BigDoug, sorry I have not gotten back to this in so long. Your arguments were not in vain!
Big Doug wrote:
I just want to push back on a few things.
We don't like the Tea Party movement, because it doesn't like Obama. We don't like rapists, and we don't like the Tea Party; here is a rapist who is a member, lets associate the two so that we can further sway support into attaining a negative opinion of the Tea Party. Propaganda.
Lets be real.
If you want to be real then be real. Dude's stated reasons for disapproving of the Tea Party movement and conservatism in general are pretty consistent with mine and a lot of people I know--it's the combination of bad ideas, hyperbolic rhetoric and rank hypocrisy. It really isn't so much about the fact that they're opposed to Obama. It's that they oppose Obama for things they never complained about under Bush. It's that there is a significant portion of the movement that attacks him out of open xenophobia. It's that they have horrible ideas and promote conspiracy theories. You really don't need to agree with a single thing Obama has said or done to disapprove of the Tea Parties.
The only "conservatives," not complaining under Bush were Fox News, and everyone who has bought into that brand of idealism. Unfortunately, people that think "conservative," start thinking Fox News, because it's the media flinging the word around like they own it. That is NOT conservatism, and therefore should never be branded as such by anyone, even though they use the word. This was the reason most conservatives decided not to vote in this past election, or voted for the likes of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin etc. Neo-Cons claiming conservatism voted for McCain, however, they in themselves are extremely liberal and tyrannical ... which is why you see lies and hypocrisy.
In this instance, we can look at the Tea Party as if they had rejected their Jesus, and bought in to more glamorous celebrity models: Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly.
Nah, the way it looks to me is that the movement didn't so much reject Ron Paul. Rather, conservatives were encouraged by Fox News and talk radio to take part in the movement, basically hijacking what was essentially a libertarian movement back in the 2008 primary season. In fact, Ron Paul's apparently facing primary challenges from 3 candidates coming out of the Tea Party movement. But I mean, really, these people were never with him.
The challengers did not come out of the Tea Party movement, but became part of the tea party movement. Campaign for Liberty came out of the Tea Party movement. You have to understand that the media started sensationalizing the movement, and many different people started attending out of pure discontent for the government under Bush. Many different types of people started attending, and many people had viewpoints contrary to those of the original "tea party" protestors. Eventually, the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'reilly began promoting the events, and voicing their opinion alongside of their promotions. At this, the media packaged and sold the underground tea party movement as a place for republicans to voice their opinion against democrats. Now we have democrats hating on the tea party because its "republican." Go to a "tea party" now and mention Ron Paul, and you hear people start advertising Romney. I will say that I no longer agree with my point that the Tea Party had rejected their Jesus, since I think the original party'ers are still of the same philosophy, and as you had said, more people had joined.
Positions such as gay rights and whether or not abortion should be legal are absolutely the easiest topics to use when heightening emotions of voters. However, the gayness of a person and their pro-choice/life stance have absolutely little to do in the scope of power, and appear to be tools that are usable in this type of democracy to sway the votes towards different power sources. Obvious.
I see what you mean. Both can be and are used as wedge issues, but that doesn't make them unimportant. Laws regarding civil unions and gay marriage are very important to how gay couples lead their lives. And the rules barring gay soldiers from serving openly has a real impact both on those people's lives and on our ability to conduct military operations. And abortion, in a lot of ways, is a matter of life and death for actors on both sides. I mean, if you believe that life begins at the moment of conception and therefore a fetus is a person then it would follow that legalized abortion is legalized murder, which seems to me to be of some significance. Still, I don't disagree with you that these issues are used by the parties to raise money and get volunteers for political campaigns rather than affect change in policy.
However, while gay men can legally get tax cuts to stick it in the poop shoot, and woman can put a blender in the yahoo to spin little Steven into soup, I am not allowed vend music or hand-made jewelry on public domain without permits and regulations that I have to report upon to mister commissioner.
The model under this government, and the previous, is to eliminate the individuals ability to gain self-sufficiency and use what he has available to him, to his full advantage.
Ive been raped by the government. I keep getting told I am free, yet my hands are tied whenever I want to act upon my instincts of survival, which in no way shape or form would impede upon another's rights, or harm our environment.
This is kind of silly. The rules regulating commerce are, for the most part, not so much about intentionally limiting your rights as much as they are about consumer protection. And with music, there are also issues of intellectual property involved. I don't think that's unreasonable. True, there are a lot of stupid regulations, especially around determining who can set up a table on the street and on which street. From what I gather, that's usually about existing street venders using the government to establish barriers to entry to restrict competition. Still, I don't care how bad the red tape is, to call it rape is indefensible.
The word rape is radical, but defensible in that one must play into the economical system and meet the regulations that an individual cannot afford to deal with. I do not disagree that the motives behind regulations are meant to be against the individual, and are not in place to protect him. However, penalties for breaking some regulations exceed budgets for the small, and are worthy business expenses for the big. To really pull ahead in this society, you are forced to comply with a system of corporatism, in which the laws favor the rich and the corporations receive legislative benefits... even if on accident. I believe that the individual has a right to himself lest he impedes upon the natural rights of another. If you need to make money, and are broke, but have a skill you can enact for money, I believe that you can do so, without permit, as long as you are not impeding on someone else's natural rights or private property (without his/her consent.) When I was talking about vending music, I was talking about personal music, like me or you pushing and album either of us had made. The reason why I used that point, was for the simple fact that I am sure you can relate to someone you knowing pushing his or her music and getting shut down, even if they were on public property.
True healthcare reform, would completely eliminate any need for insurance, as doctors and patients would be able to act off of a pay scale feasible to each individual. This is free market.
That's a bunch of nonsense. Have you ever seen what they charge you for a few days in the ICU or for a surgery? Unless you're a millionaire, you'll probably need at least catastrophic coverage unless you plan on going bankrupt in the event of a medical emergency.
It is not a bunch of nonsense. I do see what they charge in ICU or for a surgery, and think that it is ridiculous. However, I think that if people were able to work off of a pay scale, or able to work out agreements according to their income, then the prices would not be so high. However, I believe that insurance companies force the prices higher. Insurance for using the equipment, malpractice insurance, etc. Of course I do agree that the medical industry in and of itself is expensive also, how do you afford medical machinery especially at its peak of precision and accuracy? The skills of doctors, are limited to doctors, we have to pay them too. Since its such a specialty trade skill, and at high risk, it is going to be expensive.
This is why I propose that doctors be held to their oath, and agree that they will work with patients based upon what their available incomes are, or work out an employment arrangement of some sort to work off the debt. For malpractice, patients should not be able to sue a doctor for more then what the doctor(s) are capable of ever paying without insurance.
It seems to me, that in Viacom's massively popular ownership of channels, a monopoly occurs. Not only of channels, but of psychological weapons. These weapons are: conditioning, and entertainment: sell the kids what is hip, and give the adults news to ponder. In the end, everyone is discussing what they saw, or just letting it seep in.
The power that can occur from this is ridiculous. Think about how many people ran for president, and then think about how many people you actually saw debate on television.
Ha! Why do you hate the free market Mike? I agree with you that media consolidation is problematic and potentially dangerous. But I just don't see how you address this kind of thing through anything but the action of a strong government.
Go figure you would get a kick out of me saying that. However, I do not hate the free market, however, ITS NOT A FREE MARKET. Please explain to me how and why you cannot start a broadcasting company if you were to construct the means necessary to air yourself on television. Explain to me how it is possible to even compete for air time when you invent your own channel? The FCC regulates who gets to be on TV!
Not that blocking some types of things to be put on Television is wrong, I mean, who wants their 6 year old to come home and turn on pornography. However, the government enables massively complex corporations to control the entire outlet. Why do I have to be dominated by the FCC, when they get free ride? Free market is not real, it does not exist for you or I, unless we have the money to show the government we are worthy of being free.
With regard to the debates, during the primary season, the parties figure out who gets to debate. (Though I guess it is the media's decision which primary debates they will host or cover). And in the general election season, it's actually the Commission on Presidential Debates that decides who gets to be on stage. And in their infinite wisdom, they've decided that anyone pulling at least 15 percent of the vote in 5 national polls gets to participate. Usually only major party candidates can get those kinds of numbers, but Ross Perot was able to do it without any party's support. So there's that.
Right, the FCC says "hey," you guys are the only ones allowed to create television coverage. The government knows that this is the primary outlet for people gaining their information on whom to vote, what to see, and even education. For this reason, people only know of 11 of the 35 people running for office.