is going to try to discredit them in any means possible. I'm just so so tired of the media playing politics. That isn't their job! It's so hard to find fair reporting and it's sickening. That could be true and that is something someone I know who is a true tea party person told me. Sort of reminds me of how the government was trying to get into left wing groups in the 60's. Like I said the more fiscally conservative people are ones I support because both parties are way too fiscally liberal. Both extremes to me are dangerous. I'm a big believer in doing what someone chooses to do as long as I don't hurt someone. However, the extreme on both sides oppose this. The extremes are more alike than different because they want others to be forced to believe their agenda. I think that's why I prefer to be independent thinking instead of left or right. Where I currentlylive I deal with a lot of the racist people who call Obama racist names and to me it's unacceptable and I ignore them. I definitely don't think it's all Republicans and the more racist people could possibly not other groups besides tea party. I don't think being racist is just one side because I know many Democrats who are very racist. I completely understand about being busy. I'm trying to learn several new skills in 2 weeks for work so I've been doing it non stop. The more I think about it, the more I think I am more independent than conservative. I am very conservative in some ways but in others I'm not so much. I'm pretty much a live and let live kind of person too. I don't really care what you do as long as it doesn't hurt my family or community. And yes, the hard left and the hard right both want you to believe in their agenda. Live the way they want you to. I'm not for that. I am for laws, personal responsibility, etc., but not for govt overstepping their bounds. Like with abortion. I am not for abortion but I don't think it should be against the law. I also don't think it should be taxpayer funded, but that's a whole other issue. Abortion is an especially tough one for me. When I first came to this board years back, I was very against abortion. A poster here actually helped change my position on it. Got me to thinking anyway. I wouldn't have an abortion but it's not my place to tell someone else they can't either. It was hard for me to reach that decision since I see abortion as taking a life. Speaking of racism-I've been over at Huffington Post lately (because that's where AOL links us to their top stories) and the racism from the left about Herman Cain is just sickening! I can't believe some things people are saying, and it's from the same people who call me racist when I disagree with something Obama is doing. I've actually been called racist for saying I support him. It's really strange. |
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Sept 28, 2011 23:14:17 GMT -5
I agree with you. I think I may have been the one about abortion because to me abortion is not a left/right issue as politicians want you to believe. While I support the right to choose I wouldn't have an abortion myself. However, I've never been in a situation where it has come up. I never was raped then became pregnant or became pregnant as a teen. While I support giving money to Planned Parenthood I understand those who don't and don't feel they should be forced to pay with their taxes. I feel the same about many issues.
I'll have to check out the Huffington Times about that article. I have been reading he's gaining steam and it would be interested if he became the nominee. I doubt he will, but could be interesting. I so know that black conservatives do get a lot of flack from the media and are called names like Uncle Tom. Even Bill Cosby was called that for attacking the problems. I find it hypocritical when people do that because to me racism is wrong no matter who does it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiseandnaked on Sept 29, 2011 9:29:11 GMT -5
Marchmadness: "All of this class warfare has gotten people so riled up. They hate Tea Partyers. They hate big business. They hate the rich."
-----------
I'm afraid you're gonna have to add yourself to that class warfare list because if you do some soul searching you may just find that you 'hate' the poor. Of course, you've had some help in adopting that bias if you have listened to the usual right-wing talking points. Errbt posted an article that I linked to that could provide you with some information on the issue.
BTW I don't hate the rich. I want them to pay their fair share, and the right always mis-characterize this as 'hatred'. It's disingenuous. It causes the dreaded face-palm.
Marchmadness: "All this fighting between fellow Americans serves a purpose, and it's not good for our country. Personally, I'm getting tired of it. I don't hate anyone, especially just because I'm told to. I may completely disagree with you (generic you) but at the same time I realize you probably want what's best for the country just the same as I do. I don't fault you or call you names because we disagree. There's no reason to try to demean another person or group because they see things differently than you do. Many of the posts I see here are angry. Not angry at the situation we're in, but angry because someone disagrees with them. When I think about my stance on certain issues, that attitude has a lot to do with it. I don't want to become like that and it only solidifies that my views are correct."
-----
I know I am angry. I am angry because I live in this country and I see it being pushed in a direction that will hurt everybody, myself included. In fact, in my family's own personal experience, we've been pushed to the point of ruin by it. I seem to remember you writing something about not getting timely medical care because your family could not afford it. Maybe you should be angry too.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiseandnaked on Sept 29, 2011 9:45:14 GMT -5
Marchmadness: I'm not sure where you come from with the wages. No one in the Tea Party wants wages lowered or poor working conditions. What sense does that make?
---
Sure nobody in the Tea Party will say that they want wages lowered or poor working conditions, but that is where their policies will lead. I do hear hard-line Tea Party conservatives say, constantly, that we can't compete with China because the cost of doing business in the USA is too high. That, I'm afraid, includes wages. In China workers have to commute hundreds of miles and live in factory-owned dormitories, leaving their children behind, and then work for just a couple dollars a day. China is also more 'competitive' because there is no EPA and no OSHA. The working conditions and the pollution are dangerous.
The Tea Party wants to gut all Federal programs with the exception of the military. This is what they say and this is what they are working to do. You would be incredibly naive to think that without oversight companies wouldn't regress to the worst possible levels of pay and working conditions. A quick look at history will prove this to you.
The Tea Party has worked to demonize unions, which are the legitimate means for workers to demand better wages and conditions. You're an example of this. You say that the country is "union-controlled". That's pure hogwash. Look at the statistics for the percentage of US workers that were unionized in the past vs. now. You'll be surprised.
And if they are too powerful, then tell me just what the optimal level of 'power' for unions would be....
All of this could possibly lead you to the conclusion that the Tea Party wants, regardless of what they come out and say plainly, to take away the little power that workers still have to improve their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiseandnaked on Sept 29, 2011 10:06:44 GMT -5
Marchmadness: "Govt power-govt is too big. It's too intrusive. If it's big enough to give you everything you need, it's big enough to take everything away."
----------
I'm afraid it's big enough to take everything away if it wants to, no matter what. That is why it is important to keep it under the control of the people. Conservatives on the supreme court have effectively scr%wed the voter with the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
Marchmadness: "We don't need big brother to provide everything for us."
-------
The very fact that you use the words 'big brother' shows that you fall for the Tea Party line that somehow the government is an evil entity, set apart from the rest of society. If you had read 1984, you would know that "Big Brother" was the leader of a totalitarian regime. The USA is a democracy. Big difference. The government is supposed to be responsive to the voters. If it is not, and right now it is not, then that is what should be changed. Using TP logic, you would abolish the police force in your town because it was corrupt. I say reform it, you/the TP say abolish it.
Marchmadness: "The Tea Party doesn't want power shifted to corporations. They want power back where it belongs-with the people. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the govt does not currently serve the people. It serves corporations. Take a look at what's been going on lately and try to refute that."
----
I can't refute that at all, but I see the Democrats as being the (much) lesser of two evils in that respect. Example: Obama has done a lot to control the big banks in terms of their dishonest lending practices where Credit Cards are concerned. Now go and do some research and see where TP'ers and conservatives stood on this issue. Did they come down on the side of the consumer or the side of the banks? The answer should tell you a lot.
Government is our way of keeping a handle on the corporations who would, absolutely, trample all over us if they were given the chance in the service of making more money. If you don't believe me, again, all you need to do is read your history. Read some Charles Richardens. Read about child labor during the industrial revolution. Take a good look at conditions in China right now.
Unless you are very rich, right now you're working against your own self-interest.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Sept 29, 2011 17:08:05 GMT -5
If anyone thinks the Dumbocrats care either, you are mistaken. They are just as bad. I despise the GOP but at least with them you know they don't care but they never did. The Dumbocrats and Obummer are supposed to be for the middle class but they aren't either.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchmadness on Sept 29, 2011 22:39:32 GMT -5
I don't hate the poor. As a matter of fact, I used to spend a lot of time volunteering to help them until I went back to work. I don't like cheaters, but they're not really the poor.
No, I got timely medical care. I have insurance. I said I'm so glad that if I had to get sick, it was before Obamacare. I guess me and Herman Cain agree on that point (among others).
Unions have demonized themselves....SEIU, AFL/CIO. I've seen the things they do and Obama himself said that he doesn't make a move without consulting them. I'd say that would make our country pretty union controlled.
I know where they stood on the issue. When the banks were forced to give bad loans, the reps tried to fight against it, but they were told they hate the poor and were racist and it was pushed through by the dems. Obama has not come down on the side of the consumer in this situation. Is your credit in a better or worse situation before Obama got involved? Are your fees higher or lower? How about your interest rates? I personally don't use credit cards so this doesn't make a difference to me, but I know people whose interest rates shot up from 5% to 30% after Obama "helped the people".
ETA: I modified a few times to try to respond in one post. I don't think I missed anything. If there's something specific you'd like me to reply to and I haven't, just let me know.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchmadness on Sept 29, 2011 22:55:36 GMT -5
If anyone thinks the Dumbocrats care either, you are mistaken. They are just as bad. I despise the GOP but at least with them you know they don't care but they never did. The Dumbocrats and Obummer are supposed to be for the middle class but they aren't either. The democrats create all these social programs that once people get on, they can't get off of. This is done on purpose because if the program gets out of control, the dems say the reps are trying to take something away from them and they keep their base-out of fear. If the programs were structured in such a way so that people can work themselves off of them, the dependence would be gone and so would the voters. People would realize they can take care of themselves. They would get a sense of pride and personal responsibility, which isn't a bad thing, no matter what we're told. People don't understand these programs are a trap and they gladly fall into them and refuse to let anyone help them out of it. I'm told I hate the poor because I dare say that people have it in them to take care of themselves and don't need the govt to do it for them. Instead of feeling empowered they feel threatened. It's really strange. But I agree, when it comes down to it, they all care about what/who will make them the most money, and that isn't the poor and it isn't the middle class. That's why I'm so excited about Herman Cain. He doesn't seem to be like that. |
|
|
|
Post by La Princess on Sept 30, 2011 0:10:11 GMT -5
The democrats create all these social programs that once people get on, they can't get off of. This is done on purpose because if the program gets out of control, the dems say the reps are trying to take something away from them and they keep their base-out of fear. If the programs were structured in such a way so that people can work themselves off of them, the dependence would be gone and so would the voters. People would realize they can take care of themselves. They would get a sense of pride and personal responsibility, which isn't a bad thing, no matter what we're told. People don't understand these programs are a trap and they gladly fall into them and refuse to let anyone help them out of it. I'm told I hate the poor because I dare say that people have it in them to take care of themselves and don't need the govt to do it for them. Instead of feeling empowered they feel threatened. It's really strange. But I agree, when it comes down to it, they all care about what/who will make them the most money, and that isn't the poor and it isn't the middle class. That's why I'm so excited about Herman Cain. He doesn't seem to be like that. Very true. I know people who truly need the assistance but can't get it because they make too much. The system is set up where you almost have to not be working and not trying. It does not reward those who try their best to get off the assistance. Of course we all know why. Those people vote Democrat and the Dems know it. A family friend once said to me that once I start working I'd resent the Dems for stealing my money. She was right. In Illinois we have a welfare society and many generations of people are on it. It also rewards people for not getting married (can't get welfare if married or little). It's a disgrace. Contrary to what the lefties think I don't hate the truly poor. I've donated money to food baskets and if my financial situation is better during Christmas I'll "adopt" a needy family. I do resent paying more in taxes so some woman can buy electronics on her Link Card. My interest rates have shot up big time and it's because of the credit crunch. I feel for those who lost houses for situations beyond their control (job loss), but the morons who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford? No sympathy. If someone can't afford a house they shouldn't buy one. A house is not a need. Shelter, yes, owning a home, no. |
|
|
|
Post by wiseandnaked on Sept 30, 2011 9:19:39 GMT -5
Oh where to begin, where to begin? BTW my computer won't let me link to quotes the way you all can, so I'm having to do it the old fashioned way.
marchmadness: "Unions have demonized themselves....SEIU, AFL/CIO. I've seen the things they do and Obama himself said that he doesn't make a move without consulting them. I'd say that would make our country pretty union controlled."
--
Link to Obama's quote please where he said that.
MM: "The democrats create all these social programs that once people get on, they can't get off of."
--
I would argue that if there were enough jobs they absolutely could get off of them. I very much agree with you that aid should be given on a sliding scale, and to people who make more money, in order to give people an incentive to get ahead. Right now there is only enough money to help the very poorest of the poor and THAT is the reason why people get dropped when they make too much money. Changing the system for the better would take more funding, and Repubs want these programs de-funded and won't let that happen. It's ironic that they obstruct measures that would make the system better, and then complain that the system is the way that it is because the Dems have some sort of conspiracy to keep people voting for Democrats. Typical, though.
|
|
