Brat & The Dead Tea Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

This point of JB’s needs to be emphasized:

“IF (emphasis added) the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government; instead of getting bogged down in social issues; it will become very dominant across party lines”.

This certainly is a big “if”…but it is something a lot of Americans are looking for.

Let me also add that the cutting needs to be in those things that actually downsize the Government and it’s spending…NOT just cutting those things that fire-up ones political base.

Mufasa

22

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Couple of points:

  1. Not sad to see Cantor go. He was a liberal with an “R” next to his name.

  2. The national so-called TEA parties had nothing to do with this. The grass-root efforts to return to small government that inspired the TEA party had everything to do with this.

  3. I don’t get where anyone could get off saying the “TEA Party (or really, the grass-root effort to get actual conservatives/libertarians in office instead of fake Republicans) is dead.” The movement swept Texas state-wide, excepting Cornyn. They pick up about 1/4 of the seats targeted every year. In a few years, the Republic Elite will be a sad minority within the Republican party, relegated to liberal states.

  4. I am happy to have a choice between capitalists and communists, instead of socialist (the Republican E) and communists (the Democrats).

  5. If the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government, instead of getting bogged down in social issues, it will become very dominant across party lines.

  6. Oh, and Cantor was not always an asshole. I liked what he did regarding education regarding Israel and liked how he showed that yes, a Jew can be a Republican and sort-of-conservative. But he lost his way and became another typical politician.
    [/quote]

Haha, all I see is Hillary in the future if you conservatives keep going tea party. But, at least you think you have an option haha. You really think they are small gov capitalists lol. If they are small gov it’s to serve big corps like the Koch’s and Tobacco. They don’t want small gov for the sake of small gov. All it’s for is concentration of power over the market by creating smaller gov, which puts more power in fewer hands… Easier to control fewer hands… LOL[/quote]

I always take political advice from political enemies. They can’t possibly being trying to screw me. Or just stupid.

And the fact that they are wrong about everything can’t possibly mean they are wrong here too.

But regarding the substance of your post:

What is funny is the Democrat elites ARE the big corporations.

Big corporations need red tape and barriers of entry to prevent competition. They need cheap immigrants to abuse and dispose of. And most of all they need to destroy the small businesses that become successful because they are a threat.

I am not sure how idiots came to believe that Democrats are for the poor or the little people. The Democrat elites have created a structure to keep people down and them on top. Democrats elites exist for elites.

It’s would be funny if it was not so sad watching a slave like you (and, yes, Serviano, you are a slave) defend your masters.

I guess they don’t need whips and chains to keep you on the plantation anymore.

They are much more subtle.

23

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
First it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change. Sorry, but the practice of science is precise, something that cannot be said about Climate Change.
[/quote]

Or it could be that as the information on climate change grew and the technologies used to measure it improved, we gained a greater understanding of it and changed the name accordingly.

The entire point of “science” is change. Change as you see new information. If you do not deal with the new and/or conflicting information, then you’re not doing “science”.

Climate change may not be influenced by humanity, but to claim that-

1- Since our definition and understanding of it changed over the years, it cannot exist.
2- Climate change itself doesn’t exist.

Are both silly. There are abundant information to support #2. #1 is just plain retarded.

New and developing fields are always in constant flux. Look at the science of medicine during the late 19th and early 20th. Shit was full of people making random claims and hundreds of new discoveries every decade or so. Just 20 years ago we had no real understanding of how cancers occur. We still don’t have a real understanding of how cancers occur.

And yet in the 1980s we were waging “war” against cancer and scientists promised that we were about to win every 5-6 years or so IIRC. Whatever happened to that?

What you speak of is the politicization of climate change and the growth of environmentalism. That’s why all the scientists who definitively said “Global Warming exists!” 10+ years ago are bad scientists. Or, more accurately, scientists out to get political brownie points. Because there is no such thing as “definitive” in “science”. The moment you claim something to be definitive, you’ve stopped practicing “science”.

But none of this is reason to believe that climate change isn’t occurring, or that it isn’t influenced by people. I’m sure there are better, actual scientific, reasons to believe that it isn’t occurring or not influenced by people.[/quote]

I like your post.

I think Max’s point is that: I think we can tone down the alarmism and “sky is falling” shit just a tad here and if people want to see results in this area, they will have to seek them through social change and well being and NOT government mandate.

No need to be an enviro-nazi that spews hatred towards anyone who thinks like your posts describes. (Not saying you specifically are doing that, you aren’t.) And also no need for anyone to instantly deny something because a Democrat said it.

If we as a society want to seriously address environmental issues, we need to all stop being alarmist, insulting assholes, like the dude Max was responding to.

24

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Let me also add that the cutting needs to be in those things that actually downsize the Government and it’s spending…NOT just cutting those things that fire-up ones political base.
[/quote]

Hell will freeze over when someone actually decides to tackle the budget in a meaningful manner instead of trying to score political brownie points.

25

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This point of JB’s needs to be emphasized:

“IF (emphasis added) the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government; instead of getting bogged down in social issues; it will become very dominant across party lines”.

This certainly is a big “if”…but it is something a lot of Americans are looking for.

Let me also add that the cutting needs to be in those things that actually downsize the Government and it’s spending…NOT just cutting those things that fire-up ones political base.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Yeah, not too many political parties are good at this though, nor do I think ignoring all social issues is a smart play either.

Approaching them cautiously isn’t the worst thing in the world.

I’m think abortion in particular. The Aiken’s of the world need to not be in line for office, but nothing wrong with celebrating the tend is moving towards prolife, and stating that making it illegal won’t fix the problem, bt rather a bandaid. We need a cultural change, and it’s happening, so “I as a elected representative will help with positive trend towards protecting everyone’s right to life.”

26

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If we as a society want to seriously address environmental issues, we need to all stop being alarmist, insulting assholes, like the dude Max was responding to. [/quote]

Psh. If we as a society want to seriously address ANY issue we need to all stop being alarmist, insulting assholes.

Never going to happen. And I’ve come to the conclusion that the development of mass media in the past 50 years already has influenced politics and opinions. In a VERY negative way.

Fuck T.V. Fuck the internet. Fuck mass media. Free-flowing of information was supposed to be our savior and it may very well be our destruction.

Note- I am not saying that I’m angry that people who voice different opinions than me get to spread their message easily. My side does that too, and they generally do it more effectively (Hello Obama).

I am angry because it allows people to find people who share their opinions and just surround themselves with nothing but people who share their opinions and then fall into what really amounts to nothing more than a clique. Then they refuse to hear the opinions of the other side and both sides start to become more and more hostile and soon no one ever listens to the other side and they just start thinking the other side is stupid, going to destroy the country, blah blah blah.

Yes. This happened in earlier times. It always happened. But you never were able to find SO MANY people who shared your beliefs, SO EASILY. Previously it took enormous effort to reach even thousands. Now… you can potentially spread your message to millions with just minimal effort and some understanding of how social media works.

It’s terrifying the potential it holds. Hitler in this day and age would be a force like none other.

Take .01% of 300mil. That is 30k. 30k people who potentially share your extremely radical and ultra-violent beliefs. Now imagine if you just get a couple thousand of them somehow on the internet. Together. Statistically you are irrelevant, but the fact that you find so many people who share your beliefs will be tremendous to you. It may embolden you to do terrible things, because you think many others share your beliefs.

Like the cop killers in Las Vegas. I don’t know if they did the above, but I wouldn’t be surprised…

27

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
If we as a society want to seriously address environmental issues, we need to all stop being alarmist, insulting assholes, like the dude Max was responding to. [/quote]

Psh. If we as a society want to seriously address ANY issue we need to all stop being alarmist, insulting assholes.

Never going to happen. And I’ve come to the conclusion that the development of mass media in the past 50 years already has influenced politics and opinions. In a VERY negative way.

Fuck T.V. Fuck the internet. Fuck mass media. Free-flowing of information was supposed to be our savior and it may very well be our destruction.

Note- I am not saying that I’m angry that people who voice different opinions than me get to spread their message easily. My side does that too, and they generally do it more effectively (Hello Obama).

I am angry because it allows people to find people who share their opinions and just surround themselves with nothing but people who share their opinions and then fall into what really amounts to nothing more than a clique. Then they refuse to hear the opinions of the other side and both sides start to become more and more hostile and soon no one ever listens to the other side and they just start thinking the other side is stupid, going to destroy the country, blah blah blah.

Yes. This happened in earlier times. It always happened. But you never were able to find SO MANY people who shared your beliefs, SO EASILY. Previously it took enormous effort to reach even thousands. Now… you can potentially spread your message to millions with just minimal effort and some understanding of how social media works.

It’s terrifying the potential it holds. Hitler in this day and age would be a force like none other.

Take .01% of 300mil. That is 30k. 30k people who potentially share your extremely radical and ultra-violent beliefs. Now imagine if you just get a couple thousand of them somehow on the internet. Together. Statistically you are irrelevant, but the fact that you find so many people who share your beliefs will be tremendous to you. It may embolden you to do terrible things, because you think many others share your beliefs.

Like the cop killers in Las Vegas. I don’t know if they did the above, but I wouldn’t be surprised…[/quote]

Another good post.

We aren’t as civilized as many claim, really.

28

If it’s caused by cow farts, it’s obviously cow-made.
Nothing to do with the men who raise and eat them.

29

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This point of JB’s needs to be emphasized:

“IF (emphasis added) the grass roots sticks to economic issues and cutting the crap out of government; instead of getting bogged down in social issues; it will become very dominant across party lines”.

This certainly is a big “if”…but it is something a lot of Americans are looking for.

[/quote]

A point that is often missed is that social issues and economic issues are intertwined. Part of the reason welfare dependence is so high is due to the breakdown of the family unit. In fact the family unit is the basis for the whole society. When the family unit breaks down society crumbles.

30

[quote]kamui wrote:

If it’s caused by cow farts, it’s obviously cow-made.
Nothing to do with the men who raise and eat them.
[/quote]

O sweet lord. You genuinely believe that the Earth is being damaged because we have to many cows farting?? OR is my humor meter busted?

31

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]AliveAgain36 wrote:
Jewbacca - in your opinion, why do you think a majority of (or what seems like) Jewish-Americans vote Democrat? Hopefully you wont take offense to my question… [/quote]

Part of it is that Jews are not just Jews, just as Christians are not just Christians and black are not just blacks.

People have multiple demographic descriptors. Jews also happen to belong to other groups, and many of them skew left: Many of them live in coastal cities, and that’s huge; many Jews also have postgraduate degrees–a full quarter, I believe.[/quote]

I would put it down largely to an erosion of the survival instinct. As Eric Hoffer said, the Jews are the only people on earth who win a war then have to sue for peace.

32

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

If it’s caused by cow farts, it’s obviously cow-made.
Nothing to do with the men who raise and eat them.
[/quote]

O sweet lord. You genuinely believe that the Earth is being damaged because we have to many cows farting?? OR is my humor meter busted?[/quote]

As a hardcore “denier” let me just say that methane is actually a potent greenhouse gas and ruminants emit significant amounts. However C02 is not a potent greenhouse gas. Quite the contrary.

33

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
First it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change. Sorry, but the practice of science is precise, something that cannot be said about Climate Change.
[/quote]

Or it could be that as the information on climate change grew and the technologies used to measure it improved, we gained a greater understanding of it and changed the name accordingly.

The entire point of “science” is change. Change as you see new information. If you do not deal with the new and/or conflicting information, then you’re not doing “science”.

Climate change may not be influenced by humanity, but to claim that-

1- Since our definition and understanding of it changed over the years, it cannot exist.
2- Climate change itself doesn’t exist.

Are both silly. There are abundant information to support #2. #1 is just plain retarded.

New and developing fields are always in constant flux. Look at the science of medicine during the late 19th and early 20th. Shit was full of people making random claims and hundreds of new discoveries every decade or so. Just 20 years ago we had no real understanding of how cancers occur. We still don’t have a real understanding of how cancers occur.

And yet in the 1980s we were waging “war” against cancer and scientists promised that we were about to win every 5-6 years or so IIRC. Whatever happened to that?

What you speak of is the politicization of climate change and the growth of environmentalism. That’s why all the scientists who definitively said “Global Warming exists!” 10+ years ago are bad scientists. Or, more accurately, scientists out to get political brownie points. Because there is no such thing as “definitive” in “science”. The moment you claim something to be definitive, you’ve stopped practicing “science”.

But none of this is reason to believe that climate change isn’t occurring, or that it isn’t influenced by people. I’m sure there are better, actual scientific, reasons to believe that it isn’t occurring or not influenced by people.[/quote]

A constantly evolving definition gives you excuses when your initial predictions are wrong. This is not just about studying climate behavior, but making policy on something we still don’t understand.

In 2007, Al Gore claimed the polar ice would be completely gone as early as 2013, yet we just had one of the harshest winters on record.

Your example of the study of cancer and how we reacted to our “science” of it proves just how wrong we could be.

Fat was bad, carbs were good, aerobics were healthy, fruit was a simple sugar, margarine was better for you than butter, lifting weights made you look like a bodybuilder ready for the Olympia, chocolate was evil, you could turn fat into muscle. The list is endless.

Following that ^ list made our nation’s waistline look like the equator.

Government has a track record for being wrong, whether by ignorance or corruption, you should always question what someone who is being bribed is saying.

34

Just in case anyone missed it, the reason Cantor lost was anti-Semitism:

Don’t support Obama? Racist. Don’t support Hillary? Sexist. Don’t support Cantor? Anti-Semite. Well, at least they’re predictable.

35

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

If it’s caused by cow farts, it’s obviously cow-made.
Nothing to do with the men who raise and eat them.
[/quote]

O sweet lord. You genuinely believe that the Earth is being damaged because we have to many cows farting?? OR is my humor meter busted?[/quote]

As a hardcore “denier” let me just say that methane is actually a potent greenhouse gas and ruminants emit significant amounts. However C02 is not a potent greenhouse gas. Quite the contrary.
[/quote]

Yes, but what has changed in recent history that would lead one to think that methane from farting is of any more danger now than it was 1000 years ago. We have greatly diminished the numbers of these creatures in the wild, and of the ones in captivity 45million are killed every year in just two countries. By that logic, wiping the buffalo herds out across the plains was doing the planet a service because it was just a matter of time before they ruined the environment.

36

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Just in case anyone missed it, the reason Cantor lost was anti-Semitism:

Don’t support Obama? Racist. Don’t support Hillary? Sexist. Don’t support Cantor? Anti-Semite. Well, at least they’re predictable.[/quote]

Yeah, the 7 times they elected Cantor before clearly shows they were anti-Semitic.

How fricking stupid.

And I guess the TEA Party leaders/supporters:

Mark Levin, Jonah Goldberg, Jeff Jacoby, Pam Gellar, Ben Stein, Charles Krauthamer, etc. will be shocked to find they are in the KKK.

Bluntly, my tribe is over-represented in the TEA party.

37

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

If it’s caused by cow farts, it’s obviously cow-made.
Nothing to do with the men who raise and eat them.
[/quote]

O sweet lord. You genuinely believe that the Earth is being damaged because we have to many cows farting?? OR is my humor meter busted?[/quote]

As a hardcore “denier” let me just say that methane is actually a potent greenhouse gas and ruminants emit significant amounts. However C02 is not a potent greenhouse gas. Quite the contrary.
[/quote]

Yes, but what has changed in recent history that would lead one to think that methane from farting is of any more danger now than it was 1000 years ago. We have greatly diminished the numbers of these creatures in the wild, and of the ones in captivity 45million are killed every year in just two countries. By that logic, wiping the buffalo herds out across the plains was doing the planet a service because it was just a matter of time before they ruined the environment.
[/quote]

Some good points. But keep in mind large areas are deforested to graze cattle. Also:

“There are about 1.3 billion cows in the world today. That makes just a bit of a change from 10,500 years ago, when the first population of domesticated cattle was likely just eighty head.”

38

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
It was bad enough that climate change being introduced by the dems by Al Gore and became a political issue… But that climate change denial exists as part of the Tea Party’s platform just makes them look absolutely retarded. RETARDED. [/quote]

The term Climate Change is so arbitrary, that nearly any weather expression meets it’s criteria.

First it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change. Sorry, but the practice of science is precise, something that cannot be said about Climate Change.[/quote]

Get with the times. It’s now Global Climate Disruption.

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/lets-call-it-climate-disruption-white-house-science-adviser-suggests-again

39

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
It was bad enough that climate change being introduced by the dems by Al Gore and became a political issue… But that climate change denial exists as part of the Tea Party’s platform just makes them look absolutely retarded. RETARDED. [/quote]

The term Climate Change is so arbitrary, that nearly any weather expression meets it’s criteria.

First it was Global Cooling, then Global Warming, then Climate Change. Sorry, but the practice of science is precise, something that cannot be said about Climate Change.[/quote]

Get with the times. It’s now Global Climate Disruption.

http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/05/lets-call-it-climate-disruption-white-house-science-adviser-suggests-again
[/quote]

I liked Global Weirding

40

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:

If it’s caused by cow farts, it’s obviously cow-made.
Nothing to do with the men who raise and eat them.
[/quote]

O sweet lord. You genuinely believe that the Earth is being damaged because we have to many cows farting?? OR is my humor meter busted?[/quote]

I was just amused at the thought of someone using buffalogenic climat change to deny anthropogenic climat change.

That being said, we do have two many cows.
Frogs taste better and are environmentally friendlier