Sarah Palin aside, socialism, facism, call it what you like, but don't try to say that's not what's being pushed.
I don't need one of your condescending rants about what the definition of either word means, I already know. To think this administration is not premoting "socialistic" type programs is laughable.
A comment in general and not directed at anyone in particular
I think of the Tea Party as a modern day incarnation of the Boston Tea Party and is more of a grass roots organization (bottom-up) and not a one person (top-down a la Ross Perot's Reform Party) inspired organization.
Moreover, I think Mac and others confuse the word "party" to be akin to the Democratic Party or Republican Party and is looking for commonality where it doesn't necessarily exist. It's just a means of organizing protests and not an official attempt at being a 3rd political party.
One last comment in general.
We are living in a new communicating era, Twitter, Facebook, online news media, declining print and television media to say nothing of the fact that modern day journalism is becoming . . . well . . . anything but. (Edwin Murrow must be rolling in his grave)
I think we are finding people, the great masses, finding ways of venting their frustrations that defy what these "journalists" typically expect. "Journalist's" only way of being relevant is to make these type of movements seem extreme when in fact it is not.
Media is no longer able to control the media cycle . . . Youtube is doing that now.
Quote: I don't need one of your condescending rants about what the definition of either word means, I already know. To think this administration is not premoting "socialistic" type programs is laughable.
I've yet to see it.
They've been quite fond of what's called 'lemon socialism' -- "socialists socialize the losses while capitalists keep the profits". But as far as these 'socialistic' type programs you speak of?
Where?
The bailouts? No. The health care bill? No. Cap and trade? No. ... almost every notable program he's brought to the table domestically has called for taxpayers to subsidize a private entity.
And every time this cat subsidizes a bank or the health care industry or a corporation, someone cries about how he wants to spread the wealth and instill socialism in our country.
1. So the plan wasn't ever to stop prejudice, it was simply to shift it?
2. I knew that though, as I think segregation is a natural human condition. With that various prejudice's arise.
3. I don't think a truly homogeneous society will ever be attained.
1. No... I don't think that was the plan at all. I think it's the (current) reality, but I really do think that 'the plan' had nobler aspirations. What happened to the plan is what happens every time 'the plan' -ANY plan- hinges upon the actions of chunks of 98.6... it gets perverted and distorted, because people are always far less pure than the ideal that spawned 'the plan' in the first place. It's why Utopia still eludes us to this very day, despite millennia of trying. We have only ourselves and our own shortcomings as Humans to blame for it.
Basically, I still see it as a story that's continually unfolding. I have no answers or crystal ball to tell me what's next, but I see it this way: as contentious as things seem to be today, I believe it's still a better America now than it was in 1926, when My Father was born. In 1926 (or '36 or '56) , it would be unthinkable (and practically illegal in some states) for you and I to even engage in this civilized sociopolitical discourse. To me, that's progress, despite the temporary ideological/political backlash were are now seeing. There was a time when that was a virtual impossibility. Now, we can chat, exchange viewpoints, learn a little something from each other... and that's yet another step in the right direction, as far as I'm concerned. 'Baby steps' are better than no steps.
I may be an idealist at heart, but I'm a pragmatist in my brain. I'll gladly accept any 'progress' I can witness in my own lifetime. I'll take a chance, and disagree with someone whom I respect- in hopes that we'll each have a better understanding of the others' p.o.v. That's where true communication/dialog begins, and I've been down with this ideal for most of my life. I simply can't be any other way. It's in my DNA... and it's how I was indoctrinated by my extended family.
2. Segregation may be a natural extension of some of our Humanness, but it isn't necessarily the predominant trait. In many ways, the natural urge to bond with those most like us is offset by Man's natural curiosity about that which is different from him. My very own existence is proof of that... and I'm not by any means unique in the history of Mankind. In just our own nation's short history, we have written descriptions of fellow Americans as Quadroons, Octoroons, Half-breeds, etc... which lends credence to the old-school cliche: "America is only truly segregated during the daylight hours." If our natural sense of tribalism and ethnic selectivity was an absolute, you wouldn't be reading a post from me at all, because I wouldn't actually exist. Yet, here I am.... for better or for worse.
...Doesn't get more real than that for America, does it? Our nation's 'dirty little secret' has been outing itself from the start.... and guys like me are/have been the living proof.
The Truth as I see it is this, Peen: Folks is folks. More things in our nature attract us than separate us... and that's why "ethnic bleed-over" has occurred since the world's first two tribes met, fought, and then exchanged DNA.
Segregation is political. Integration/almalgamation is inevitable... because of Mankind's basic nature. In other words, "you can't keep a good man down"... no matter what he looks like.... and "girls will be girls," you knowati'msayin'?
Hell... it's just people being people.... as they've always been, since the dawn of time.
Bottom line: mass politics hasn't yet caught up with the reality of Human Interaction... and sociopolitics is exactly what's slowing down our evolution as a species. As long as myopia, tribalism and ethnicity govern our country's way of doing things, we'll always limp and lurch into the future.
Sadly, that's where we still are at present, I'm afraid... and that's a shame, if you ask me. The next Jonas Salk/AG Bell/Einstein/Ghandi might be someone who can trace European/Black/Asian/Middle Eastern bloodlines as his background. If such a person is held back by "the way things are just done," it would be a shame. And the shame would be compounded by the fact that America is pretty much the only place on the planet where such a diverse ethnic mix could produce such a person.
"Dare to dream," I always say.
3. I agree- up to a point. Depends upon how narrowly you define 'homogenous,' I guess.
Look- folks will always find ways in which to bond themselves to each other. They will always find ways to differentiate themselves from others, as well... it's just part of the Human Condition. I still hold out hope that race eventually falls by the wayside as a relevant determinor...
...because as I see it, the way a person looks is only partly under his control. He can dress well and use chemical products to enhance his appeal, but he can't control the DNA that spawned him. He am what he is. Better he should engage his fellow man based upon what he can contribute as a Human Being, than to play 'U of M vs. OSU' card with the rest of the World, based upon a biological game of chance. EuroAmericans have no more control over how they were born than do Black folks. It's all a game of chance with each and every one of us... and our nation's domestic and economic politics should have never been based on such a capricious foundation. Seems stupid to me.
Our country should have immediately stood up for better, the moment we ratified our own Constitution/Bill of Rights. We didn't- and here we are, some 234 years later.
We'll get past it eventually, but probably not in our lifetimes. I trust and believe that the superficiality of ethnicity will eventually be something our American Citizens only read about in History textbooks.
This I believe... and yet, I'll fight to the death defending your right to believe differently, if you see fit to do so.
Such is the weight I'm willing to bear as your fellow American.
Are you willing to bear the same weight in support of me?
best, Clemdawg
p.s. -I know I sound like an ass to many people when I post like this... but I'm kinda used to it by now. I've never been truly embraced by either (major ethnic) camp we're currently taking about... so I've been forced to see America from my own vantage point. That said, what the hell do I know? I'm just a 53 year-old guy who's been 'stuck in the middle' for 53 years.... and seen what each side is capable of-
Good post, but in the end I think birds of a feather flock together.
Hawks and doves don't hang out together.
Now, I understand it isn't as simple as that, but I also know you aren't like Mac who won't understand why birds are brought in to the conversation and are smart enough to know what I am saying.
That doesn't mean we all can't get along, which has always been my attitude, but the last few years have been a time of great change for me, and part of those changes is changing my attitudes on some things. Part of the growing up process I suppose....I have always maintained you are never grown up. Until the final minute, you are in a process of growing up.
Sure, I dislike some people....it isn't a matter of what they are, it is a matter of who they are.....or should I say it isn't a matter of who that are, it's a matter of what they are???
Again, being the sharp person you are, I suspect you understand what I am saying.
At any rate, thanks for the constructive dialog. It's refreshing.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Quote: My point was that you and many other on the left constantly try to discredit Fox news as a legitimate source,
eryz...I do not have to "discredit" fox news...they do enough of that for themselves by being caught lying, time and time again.
You may not like the CNN poll and the fact it puts the spotlight on the "make up" of those who involved in the tea party movement, but I do not need a poll to tell me how to interpret what I see and hear at tea party events.
BTW...your displeasure with name that tea party members gave themselves, "tea-bag(gers)" originates back to fox news, who first used the term which quickly caught on with tea party members themselves....look it up.
Now, I understand it isn't as simple as that, but I also know you aren't like Mac who won't understand why birds are brought in to the conversation and are smart enough to know what I am saying.
Quote: Now, I understand it isn't as simple as that, but I also know you aren't like Mac who won't understand why birds are brought in to the conversation and are smart enough to know what I am saying.
Peener...why do you feel the need to talk in riddles?
Are you so uncomfortable with your opinions that you can not be honest enough to just come out and say what you feel?
Explain to everyone what you mean when you say doves and hawks do not hang out together
I posted the cnn poll showing the demographics of the tea party movement...and you asked me
" So you are a Negro female???"
Why did you ask me if I was a Negro female?
I believe I know why but I could be wrong so I will leave it to you to explain yourself, rather me "defining you" or what you meant.
Quote: I would love to debate you except I have no clue what you are talking about. I talked to my friend (actually more like family) in California about this when I had to purchase insurance for my kids.
I am not looking for a debate. I was merely pointing out that your friend would have to have the high deductible health insurance coverage in order to put money into the Health Savings Account (bank account - not health insurance). You insinuated that he put money into an HSA to cover his health expenditures in lieu of owning a health insurance policy. That isn't allowable.
Quote: I would love to debate you except I have no clue what you are talking about. I talked to my friend (actually more like family) in California about this when I had to purchase insurance for my kids.
I am not looking for a debate. I was merely pointing out that your friend would have to have the high deductible health insurance coverage in order to put money into the Health Savings Account (bank account - not health insurance). You insinuated that he put money into an HSA to cover his health expenditures in lieu of owning a health insurance policy. That isn't allowable.
I shouldn't have used the word debate. I was trying to be funny since this conversation is way over my head.
Quote: Definition of a facist in 2010 = A conservative who is winning an arguement.
He's commenting on my opinion that Obama is a fascist. His policies are meant to support private enterprises through taxpayer money, with the taxpayers shoring up the losses and the company keeping the benefits.
Somewhere along the way, many began to cling to the erroneous notion that his policies are somehow socialist or Marxist ... they're far from it.
Obama is a big business president in the Reagan/Clinton/Bush mold. I think that the talking heads devised the 'socialist' thing because discussing his (many and prominent) flaws for what they are isn't divisive enough, and will prove tricky once the opposition takes his place and does the exact same things.
I have not seen any information out of the Tea Party that indicates what programs would be scaled back in order to lower taxes and/or balance the deficit.
When I hear some ideas, then I will listen, until then, they are just blithering idiots.
Here's my idea, Don't spend more than you take .Everything you give has to be taken away from someone else.
Quote: They've been quite fond of what's called 'lemon socialism' -- "socialists socialize the losses while capitalists keep the profits". But as far as these 'socialistic' type programs you speak of?
Where?
The bailouts? No. The health care bill? No. Cap and trade? No. ... almost every notable program he's brought to the table domestically has called for taxpayers to subsidize a private entity.
And every time this cat subsidizes a bank or the health care industry or a corporation, someone cries about how he wants to spread the wealth and instill socialism in our country.
Phil I believe you are a bit naive. I think until somebody from the administration (or any administration) stands on the capitol steps and announces that socialism is being installed that you won't believe we are headed down that road.
Yes, almost all of our money has gone to prop up private entities... what has happened along side that? As a condition of this bailout money, these private entities are having their bonuses monitored, they are having executives fired because the government says so, they are having their accounting practices monitored and they're salaries adjusted according to some government scale...
Neither Obama nor anybody else is going to announce the inclusion of socialism.. doesn't mean it isn't happening little by little and has been for decades. What Obama is doing is helping the private corporations in the short term but giving the government far more control over how these corporations operate in the long term.
Essentially, they are doing for corporations what the federal government has been doing for individuals for 80 years... making them dependent on, and answerable to, the federal government..
What do you think Obama meant when he said that in times of trouble, these people will cling to their guns and their religion? Obviously that poses a threat because we aren't clinging to what he wants us to cling to which is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Quote: You may not like the CNN poll and the fact it puts the spotlight on the "make up" of those who involved in the tea party movement, but I do not need a poll to tell me how to interpret what I see and hear at tea party events.
LMAO!! What you see and hear at tea party events?
How many have you been to? You must have missed this former NAACP chapter president.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Quote: eryz...be more specific..what is it you disagree with, concerning the cnn poll results?
The findings of the CNN poll are posted...what do you disagree with?
I know you didn't ask me but I don't disagree with anything.. unless you think some big negative is exposed in the article... wealthy white people have every bit as much right to assemble and make their political opinions heard as a million black men or a bunch of idiot college students lying down on a bridge to block traffic...
Just out of curiosity, how many rallies do think really are a perfect cross section of society? I think the funniest part of the whole thing is how the liberals have changed their tune from "This is a bunch of ignorant redneck hillbillies without a clue" to "This is a bunch of elite rich white people without a clue".... Obviously the democrats and the main stream media weren't as adept as you at just getting their information from the rallies themselves for 2 reasons.. 1 most had never been to one and 2 they completely mischaracterized the group.
And yes, the question about transgender really does speak to CNN trying to prove their own bias... because it is a pointless question.
Quote: They've been quite fond of what's called 'lemon socialism' -- "socialists socialize the losses while capitalists keep the profits". But as far as these 'socialistic' type programs you speak of?
Where?
The bailouts? No. The health care bill? No. Cap and trade? No. ... almost every notable program he's brought to the table domestically has called for taxpayers to subsidize a private entity.
Subsidize a private entity, but at the expense of the federal government now dictating how they run that entity.
If this is "corporatist" as you claim, then who's reaping these huge profits? It's not investors, as their stock is a lot less than what it was before (granted they might not be losing as much as they COULD be) ... it's not executives, as they are now being told how much they can make, and where and when they can get bonuses or go on vacation ... you could argue the unions are making out, but that would lean more towards socialism than corporatism.
You would have an argument if the money was being directly handed over to the corporations, no questions asked. But that's not what's happening. You're seeing the government lending money to these corporations (and setting up some beurocracy to boot), while dictating how the company is to run. It's essentially a government take-over without actually taking it over.
I have not seen any information out of the Tea Party that indicates what programs would be scaled back in order to lower taxes and/or balance the deficit.
When I hear some ideas, then I will listen, until then, they are just blithering idiots.
Here's my idea, Don't spend more than you take .Everything you give has to be taken away from someone else.
That is not an idea, it is a concept. Specifics please.
I have not seen any information out of the Tea Party that indicates what programs would be scaled back in order to lower taxes and/or balance the deficit.
When I hear some ideas, then I will listen, until then, they are just blithering idiots.
Here's my idea, Don't spend more than you take .Everything you give has to be taken away from someone else.
That is not an idea, it is a concept. Specifics please.
Do we really need $2,908,000 for shrimp aquaculture research? Since 1985, it's been $74.5 million.
$2,573,000 for potato research?
$200,000 fo the Arkansas Commercial Driver Training Inst.
$200,000 for the Nassau Co. Museum of Art - which had a fund balance of $6.9 million at the end of 2008.
Read some of Cal's articles. This is just a pittance here.
Also, isn't part of the health reform act to be paid for by cuts in medicare over 10 years ....to the tune of $500 million, or billion? (I forget which). This is supposedly wasted money as of now - so why wasn't that cut previously? Why did we have to wait until they spent all the savings plus before something like this was done? (and I don't for 1 minute believe that much will be cut, but that's beside the point)
I have not seen any information out of the Tea Party that indicates what programs would be scaled back in order to lower taxes and/or balance the deficit.
When I hear some ideas, then I will listen, until then, they are just blithering idiots.
Here's my idea, Don't spend more than you take .Everything you give has to be taken away from someone else.
That is not an idea, it is a concept. Specifics please.
Also, just this winter in DC, due to bad weather - there were many times that "non essential" gov't. workers were told to stay home due to the snow. If they are non essential - why do they have gov't. jobs and gov't. perks? (yes, I understand some secretaries and what not are needed)
Referring back to the article that spawned this thread, it seems to speak to a pretty common human concept:
That a person's political and philosophical convictions can change on a dime when those convictions are tested by circumstance.
As I've understood it, the Tea Party groups nationwide have at least one basic principal in common- less government spending. In an ironic twist, the local economy of this tea party's chapter is fueled in large part by the jobs and contracts provided by an industry that owes it's very existence to the government.
So... in essence, what this particular group seems to be saying is, "I want the government to stop it's spending on others, but I want it to continue spending where my needs are concerned."
At least, that's how it's playing to me, as I read some of the quotes from attendees.
So... the government is the enemy when it comes to spending, the government's the enemy when it's redirecting the money within a program (even while pledging more for the very industry in question), and the government's the enemy if it cuts programs that impact the local job and economic base.
I'm kinda not getting what their message actually is, this time.
Perhaps they've bumped up against one of the quandaries that comes with adopting strong philosophical stances- reality has a sneaky way of popping up at the most awkward of times, to poop on the party.
Spend less... on someone else. It's the American Way.
Quote: I'm kinda not getting what their message actually is, this time.
Yes you are.
The government needs to prioritize it's spending. Me, you, and everybody else has our own ideas of what those priorities should be, most people are not willing to kill their own livlihood. If you are poor kid in Mississippi and don't know where your next meal is coming from, then you don't give a crap about helping kids in Uganda, or building a bridge in Oregon, and you damn sure don't care about a space trip to Mars.
I want the government to spend less.. I have some things I think are more important that I would like them to spend SOME money on.. that is not a difficult concept.
The point of me posting this article wasn't to start blaming "rich white people" for anything. The point was to show that these people railing against "wasteful" government spending on trivialities like health care, then say they're not providing enough money to pad their overpaid jobs. A guy in my department at work interned at NaSA Lewis and said he and the engineers did nothing all day... Yet the people "most concerned" about government spending are asking to pump more money into what probably shouldn't be one of the top25 priorities of the federal government.
Anyway, it's clear to me that what they are concerned about is their own wAllet, and not government spending. That is certainly their perogative, but I think they've been given some "vanguard of responsibility" label by the media... but the reality is they're really a bunch of guys who want to keep the government from "raiding their coffers". These are not heores, these are not revolutionaries, these are people who think the only government spending should be stuff that individually and directly benefits them, others be damned.
I think you have taken the words of a select few people from one tea party event and extrapolated a whole host of stuff that may or may not be true.
Keep in mind that the tea party is a very loosely organized group, with no real confirmed group agenda other than to hate the federal government (or the Obama administration).. I think you are making a mistake if you take what these individuals said and assume that the tea partiers in Boston and Pittsburgh and Des Moines and Sacramento all feel the same way...
Bill Walton? If you are talking about the white guy with the fro, that is Chris Turner, Marylands quarterback (who graduated so he needs to be replaced)... as a side note, his dad was the original drummer for Ratt. Everybody else is black so hopefully you don't think any of them are Bill Walton.
Phil I believe you are a bit naive. I think until somebody from the administration (or any administration) stands on the capitol steps and announces that socialism is being installed that you won't believe we are headed down that road.
I don't believe it, because I don't see it ... at all.
I've made it abundantly clear that I hate this guy ... not like I hated Bush, but in the end I don't think they'll be that far apart in terms of disaster.
But I've got to say .... I really don't get it.
As far as I can tell, the complaints about Obama that come from the right are ideas that exist solely in their own heads.
On the campaign trail it was 'spread the wealth' ... dude hasn't even touched 'spread the wealth' with a ten foot pole. He's done nothing but subsidize corporations with tax dollars.
Pittance to the poor, bend over the middle class, help your rich friends, and tax your rich enemies ... that's our government for a long time, including under Obama.
I could go on ... 'socialism' ... 'taking your guns' ... a whole litany of things that have no place in reality outside of parroting talking heads.
Quote: Yes, almost all of our money has gone to prop up private entities... what has happened along side that? As a condition of this bailout money, these private entities are having their bonuses monitored, they are having executives fired because the government says so, they are having their accounting practices monitored and they're salaries adjusted according to some government scale...
If you don't think those are concessions being made willingly by important folks meeting with the president and/or his staff, maybe I'm not the naive one...
Quote: What do you think Obama meant when he said that in times of trouble, these people will cling to their guns and their religion?
Probably just what he said.
When in fear, Americans cling to guns and religion. Take that as you will ... but it's true.
Maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's a bad thing ... but it's true.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
