• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

hazlnut said:
No even close.

Try re-reading what I asked for.
Click to expand...


you bloviated:

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

and I gave you 3 videos.


:failpail:

It's all yours.
 
hazlnut said:
Try again, and re-read what I was asking for.
Click to expand...
Maybe no one tried to make the exact type of video that you're looking for. Is there any reason that they should?
 
mpg said:
Maybe no one tried to make the exact type of video that you're looking for. Is there any reason that they should?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's impossible to make a video a multiple Tea Party folk at a rally speaking articulately on a number of current issues.
 
hazlnut said:
Maybe it's impossible to make a video a multiple Tea Party folk at a rally speaking articulately on a number of current issues.
Click to expand...

the average tea party attendee is smarter than the average member of the public
 
TurtleDude said:
the average tea party attendee is smarter than the average member of the public
Click to expand...

Well, when you come across a video of an 'average Tea Party attendee' answering current policy questions in an articulate manner... Please do post it.



I would love to see the antithesis of the this video.
 
hazlnut said:
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...
Click to expand...

Rallies are not a good place to find "articulate and detailed answers", no matter the ideological badge they wear.
 
hazlnut said:
Well, when you come across a video of an 'average Tea Party attendee' answering current policy questions in an articulate manner... Please do post it.



I would love to see the antithesis of the this video.
Click to expand...








Really, you should try to debate intelligently instead of with simple minded hysterics and smears.
 
Fiddytree said:
Rallies are not a good place to find "articulate and detailed answers", no matter the ideological badge they wear.
Click to expand...

Fine, go to their home, have some Tea and ask them to explain the AIG bailout, why it was done, what could have been done differently, etc.
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wasn't using the dictionary's definition, and I made that clear from the beginning. Perhaps you should act more professional instead of insulting people with your condescendence. When we define terms and make sense of the concept, we (as analytical human beings) consider a variety of factors. When you think of dog, you don't automatically think of the exact, true definition brought to you by Webster's. You think of an image of a dog. When I say greed, we don't have to exclude our understanding of the term by the simple definition given to us by Webster's. We can consider many things. Few people would argue that "naked self-interest" is so far away from "greed."

I think you're just grasping for a technicality.
 
Geo Patric said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's cause he's a liberaltarian.
 
hazlnut said:
Fine, go to their home, have some Tea and ask them to explain the AIG bailout, why it was done, what could have been done differently, etc.
Click to expand...

Probably if I gave them enough time to think of a well-considered response. Otherwise, I can ask any liberal about why a financial policy was good, just randomly, and I should expect to have similar findings. At a rally, you will hear slogans or simplistic statements, because they aren't going to be mentally prepared for a debate or response, because they had no need to even think about the possibility of engaging in a debate or queried response. Sure, some intelligent liberals or conservatives at rallies could give you a "decent" response, but for the most part, people will not deliver. Perhaps they (liberals or conservatives) won't even deliver in optimal circumstances because they are not surrounded by the policy discussion and debates on a frequent basis. I should expect that from any "random Joe". Wouldn't you? What about yourself? Are you always prepared for a decent, if not, brilliant position on policy? I know I sure would be caught off-guard frequently. I understand you have partisan blinders on at almost all times of the day, but couldn't you be realistic about it?
 
Last edited:
So i'm a danger now?

Racist
Homophobe


Now a danger? Should we set up camps for the likes of me?


Tolerance is a funny thing it is.
 
hazlnut said:
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...
Click to expand...
And, as we all know, absence of proof is proof of absence.
 
The actual principles on which the tea party lie are ones I generally agree with. The only way this movement can become successful is if it, for lack of a batter phrase, kicks all the idiots out. The tea party needs to do something that turns off the blind followers and puts a stronger emphasis on people who don't just support, but actually KNOW what they're rallying for. Instead it's created somewhat of a herding effect among the right, attracting a whole motley bunch. The real tea partiers need to distract this rowdy bunch looking to yell about nothing to a football game or something, because these people don't realize it but they're hurting their cause.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Again, you don't have to follow everything a person says before you can admire their work.
Click to expand...
of course not. nor do you have to follow everything one does to abhor it. but, when you engage in the same rhetoric, employ the terminology, quote the aphorisms...., well, it is at the very least understandable if others come to the conclusion that you are a "follower". you say you are not. i accepted that .
you're confusing libertarianism with isolationism.
Click to expand...
no, i do not think that i am. In fact, i was not commenting on Libertarianism at all. i was responding to your personal comment "self-interest it IS the sole defining quality of being human". again, no, it is not. i attempted to demonstrate that it is not, it is anti-rational and in direct comflict with all the empirical evidence we have. you have yet to show that anything supports your assertion aside from your preference to believe it.
Since society is made up of individuals, I don't see how the above distinction is anyway relevant to the basic tenets of libertarianism.
Click to expand...
again, i was not talking about Libertarianism as such. i was talking about the principle of the preeminence of 'self-interest' which you attribute to Adam Smith. m. Smith agreed that self-interest is what drives individual action but NOT that it is defining of human value or of what humans do or the value in their doing it. and society is made up of interdependent individuals. if there were no interdependence, there would be no need for grouping, for forming societies.

you employ the Randian phrase "rational self-interest" but... you do not explain how that differs from any other sort. what, precisely, IS 'rational self-interest". thinking about pleasing yourself at the expense of others before you please yourself at the expense of others? m. Rand was not a philosopher. I know this because she said so. But i could have told you that even without knowing of her own denial. SHE never attempted to quantify her coinage as any serious thinker will do.

it would appear that you think that I refute your statement that " "self-interest it IS the sole defining quality of being human" with its opposite "altruism it IS the sole defining quality of being human".

i am not. i am saying that neither statement is true. neither individualism nor collectivism is a model complete in itself... not for human beings anyway. human beings are highly interdependent individuals.as a young fella i wrestled with the two opposing views and realized that i could step outta ring and let them wrestle each other. the benefits of individualism are wholly dependent on the abilities of the individuals. the benefits of cooperativism are the compensations that individuals recieve in the areas where they are lacking in return for their contributions to others in the areas where they are lacking.

return is not necessarily commensurate. benefit is NOT always mutual from any objective view point even if such a viewpoint could be established, which it cannot. This is not a novel idea. I did not come to this realization while sitting under the bodhi tree. Even Adam Smith recognized this.
Smith’s position is modern and egoistic in accepting that self-interest is natural and beneficial in making capitalism work well;
Click to expand...
- source:
OK... well there is one side.
at the same time Smith is traditionally altruistic in reserving his highest praise for those who take a disinterested perspective on their own interests and are willing to sacrifice their interests
Click to expand...
- ibid
and there is the other. here is a bit more, which justifies the seemingly discordant views... and the ties together the little game of "Competing Smith Quotes" we have been playing.
analysis led [Smith} to see that self-interested individuals would mostly engage in win-win transactions—that the profit motive, property rights, divisions of labor, competition, and other features of capitalism would lead to individual prosperity and social harmony. But Smith retained the traditional ethical belief that the good of society as a whole is the moral standard of value.
Click to expand...
- ibid
that bold part? THAT is all i have been saying. i would note that 'win-win' and "mutual benefit" are not really synonymous. mutual benefit as a result of 'free trade' is a preposterous myth.

John Stuart Mill puts it much more succinctly: The object of society is the “greatest happiness for the greatest number." In this, he is in accord with Smith and Locke. Mill is the "classical liberal" that puts the matter in the middle of the table where it can be seen clearly.
The opinions and feelings of mankind, doubtless, are not a matter of chance. They are consequences of the fundamental laws of human nature...
Click to expand...
- J. S., Mill Principles Of Political Economy.

both opinions - social an individual are the product of simply being human. He goes on to point out that we do not, even under the best 'free market' principles, reward a degree of labor with a corresponding degree of wealth but in fact, with nearly the inverse.
the largest portions to those who have never worked at all, the next largest to those whose work is almost nominal, and so in a descending scale, the remuneration dwindling as the work grows harder and more disagreeable, until the most fatiguing and exhausting bodily labour cannot count with certainty on being able to earn even the necessaries of life
Click to expand...
Mill, ibid

no, not mutual benefit in labor and not mutual benefit in trade - the greater benefit goes to the greater enabled... the more powerful, the better able to press his case forcefully. you pay the rent the landlord demands, regardless of the fact that it benefits him more than you. supply and demand may mitigate this, but ultimately, many things are in constant demand and are limited by nature - food, shelter, water, all the necessities of life. the denial of them as a matter of 'self-interest" is socially destructive.

societal harmony relies on individual abilities and effort combined with deliberate, rationally derived balancing forces; eg, cooperation. the contest continues because which course is best varies with conditions.

geo.
 
Fiddytree said:
Probably if I gave them enough time to think of a well-considered response. Otherwise, I can ask any liberal about why a financial policy was good, just randomly, and I should expect to have similar findings.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.


At a rally, you will hear slogans or simplistic statements, because they aren't going to be mentally prepared for a debate or response, because they had no need to even think about the possibility of engaging in a debate or queried response. Sure, some intelligent liberals or conservatives at rallies could give you a "decent" response, but for the most part, people will not deliver. Perhaps they (liberals or conservatives) won't even deliver in optimal circumstances because they are not surrounded by the policy discussion and debates on a frequent basis. I should expect that from any "random Joe". Wouldn't you? What about yourself? Are you always prepared for a decent, if not, brilliant position on policy? I know I sure would be caught off-guard frequently. I understand you have partisan blinders on at almost all times of the day, but couldn't you be realistic about it?
Click to expand...


Maybe intelligent people on both sides don't have time for rallies.

There was a pro-union rally this weekend -- let's see those videos.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Perhaps.





Maybe intelligent people on both sides don't have time for rallies.

There was a pro-union rally this weekend -- let's see those videos.
Click to expand...

Well, I would doubt that. I wouldn't go to rallies, but my own slight studies of liberals and socialists in the 20th century, some of their brightest men and women still had time to attend rallies, conferences, etc. They don't necessarily turn private and only write.
 
Goobieman said:
And, as we all know, absence of proof is proof of absence.
Click to expand...

I would assume that Teabaggers, in the interest of fair representation, would have videotaped their own rallies. Asked question, documented the answers.

Does anyone have a video of persons at Teabag rally giving detailed articulate answers to a complicated policy issue?
 
hazlnut said:
I would assume that Teabaggers, in the interest of fair representation, would have videotaped their own rallies. Asked question, documented the answers.

Does anyone have a video of persons at Teabag rally giving detailed articulate answers to a complicated policy issue?
Click to expand...




What is a "teabag" ralley. Do you think being vulgar and insulting to over 35 members of dp makes you sound any better than the lies you smear about us?

Seriously who do you think you impress?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom