• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the Tea Party is a Danger

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why they are a danger to America. They make up their mind on emotion and not fact. They are the masses that listen to Fox News.... that listen to Conservative radio. This isnt partisan. This is FACT! Please watch!

 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Why they are a danger to America. They make up their mind on emotion and not fact. They are the masses that listen to Fox News.... that listen to Conservative radio. This isnt partisan. This is FACT! Please watch!


Rather that getting our information from conservative radio or TV, we should get it from youtube videos. Hrm.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
hmmmph... when you consider that. for the most part, the Teat party is a poorly disguised front for rapacious greedheads, most of whom identify with Libertarianism, having a Libertarian come out against them is a little surprising...

of course, the teat party does not present itself as being the party of engaged intelligent people... just pissed off people. Para Sailin' is the epitome of nonthinking opionated people certain that they know better, even when they acknowledge that they know nothing much at all. But... these are the folks that everyone says is going to put the next generation of policy makers into office. No more intellectuals, goddamit, but the little people, uneducated and ignorant americans with "common sense".

whaddya wanna bet that the fat fella in the cammies never saw a day in the army?

geo.
 

MKULTRABOY

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Though Im prone to agree with Cenk on this, I dont like seeing chopped up videos of peoples ignorant responses. Doesnt feel quite honest. As a piece on opinion though, sure makes those folks seem like a waste of air. I don't mind uninformed people and people who make decisions based off of emotions, I just don't associate with them. Too bad they vote.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
hmmmph... when you consider that. for the most part, the Teat party is a poorly disguised front for rapacious greedheads, most of whom identify with Libertarianism, having a Libertarian come out against them is a little surprising...

of course, the teat party does not present itself as being the party of engaged intelligent people... just pissed off people. Para Sailin' is the epitome of nonthinking opionated people certain that they know better, even when they acknowledge that they know nothing much at all. But... these are the folks that everyone says is going to put the next generation of policy makers into office. No more intellectuals, goddamit, but the little people, uneducated and ignorant americans with "common sense".

whaddya wanna bet that the fat fella in the cammies never saw a day in the army?

geo.

The worst part? The reliance on ridiculous and over-the-top rhetoric in lieu of intelligent and mature debate.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The worst part? The reliance on ridiculous and over-the-top rhetoric in lieu of intelligent and mature debate.

we do not agree often, but we do this time, even if i do detect a trace of sarcasm in that comment. it need not ALWAYS be... we wanna have a lil fun. but serious discussion by informed people is increasingly rare. even those who have the abilities have abandoned their perogative and simply given in to empty, inflammatory rhetoric.

and it applies to both sides.... certainly there was greater policy commentary among the Obama supporters but there was no lack of slavering jaws then, either. rather than promote learning about how our government works, our "party leaders" and the other movers and shakers are relying on ignorance and fear and "me first"ism to gain and horde political power.

I am not one of those that dismisses the voices of those that have little understanding of the process... every voice counts. that is what democracy is about. but those that promote ignorance if that ignorance will further their agenda deserve all the disdain we can muster.

Sarah is the queen of THAT particular fiefdom.

geo.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
we do not agree often, but we do this time, even if i do detect a trace of sarcasm in that comment. it need not ALWAYS be... we wanna have a lil fun. but serious discussion by informed people is increasingly rare. even those who have the abilities have abandoned their perogative and simply given in to empty, inflammatory rhetoric.

and it applies to both sides.... certainly there was greater policy commentary among the Obama supporters but there was no lack of slavering jaws then, either. rather than promote learning about how our government works, our "party leaders" and the other movers and shakers are relying on ignorance and fear and "me first"ism to gain and horde political power.

I am not one of those that dismisses the voices of those that have little understanding of the process... every voice counts. that is what democracy is about. but those that promote ignorance if that ignorance will further their agenda deserve all the disdain we can muster.

Sarah is the queen of THAT particular fiefdom.

geo.

There was more ridiculous rhetoric in your post than anything I've seen from the tea party crown.
 

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,332
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Im just AMAZED on how many suckers are out there that think Palin is anything other than a above average speaker. She has zero business being in politics though. She is just another dumb-ass politician that will not help anyone or anything except herself and her Party.... which is the LAST thing this Country needs. Plus the Tea Party is a bunch of misinformed lemmings that are fed by Karl Rove who happens to be the one that hijacked what the Tea Party REALLY was.
 
Last edited:

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Though Im prone to agree with Cenk on this, I dont like seeing chopped up videos of peoples ignorant responses. Doesnt feel quite honest. As a piece on opinion though, sure makes those folks seem like a waste of air. I don't mind uninformed people and people who make decisions based off of emotions, I just don't associate with them. Too bad they vote.

I've posted the video within the video a number of times and gotten the same response, "cherry picking, not representative..."

So, I have asked for videos of people at a Tea Party event giving articulate and detailed answers to questions about current policy issues.

So far, no one has found one...
 

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,568
Reaction score
8,354
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
All humans make their decisions based on emotions. Rational oversight is merely a way that we try to sway our emotions by suggesting the pros and cons of an action. Ultimately, the emotions always decide.
 

Vicki

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
22
Reaction score
6
Location
Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I think this isn't just related to just tea party group but across the nation. Can you tell me that no one voted for Obama just cuz he was Africian American? I remember seeing stories about people having no clue what Obama's views were but they just loved him. Also this was a book signing gathering not a tea party rally. People that love her and want to buy her book may not be the same people that go to tea parties.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
There was more ridiculous rhetoric in your post than anything I've seen from the tea party crown.

you ability to say little with even less is enviable.... you could give lessons.

here, i will say it again, i will ty to be more concise. the teat party is funded by intelligent but self interested people and who are cynically promoting a national campaign based on ignorance and partisan loathing.

geo.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hmmmph... when you consider that. for the most part, the Teat party is a poorly disguised front for rapacious greedheads, most of whom identify with Libertarianism, having a Libertarian come out against them is a little surprising...

of course, the teat party does not present itself as being the party of engaged intelligent people... just pissed off people. Para Sailin' is the epitome of nonthinking opionated people certain that they know better, even when they acknowledge that they know nothing much at all. But... these are the folks that everyone says is going to put the next generation of policy makers into office. No more intellectuals, goddamit, but the little people, uneducated and ignorant americans with "common sense".

whaddya wanna bet that the fat fella in the cammies never saw a day in the army?

geo.

I am also a libertarian and I can't stand the Tea Party. It's great that people are speaking out against the deficit spending and other wasteful programs, but this movement is conservative by nature, not libertarian (no matter how much they try to claim the opposite). Glenn Beck is a conservative, not a libertarian (but of course, Noam Chomsky considers himself a libertarian so I guess the label is useless anyway).

Where are the good ol' classical liberals!? Bring them back!
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you ability to say little with even less is enviable.... you could give lessons.

here, i will say it again, i will ty to be more concise. the teat party is funded by intelligent but self interested people and who are cynically promoting a national campaign based on ignorance and partisan loathing.

geo.

Oh, and YOU are not fueled by self-interest?
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I am also a libertarian....Where are the good ol' classical liberals!? Bring them back!

well, people who CALL themselves Libertarians have a lotta interest in it... self interest. from what i can understand of YOUR take on Libertarianism, it is not the butal, inhumane 'me-firstism' of many who claim the ideological niche.

some one is pissing in yer pool, my bother. you should be hollering out.

geo.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Oh, and YOU are not fueled by self-interest?

no one is without self-interest. not ALL people base all their decisions solely on what benefits them personally. some of us take our fellow citizens and even (hold for fanfare) our national interest into consideration when we address policy issues.

geo.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
well, people who CALL themselves Libertarians have a lotta interest in it... self interest. from what i can understand of YOUR take on Libertarianism, it is not the butal, inhumane 'me-firstism' of many who claim the ideological niche.

some one is pissing in yer pool, my bother. you should be hollering out.

geo.

And who are these monsters that you speak of? Glenn Beck? Sarah Palin? In my mind, these people are idiots, but not cruel, inhumane monsters. It seems like libertarianism, in your understanding of the term, implies anyone with a hitlerian streak.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
no one is without self-interest. not ALL people base all their decisions solely on what benefits them personally. some of us take our fellow citizens and even (hold for fanfare) our national interest into consideration when we address policy issues.

geo.

And pandering to voters through promises of subsidization is not at all an act of self-interest? Giving to the misfortunate in order to feel better about yourself is not an act of self-interest?
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
And pandering to voters through promises of subsidization is not at all an act of self-interest? Giving to the misfortunate in order to feel better about yourself is not an act of self-interest?

i realize that to a randian, the notion is self-interest is as sacred as the transubstantiation is to a catholic... but it is one aspect of what it is to be human... not the sole defining quality and often not the best quality.

at the risk of heresy, when self-interest in actions that affect more than yourself supercedes communal interest, you are refuting the essential premise of democracy, of fairness, of Humanism and of Liberalism.

geo.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
i realize that to a randian, the notion is self-interest is as sacred as the transubstantiation is to a catholic... but it is one aspect of what it is to be human... not the sole defining quality and often not the best quality.

at the risk of heresy, when self-interest in actions that affect more than yourself supercedes communal interest, you are refuting the essential premise of democracy, of fairness, of Humanism and of Liberalism.

geo.

I am not an objectivist. Second, it IS the sole defining quality of being human because IT sustains the life and blood of a human being. Read the sig.

Finally, there is a harmony of self-interest. There is also a difference between naked self-interest and rational self-interest. If your self-interest is the consumption of little children, then the self-interest of others will see to it that your existence remains forever locked behind bars.
 

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not an objectivist.
well, you recite the tenets and ... a handle like Galt? perhaps I may be forgiven the error.
Second, it IS the sole defining quality of being human because IT sustains the life and blood of a human being.
no, it isn't and no, it doesn't. it is, at best, unscientific and at worst an unqualified belief little different from religon. there is millenia upon millenia of refuting evidence. Humans are and have always been both intensely individual but even more social. this is easy to qualify. few have ever lived separate from others.
Read the sig.
i noted it. a fine and mostly true aphorism. but hardly encompassing of his thinking. i think you may be misunderstanding m. Smith. He was in close agreement with the Liberals of his day in insisting that the welfare of the group is what justifies the rights of the individual - remember that m. Smith's opus was The Wealth Of Nations... nations, not individuals. I have already pointed to Locke, i can point out the same sentiments in any number of "classical liberals". but all you really have to do is remember the qualifying statement that we used in separating from England: "to form a more perfect Union". "provide for the general Welfare" - not get what we can as individuals. No mention of the individual at all. and, no, i didn't come up with this all by myself.

but, to get back to m. Smith. he. too, appreciated the fundamental social quality of human beings. He admired compassion and he deplored greed.
To feel much for others and little for ourselves; to restrain our selfishness and exercise our benevolent affections, constitute the perfection of human nature.
Where some thinkers, Rand, for instance, are pretty simple in their thinking, Smith was a complicated sorta fella, You have to read carefully. It helps if you read objectively, rather than looking for what you want to find.
Finally, there is a harmony of self-interest.
you might want to expand on this a little. pretty sounding but does not seem to have much in it.
There is also a difference between naked self-interest and rational self-interest. If your self-interest is the consumption of little children, then the self-interest of others will see to it that your existence remains forever locked behind bars.
this is mere quibbling. it is its antisocial nature that makes eating children reprehensible. individual and social interest are inextricably tied. you cannot separate them.

our self interest is of vital importance in that it distributes the onus of responsibility for preserving the group. that is why we evolved into such independent creatures. but what adaptation serves is the population, not the individual, which in evolutionary terms, is expendible. the benefit of improving the individual is that by doing so we better the group. try a little research on the notion of "group selection". i can recommend some sites. here is one.


as much as you may like to discredit the notion of altruism... the fact is we practice it. it makes no sense whatsoever to say that what humans do and have always done is somehow not really human.

geo.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
well, you recite the tenets and ... a handle like Galt? perhaps I may be forgiven the error.

Again, you don't have to follow everything a person says before you can admire their work. You may like expressionist art, but you don't have to be an expressionist artist in order to appreciate the work of others. And likewise, you don't have to follow everything a person says even if you're two of the same bunch. If you're a democrat and FDR was a democrat (perhaps even your hero) does that mean you support the incarceration of more than a hundred thousand Japanese-Americans because he did? Does that mean you have to be a anti-semitic racist? Do you have to own slaves or support slavery in order to admire the founding fathers? OF COURSE NOT. My "handle" is not as important as my own ideas I wish to express on this forum. That should be the basis for discussion, not some cosmetic profile.

quoteno, it isn't and no, it doesn't. it is, at best, unscientific and at worst an unqualified belief little different from religon. there is millenia upon millenia of refuting evidence. Humans are and have always been both intensely individual but even more social. this is easy to qualify. few have ever lived separate from others.

you're confusing libertarianism with isolationism.

i noted it. a fine and mostly true aphorism. but hardly encompassing of his thinking. i think you may be misunderstanding m. Smith. He was in close agreement with the Liberals of his day in insisting that the welfare of the group is what justifies the rights of the individual - remember that m. Smith's opus was The Wealth Of Nations... nations, not individuals. I have already pointed to Locke, i can point out the same sentiments in any number of "classical liberals". but all you really have to do is remember the qualifying statement that we used in separating from England: "to form a more perfect Union". "provide for the general Welfare" - not get what we can as individuals. No mention of the individual at all. and, no, i didn't come up with this all by myself.

Since society is made up of individuals, I don't see how the above distinction is anyway relevant to the basic tenets of libertarianism.

but, to get back to m. Smith. he. too, appreciated the fundamental social quality of human beings. He admired compassion and he deplored greed.

If greed is defined as naked self interest (which it is most of the time), then perhaps we may agree. If it simply refers to any self-interest (without discerning the difference between naked and rational self-interest), then I disagree. There are levels of self-interest, and for the most part we are all living our lives and pursuing our own separate interests. The concept of the rule of law is crucial in understanding this difference and why one encompasses the other.

Where some thinkers, Rand, for instance, are pretty simple in their thinking, Smith was a complicated sorta fella, You have to read carefully. It helps if you read objectively, rather than looking for what you want to find.

I think your approach is mean-spirited and condescending.

you might want to expand on this a little. pretty sounding but does not seem to have much in it.

Individuals are inherently pursuing their own separate interests. Yet there is a harmony of interests. We are all living our own lives trying to survive. But we all, as individuals, expect a degree of liberty and protection. In order to ensure this system is maintained over the long run, individuals must cooperate in order to survive and live freely. As you know, libertarians are strongly pro-trade and believe that all trade is mutually beneficial or it wouldn't take place. If that is true, then libertarians obviously believe that though citizens should be free to pursue their own separate interests, they cannot survive as isolationists. You have to trade in order to survive.

this is mere quibbling. it is its antisocial nature that makes eating children reprehensible. individual and social interest are inextricably tied. you cannot separate them.

I disagree with the first sentence. It is not the antisocial nature but the very nature alone of consuming children (and by consume, I did also imply sexually assaulting) that is reprehensible. The second sentence, I agree completely. Now, please explain how libertarians commonly separate individual and social interest. Is it by protecting one minority from the abuses of others? Is it by thwarting society's attempts to steal from one minority in order to subsidize another?

our self interest is of vital importance in that it distributes the onus of responsibility for preserving the group. that is why we evolved into such independent creatures. but what adaptation serves is the population, not the individual, which in evolutionary terms, is expendible. the benefit of improving the individual is that by doing so we better the group. try a little research on the notion of "group selection". i can recommend some sites. here is one.

Again, I sympathize with the idea that we are only as strong as our weakest link. But my approach to strengthening the weakest link is far different from your own.


as much as you may like to discredit the notion of altruism... the fact is we practice it. it makes no sense whatsoever to say that what humans do and have always done is somehow not really human.

I only take altruism by its strictest definition, which is ultimately the sacrifice of yourself for the sake of others. We're absorbed in an altruistic society because of our Judeo-Christian background (which I fervently oppose). If life is precious, then we must not waste it for the sake of others. Shaving a decade or two off my life in order to extend the life of someone else (with absolutely no guarantee that it will improve their life) is wasteful. I strongly believe I only have one life to live, and it won't be for the sake of others.
 

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If greed is defined as naked self interest (which it is most of the time), then perhaps we may agree.

In order to make your argument you twist greed into some abstract.

Greed is never DEFINED as 'naked self-interest'.

The DEFINITION is simply an excessive desire to possess wealth or goods. Avarice. That's it. Nothing else.

You to talk connotations, then go ahead, get all artsy and metaphorical, but you want to DEFINE a word, try the dictionary next time.

None of your new Frosh year heros ever saw it as anything else.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Top Bottom