The Democrats need more Christine O'Donnels
JustAnotherAsshole
Regular
One benefit that the far right (Tea Party) has had so far is that they vote for unelectable candidates.
Take the race in Delaware. Castle and O'Donnel are both running. O'Donnel gets an endorsement from Palin and the teabaggers carry her to victory in the primary. In the actual election however, she lost badly where Castle was expected to win.
You'd think that they'd have learned that gimmicks don't go very far in the '08 election.
Take the race in Delaware. Castle and O'Donnel are both running. O'Donnel gets an endorsement from Palin and the teabaggers carry her to victory in the primary. In the actual election however, she lost badly where Castle was expected to win.
You'd think that they'd have learned that gimmicks don't go very far in the '08 election.
Comments
The Tea-Party has always been an astroturf campaign funded, organized and advertised by organizations associated with the likes of Dick Armey and other conservative politicians and businessmen.
I hope that America turns down the far right views of the Tea Party and their candidates, and given the results of the race in Delaware, it looks like they might. It seems more and more to me that the outrage that is being made to look like it has engulfed Americans is coming from a small minority. The same small minority that supported Bush to the very end. The same small minority that has always been standing in the way of progress and fucking things up.
Only in America are much needed financial and healthcare reforms called Socialism.
Could it be because Most of Europe and Canada is already a few steps away from straight up communism? Social Marxism already dominates the world. Economic Marxism is the next natural step.
Gee like some progressive or left-of-center organizations and businessmen fund grassroots organizations to promote their cause. Sorry man but grassroots organizations are not an exclusive venue of the left.
I could make the same so-called "astroturf" argument for both sides of the spectrum. Therefore the whole "astrotuf" argument is moot and is just another elitist, exclusive based argument that the left loves to make to belittle others.
Who says that progress is a good thing?
I look at progress as a process as something that has to produce an end result. You can't have progress for progress sakes, otherwise you have freakin' anarchy and break-down of the social order and society. This is why I never subscribed to the progressive movement because they can not leave well enough alone. Something always has to change, never happy with the results or the status quo because they are never satisfied with what they have or how things are. There never can be a result because results are the end of progress.
I wasn't suggesting that the democrats don't astroturf at all. I was saying that the Tea Party is not a grassroots movement.
Also lol @ elitist
Most people, probably. Progress is what gave us such things as cooked food, houses, shoes, constitutional-republics, etc.
Demonstrate how anything that the tea-party stands against would result in Anarchy.
Besides, progress in this context is nothing but the passing of legislation. If taxes got cut for the rich and the U.S. attacked Iran, some people would call that progress. Others consider things like universal healthcare and regulation of industry progress.
Society is constantly changing and progressing one way or another, and to suggest that progress (Again, a term that can mean almost anything depending on who you ask) will inherently lead to the breakdown of society is stupid.
Ok pinko understand this. Socialism fails. Obama is a failed president. He's the worst we've ever had. The democrats still insist on spending money to teach Africans to wash there dicks. I'm not making that up. This "universal healthcare" caused my policy dues to raise big time so how did it help me at all? We have immigrants flooding in we have High unemployment and he's worried about healthcare and making sure Michelle Obama gets to vacation in Paris on tax payer money. Anyone that still supports Obama is officially retarded.
The only way that I see Obama losing re-election is if the middle and lower classes completely ignore the benefits of the legislation he has passed. He is not a failed president. You guys want him to be. His policies will be effective.
Also, if you think that anything he has done is socialist, you need to read up on socialism.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
"Much needed?" Why should other people pay if I need my manboobs surgically removed because I eat at McDonalds 4 times a day?
You are an idiot and a communist, not a rare combination.
Because that's exactly what the new healthcare bill enables.
Just because the TEA party movement has support from two to three organizations does not mean it's a astroturf movement. It started out as grassroots and it evolved to a de-centralized movement that has the support of a few organizations. But did these organizations start the movement itself? No, and there's no evidence to suggest that they did.
Let's take a look at Dick Armey for example. While it is true that Armey was a politician it wasn't after he left office in 2003 that he created Citizens for a Sound Economy, which in 2004 merged with Empower America to form FreedomWorks, one of the groups that supports the TEA party movement. So all that says to me was that Armey was a ex-politician turned political activist. No astroturfing there because the movement isn't funded by a politician.
Laugh all you want it's a valid statement to make. When the left made that argument it was said under the basis that somehow only they can do grassroots movements. Therefore it stank of the exclusive elitism the left is well-known for.
Those changes happened because of practical reasons. Cooked food for easy digestion as well as safety, houses to give us shelter, shoes to protect our feet, constitutional-republics to give a society a say in their government. I have no problem with progress for practical purposes because it is something that is concrete, can be measured from beginning to end, and that everyone for the most part can agree on it's a problem that needs to be addressed.
It's when progressivism goes abstract or seeks to impose unpopular ideas on a society for the purpose "for the better good" that I have a problem with.
Oh that's easy. Let's take undisciplined spending. If you have a government that spends and spends and doesn't take in enough taxes that government is going to be broke. When a government is broke well I don't think I need to tell you what kind of anarchy that would cause eventually (think of the Weimar Republic).
Okay I'll give you that for progress is relative and in the eye of the beholder.
Tell that to the Russians of the Russian Revolution of 1917, or the Cubans with viva la revolution under Castro, or the Romans.
Astroturfing is a term used to describe a movement that is organized and funded by large companies and/or special interests and is purposefully made to look grassroots and spontaneous. The tea-party fits this profile perfectly.
Also, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, etc are all politicians too, are they not?
This is a stupid argument. Basically, anything you agree with you'll say is practical and has a "beginning and an end", and whatever you disagree with is impractical and a slippery, unending slope.
The American people elected Obama knowing full well what he would try to do, and supported his programs and plans. The only thing that has changed between then and now is that the fear-mongering has been stepped up, and people haven't seen results as fast as they expected. Once they do, you'll see how their opinion of what's good for them will change.
Undisciplined spending like cutting taxes and starting two wars? Undisciplined spending like creating turning a budget surplus into a budget deficit? Most of Obama's legislation either cuts the deficit or is deficit neutral. If you want to talk about fiscal irresponsibility, look at the policies of the last administration, and the current proposals of the republican party.
It's always interesting to me how ready people are to get right back to the things that got us into this bullshit.
But that has nothing to do with the bill that was actually passed, given that it doesn't include any "public option" sort of thing.
It just makes sense to me that the people who provide healthcare and health insurance should be motivated by and accountable to their patients and customers, not to shareholders, as the current health-insurance companies are.
Justanotherasshole is impossible to reason with. He's just another brainwashed liberal. He most likely suffers from white guilt to so that's why he supports Obama. I find that liberal's are mentally ill. They love communism as long as it's not happening to them. You know the type of person whose a Harvard professor and Marxist and praises the soviet union until it comes here and they find themselves in the Gulag.
Businesses should have no responsibilities to their shareholders?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY
Take econ 101 when you graduate high school due to social promotion and go to community college. Your world will never be the same.
There are small groups within the TEA party movement that have really no organization or funding by large companies and/or special interests. Also it doesn't fit the profile perfectly because you're not taking into consideration one essential element of what makes a movement astroturf, that being that there has to be some planning or organization by the organizations and special interests before-hand to make their agenda appear grassroots. Basically you got to have A (organization and funding by large companies and/or special interests) used to create B (the appearance of a grassroots movement) to equal C (astroturf). There is no evidence to suggest that TEA party movement was created by FreedomWorks, and it is impossible for the 9-12 project to create the TEA Party movement given that it was officially launched after the TEA Party movement began.
Actually what you are seeing is groups trying to capture the energy and momentum of the TEA party movement and using it as their own. There is no better example of this than the organization Tea Party Express. Originally the Tea Party Express was a PAC called Our Country Deserves Better that was run by Sal Russo, a long-time republican political activist. Russo in wanting to capture the energy and momentum of the movement re-branded his organization the Tea Party Express.
Ex-politicans yes, just like Armey.
But wait a minute didn't you just made that same argument that progress is seen differently by different people? Did you not say that tax cuts for the rich and the U.S. attacking Iran some people would call that progress, just as others would consider universal health-care and regulation of industry progress? And did I not agree with you on that part?
So why call my argument stupid when you did the same thing and not only that provided examples as progress being seen differently?
But regardless the argument is not stupid when the definition of progress is so general that it can be perceived differently by people based on their own perception and world-view of things based on their own experiences, thoughts, and values.
Not every American voted for Obama. Not only that but Obama was not really all that specific on what he offered and how he was going to do it. The only people who are not pleased seeing Obama's programs and plans going forward fast enough is the left, and the extreme left at that. Change and progress can't come fast enough for these people, and their impatience is reckless and irresponsible because of it. That is what the people are afraid of.
You saying how their opinion will change of what's good for them will change stinks of the elitist statism ideals that are just plain wrong and sickening this country. Why should my opinion change of what's good for me when the fact of the matter is there's only one person who knows what's good for me, and that's me; not the government. If the government does something that I do not like I will let them know. After all the government works for me, not the other way around. True representative government should should be subservient to the people's opinion, not the people being subservient to the opinion of the government. To think otherwise is contrary to the ideals of what makes this country great.
Why should I look into the last administration and the current democratic/republian proposals for examples of undisciplined spending of the government when it goes much further than that? The thing is government does not have a revenue collecting problem, rather it has a spending problem which is causing our deficits to exist and our national debt to get larger. Both parties are guilty of it.
Oh and the clinton budget surplus is a myth.
Obviously businesses have responsibilities to their shareholders.
I wasn't suggesting that health insurance companies shouldn't try to make money or to be responsible to their shareholders, but that healthcare and health insurance should be provided by people who are concerned with the patient, not with shareholders.
Let me explain basic capitalism for you
BUSINESS DON'T AND SHOULDN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHETHER THEIR CUSTOMERS LIVE OR DIE. THEIR GOAL SHOULD BE TO MAKE MONEY, WHICH MAY MEAN KEEPING THE CUSTOMER ALIVE TO CONTINUE PAYING INSURANCE OR LETTING THEM DIE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE OPTION
If someone wants to open a kinder, gentler HMO that pays for everything, they can, and they'd probably get a lot of customers just by free market demand but they'd have to charge sky high premiums and they'd probably go out of business rather quickly.
Sure, groups within the tea party may not have direct funding or organization from large companies, but who directs the movement as a whole? Who organizes the protests and spends the money to set up the stage? Who gives the protesters their ridiculous talking points and who feeds them many of their misconceptions?
Good thing they aren't fooling anyone.
Even if the tea-party did not start out as an Astro-turf movement, it is clear at this point that they are not any longer.
No, people are afraid of the outrageous lies that they have been fed non-stop for more than a year.
Look at the situation. There are two main political groups in this country that each have mutually exclusive views on many subjects. On most subjects, one side is right and the other is wrong. If half of the people believe that one thing is good for them and the other half believe that the exact opposite is good for them, how much do they really know?
Also, if the arrival of the benefits and the enactment of the laws that they voted for Obama to bring to them and to enact don't change their mind they shouldn't vote for him the next time around. A great deal of the anger towards Obama comes from the fact that we're still in a crappy situation. The economy isn't great, unemployment is still shitty and the healthcare bill doesn't fully kick in until later. People feel ripped off, which is why many have changed their opinion of what's good for them away from the president's policies. If they see results, their opinions about what is good for them will likely change. How is that an "elitist" thing to say?
Once people realize that all the terrible things that they have been expecting to happen aren't going to happen, I think a great many of them will change their minds, don't you?
The current administration is spending a lot of money because they are desperately trying to get us out of the economic crisis that we've been in since the last guy.
Yeah, they both suck but vote Republican, right?
The congressional budget office reported that in the last year of Clinton's presidency, there was a budget-surplus. Craig Steiner is good too, though.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/obamacare-to-cost-american-families-15200-a-year_19457.html
And you know they didn't fool me. At first I was a part of the movement and actually went to a few parties. But once I saw what was happening when these three to four groups attempting to capitalize on the energy of the movement and being successful at it, I left.
That I will admit to even though the movement doesn't fit the astroturf definition accurately. I look at it as the movement came out because of many reasons; weather it being spending, taxes, fears of socialism, health care, etc. It didn't start out as an astroturf movement because of reasons I have stated before. However what had happened to the movement was much worse. When these three to four groups saw what the movement was doing and the momentum it was creating they wanted to get in on the action to pursue their own agenda. In a sense they were like salivating wolves waiting for the time to pounce on the chickens. When these external organizations successfully pounced the majority of the movement they ripped out the grass and put in the turf.
It's sad really but honestly it was expected because that what happens when you have a non-centralized movement that has a lot of momentum that doesn't take the time to organize from within; An external organization or multiple organizations comes in and does it for them. This is especially true when these external organizations have access to financial resources.
In a sense the biggest advantage the TEA party movement had, the non-centralized organization, also proved to be its biggest disadvantage. Ultimately it might also prove to be its downfall as these external organizations get to work electing TEA party affiliated candidates with their money. I say this because the movement I believe has not matured enough to where they can put up viable candidates that can run for elected office. They are taking on too much, too quickly and the external organizations are the ones responsible taking the movement on a ride for their own ends.
That is a big factor I will admit, as I heard some of them and even I find them egregious. The sad part is all the people who are fearful because of the lies can do a little research, find out for themselves the jist of it, and go from there. The evil thing is that politicians on both sides will play into this ignorance and stoke it to get political points. You know what they say in politics, truth is always the first casualty.
Honestly not a whole lot. This is because they are not getting the full picture of things that are really going on. I believe that having ignorance of a subject is a lot less dangerous than having biased, one-sided knowledge of an issue. This is because simply put if your ignorant of a subject that means you don't have any knowledge of the subject in question, and therefore can learn something. Where as if your opinions are based on your particular political bent, whatever that may be, you're shutting yourself out of other factors and information that could be useful because it doesn't fit neatly in your political point of view. A variety of different informational perspectives to have at your disposal is key to having a well-rounded informed opinion that can stand up to scrutiny and debate.
It isn't and I am glad you cleared that up because what you said in the previous post did sound elitist and stand-offish. I am sure you didn't intend for that to happen and you elaborating on it tells me as such.
It's interesting that you talk about this because you state a problem that I feel needs to be seriously addressed. People reactionary vote, and they do it a lot. It just seems that in our society people want a quick fix to everything and boy do they get pissed off if there isn't one or they don't get it. This problem manifests itself in all aspects of our society, from pharmaceuticals to fix what ails us to voting for candidates promising us to go in and clean up and change Washington. The thing is you can't subject this reactionary change to the government. Sure a spike of change here and there can be good for the government but constant reactionary change to the government is not a healthy thing for the government to endure over the long term. This is because of a few things. The first thing is that it will erode our trust in the government even more because we don't know what changes the government will do next. The second thing is that our republic is designed to enact change slowly and practically by preventing the tyranny of the majority though the minority, and the courts. The last thing is that if you subject the government to constant reactionary change, nothing long term will get done because it will be subject to the whims of the next elected government.
I wonder how many people actually voted for Obama because they got caught under his charismatic spell of his campaigning (I will admit he's a good campaigner) and that he was not Bush. I wonder how many of these same people are pissed off because we're not out of Iraq and Afghanistan (have a problem with that), gitmo prison is still open for business (no problem with that), among other things that Obama said he would do or what would happen but has not delivered. But then again human beings are not known to be patient creatures.
The problem with Obama (as Jon Stewart points out) is that everyone projected their own desires onto his generic "Hope and Change" platform. He was so ambiguous during the campaign that he could have potentially stood for almost anything. After the election, everyone expected to cash in on his slogan only to realize it was only just that, a campaign slogan that sounded good.
Just because you portray yourself as the alternative doesn't mean you're the better choice.
I'm sure they will if Obama can deliver what he's saying. The problem is Obama is for the most part not and all those terrible things that is going to happen are manifesting. Like I said before we're still in Iraq and Iran and gitmo is still open for business. I'm sorry but Obama is not "cleaning up" Bush's mess, rather he's continuing Bush's polices (Iraq, Afghanistan, TARP, lack of governmental transparency, etc.) and putting his own in. As far as I am concerned this president is a disaster to this country because of the things that he's continuing from the last administration, as well as putting in his own polices such as the so called health care reform that is pushing premiums up as high as 50 percent. His spending polices are creating massive deficit spending and adding to the debt, to the point where the amount we owe will suprass the GDP in 2012. Obama is nearly halfway through his term and he's blowing it big time. This is what people are seeing, and guess what, that is what they'll remember come this election and the one in 2012.
I'm no fan of Bush, but the economic collapse wasn't entirely his (or even his party's) fault. We had regulations that could have prevented (or at least severely limited the scale of) the mortgage collapse; Glass-Steagall was repealed under Clinton, and the Democrats didn't put up a fight when banks were circumnavigating debt-to-capital ratio regulation during the bubble. Reagan changed the dynamics of our debt by turning us into a debtor nation from a creditor nation. One even could go back to the Community Reinvestment Act (passed under Carter) with its introduction of no money down mortgages and lax lending standards, which were relaxed even more by the Bush Administration. The point is blaming one president is underestimating the scope of the issue.
Oh, loved the cartoon.
Well I say vote for whoever you think deserves your vote. The beauty of that idea is that you can vote for whoever you want and not feel guilty about it because as far as I am concerned this two party system is nothing more than a big stinkin' shit-hole and worth just as much.
Besides have you ever noticed that politicians rarely ever identify their own policies as specifically Republican or Democrat? Yet another reason as to why you should never vote based on party loyalty of a politician as it doesn't actually exist. I'm always for vote for the individual, not the party that individual is associated with. Though I have known some people who have done the stupid thing and vote for party.
Well it might of been a surplus on paper, but after you add in supplemental spending packages, interest on the existing debt (which is part of the budget) and other after budget expenditures you can see that every year there was a deficit. Steiner shows this.