the Real Tea Party

[Vmarco]

Or

 

a Libertarian having a discussion with a Tea Partier.

 

[Vmarco]

How to talk to a Tea Partier

 

 

[Vmarco]

If one considers the facts....

 

You cannot be a Libertarian and a Tea Party Patriot at the sametime....just as you can't be both Christian and Honest at the Same Time.

[ralis]

T.E.A.B.A.G.G.E.R. = Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights

[joeblast]

actually enraged about this outcome here

 

 

 

not race, gender, orientation, and all of the contrived idiot arguments that need to paint fiscal sanity with racism because the government having to borrow 40% of every dollar it spends somehow helps the idiots that make them? (psst, it doesnt help them, hate to break it to yas.)

 

like rush or hate him, this cover is golden

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

*ahem*

 

 

The REAL Tea party is ginsing, green, black, white, and peppermint teas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With dancers and hookas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2012 by Hot Nirvana Judo Trend

[ralis]

[joeblast]

now please demonstrate how objective you are and deconstruct the picking of cherries there

[Brian]

The curious thing about this and similar threads (whether it is "morality," "compassion," "Lib vs. Con," "D vs. R" or whatever) is that they are all distractions.

 

The real discussion should be about whether free-will should be protected or control should be handed to an elite few.

 

Instead, we allow plastic language to be used to shape discourse in such a way as to bend our trajectory towards tyranny.

[joeblast]

[thelerner]

 

The real discussion should be about whether free-will should be protected or control should be handed to an elite few.

That phrasing is so manipulative that the question becomes worthless. Everyone who wants to give control to a few elites raise there hands. Anyone?? anyone here?? Seems straw doggish to me.

 

There's are better questions to ask in order to create real discussion. First you have to understand the other side and its attractors. Too often we stereotype without getting to the bottom of philosophy. Or we compare the best of our side vs the worst of theres.

 

We end up with both sides saying the other is against freedom. I'm not saying the truth is in the middle, but neither side has a monopoly on it.

[ralis]

now please demonstrate how objective you are and deconstruct the picking of cherries there

 

Shout down the opposition Joe by adding nothing of substance but emotional rants. That is how the Tea Bagger party has trained you.

[Brian]

That phrasing is so manipulative that the question becomes worthless. Everyone who wants to give control to a few elites raise there hands. Anyone?? anyone here?? Seems straw doggish to me.

 

There's are better questions to ask in order to create real discussion. First you have to understand the other side and its attractors. Too often we stereotype without getting to the bottom of philosophy. Or we compare the best of our side vs the worst of theres.

 

We end up with both sides saying the other is against freedom. I'm not saying the truth is in the middle, but neither side has a monopoly on it.

 

Actually, what I'm saying is that both sides are working towards the same thing -- a totalitarian state -- and the overwhelming majority of adherents to either "side" are unaware that they are carrying opposing banners in the same parade. I suspect there are a handful in leadership roles on either "side" that realize they are helping to shape an ugly outcome but the vast majority are too busy beating their own drums.

 

It is sort of like two groups in canoes throwing rocks at each other while furiously paddling towards a waterfall. Both groups feel well justified and rational in their positions but neither is looking at the horizon and neither is questioning whether they are caught in a current (much less whether the current is being guided...)

 

Every time someone (or a small group) raises their heads on either side, they are subsumed by a group of mainstreamers who position themselves as the new torch-bearers. Happened with the Tea Party, happened with the Women's Lib movement, happened with the civil rights movement in the 60's. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

 

Both groups ("left" & "right" or whatever) feel they are the supporters of "rights" or "liberties" but both seem to think you can provide or secure them via an endless stream of legislation that divides and alienates. It is extraordinarily rare for either side to try to learn the potential merits of the opposing voice or examine the potential dangers in their own beliefs, as you wisely suggest. I guess it is human nature?

 

History is full of examples of this happening, and fiction is, too! The problem is that we tend to ignore history and we tend to self-identify with the fictional "good guys." As a result, we have threads like the half-a-dozen or so that are active here right now that end up being big pissing contests and everyone simply becomes more entrenched in their own position.

 

A question: what's the name for it when people vote themselves into slavery? Seriously! Seems like there oughta be a name for this phenomenon but I don't know what it is.

 

EDIT: In truth, following threads like these is something like watching the performance of a Shakespearean tragedy -- you know the story, you may even know many of the lines, and still you enjoy the theater in spite of knowing the unpleasant conclusion.

 

Here, players like ralis and vmarcos dutifully play their parts by portraying "how wonderful it will be when" while others like joeblast play theirs by poking holes in the logic and supporting facts. Still others play supporting roles as those who call for compromise and wonder "can't we all just get along?" Meanwhile, Marblehead chops wood and carries water.

 

The plays always end according to script, however -- everyone dies in Hamlet or the Senate stabs Caesar. In the latter play, though, the learned play-goer knows the real tragedy is in the death of the Republic, regardless of how well-intentioned the motivations may have seemed at the time.

Edited May 25, 2012 by A Seeker

[joeblast]

Shout down the opposition Joe by adding nothing of substance but emotional rants. That is how the Tea Bagger party has trained you.

Well, I was getting bored with deconstructing your infamously weak positions and wondered if you might be able to see your hand through the swiss cheese there, but of course answering such a question is verboten, not when it can 'just be swatted away' and ignored like the rest of your weak underpinnings. That chart you posted - shall we classify that under lies, damned lies, or statistics? All 'creative interpretations' however you shine a light on it.

 

I find it pretty damned funny that you support high levels of confiscation so that the government can be uncle moneybucks charity for anyone who wishes to have it regardless of their circumstances, supporting corrupt people that do very much to enable the inferno of challenges it seems the world is embroiled in.

 

Since we cant really control what people's lobbying efforts will be, it is imperative to hold government employees accountable for the results of the actions, not just the intention of it. When government sits on the opposite side of the people, but move the "People" sign with them while sitting on the wrong side of the negotiating table, it simply undermines that which keeps the place productive.

 

You have to start somewhere.

 

There should be a politicians creed like there is the Hippocratic oath, and high on the list should be a thrice repeated promise against using one's position to enhance one's wealth or that of those who would influence him in any way, shape or form.

 

I've told you time and again we cannot afford the star trek level of social services without the star trek level of technology & energy generation. We're not going to get there with thievery, fascism, socialism, communism.

[ralis]

Tea Party extraordinaire Joe the plumber demonstrates why he is one of the lead spokespersons for the Tea Bagger movement. Why do people follow such stupid and naive idiots!

 

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014148688

Edited June 21, 2012 by ralis

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Why do people follow such stupid and naive idiots!

 

 

Stupid and naive people are as stupid and naive people do.

 

 

Err i mean idiots. stupid and naive idiots. of course.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Hot Nirvana Judo Trend

[ralis]

This can only happen in Republican Tea Bagger land. Loch Ness monster is real according to anti-evolution teachings in private Christian schools.

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/louisiana-students-loch-ness-monster-disprove-evolution_n_1624643.html

 

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6019140

 

 

 

Evangelical course that treats Nessie as fact endorsed by government agency

 

Exams for an Evangelical Christian curriculum in which pupils have been taught that the Loch Ness monster disproves evolution and racial segregation is beneficial have been ruled equivalent to international A- levels by a UK government agency.

 

The National Recognition Information Centre (Naric), which guides universities and employers on the validity of different qualifications, has judged the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) officially comparable to qualifications offered by the Cambridge International exam board.

 

Hundreds of teenagers at around 50 private Christian schools in Britain study for the certificates, as well as several home-educated students.

 

The courses are based around the Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) programme, which originated in Texas in the 1970s. Pupils study a range of subjects, including science and English, but spend half their studies learning from Bible-influenced US textbooks, often in isolation from each other, Jonny Scaramanga, a music lecturer who attended an ACE school in Bath as a child, said he was astonished the courses were judged comparable to international A-levels and O-levels.

 

In a complaint to Naric, he provided examples of the material taught on the courses. These included claims in its science and history textbooks that:

 

the Loch Ness monster, which “appears to be a plesiosaur” from photographs, helps to disprove evolution;

apartheid was beneficial to South Africa; reasons include the claim that segregated schools “made it possible for each group to maintain and pass on their culture and heritage to their children”;

“unquestionable proofs” and “unarguable evidences” existed for creationism.

Mr Scaramanga said: “Those who challenge the explanations given in the materials are described as ‘godless’, ‘anti-biblical’, and ‘foolish’. There needs to be greater public awareness of what these schools tell students.”

 

The evangelical content of ACE courses taught in Britain and the US have attracted criticism over the past decade. The scientist Professor Richard Dawkins visited a London school which used the curriculum in 2006. He said he was appalled to learn that pupils were taught that Noah’s Ark was real and that Aids victims were sinners.

 

But Naric, which is funded by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, nevertheless carried out a “benchmarking exercise” on the ICCE last summer. It ruled that the course’s general certificate, which involves two to three years of study, should be compared to Cambridge International’s O-level at grades C to E; the intermediate certificate to the international O-level at grades A to B; and the advanced certificate to an international A-level.

 

In a statement on the decision in August 2008, Naric said: “The ICCE are delighted by the results of the project and we feel that this work also helps improve awareness and understanding of such international qualifications.”

 

Tim Buttress, Naric’s spokesman, told The TES that the agency’s role was to guide universities and employers on the “rigour” of qualifications, but investigating curriculum content was outside its remit.

 

“It’s like comparing an engineering degree at Luton University and Sheffield Hallam - the degrees are at the same level, but the content may be different,” he said.

 

However, Brenda Lewis, ICCE chief executive officer in the UK, said tNaric had examined the content. “We were taken aback by how thorough they were,” she said.

 

British teachers found ACE textbooks useful, she said, but sometimes pointed out comments they regarded as unreasonable to pupils.

 

Mrs Lewis had not noticed the Loch Ness monster claims, which she suggested may have been a “slip at the typewriter”, adding that the science curriculum had helped a student to gain a place to study natural sciences at Oxford University.

 

She also said she had never seen the apartheid claims, but stressed that British teachers would strongly challenge them.

 

Creationist creed

 

Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence.

 

Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie,’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

 

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”

 

Extract from Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc. (1995).

Edited June 25, 2012 by ralis

[joeblast]

Ah, fundamentalists...gotta love 'em, they come in all shapes and sizes. It's funny watching fundamentalists trashing other fundamentalists, claiming their fundamentals are the most sound

[ralis]

Ah, fundamentalists...gotta love 'em, they come in all shapes and sizes. It's funny watching fundamentalists trashing other fundamentalists, claiming their fundamentals are the most sound

 

You are not a fundamentalist?

[joeblast]

That one has fundamentals to adhere to does not necessarily make one a fundamentalist