[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
i see your point, but unfortunately its governments that lead the army, even if they have their own agendas they will always claim its for public safety. let me ask u this, if a country attacks another (considering ur point that its against the public's will) and the other country attacks back, dont you think the harm will be public? but if one person is sick isnt it private? unless its a pandemic then i can see it as a threat to the public and national health
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
I love how tea partiers have been linked to Nazi's and other radical extremists.
Lets look at the Repulicans shall we? Republicans are typically white hillbillies who are quite possibly the most racist people on the planet. They LOVE war and their answer to all of the US's problems is to go and kill some people that they never met (oh ya and they won't fight in the war but they always want it). Typically they are also devout ed Christians and hard core bible thumpers. If your not a christian who cares if you die.
Now Democrats - They are just as scary if not scarier than the Repubs. They think they are so smart that they don't even like each other. They are also pro war even though they act like they aren't. They are for saving Mother Earth and hey if killing a few billion people on the planet is the way - who cares you need to crack some eggs to make an omelette. They are also typically anti religion because they are to smart for religion. Religion is for stupid Republicans.
That is a very brief coverage of both parties. So the point I was trying to make is that in any party you have some radicals. Of course the media loves to cover the neo nazi's at tea party events because they want to try ot stop the rallies - because you're not a Nazi are you?
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=runningman;919405]I love how tea partiers have been linked to Nazi's and other radical extremists.
Lets look at the Repulicans shall we? Republicans are typically white hillbillies who are quite possibly the most racist people on the planet. They LOVE war and their answer to all of the US's problems is to go and kill some people that they never met (oh ya and they won't fight in the war but they always want it). Typically they are also devout ed Christians and hard core bible thumpers. If your not a christian who cares if you die.
Now Democrats - They are just as scary if not scarier than the Repubs. They think they are so smart that they don't even like each other. They are also pro war even though they act like they aren't. They are for saving Mother Earth and hey if killing a few billion people on the planet is the way - who cares you need to crack some eggs to make an omelette. They are also typically anti religion because they are to smart for religion. Religion is for stupid Republicans.
That is a very brief coverage of both parties. So the point I was trying to make is that in any party you have some radicals. Of course the media loves to cover the neo nazi's at tea party events because they want to try ot stop the rallies - because you're not a Nazi are you?[/QUOTE]
Who exactly are you talking about here? Presidents, Congressmen, the senate, local elected officials, individual voters?
Over generalize much?
You would be blown away at how different Dems and Repubs are across the United States...
/reality
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
Let me preface this by reaffirming that Jared Lee Loughner is a Grade A, first class, USDA Prime nutball. I have no idea if he was a teapartier, a republican, a democrat, a communist, whatever, and I don't think it really matters. The suggestion that he tried to assassinate Giffords because Sarah Palin put a gun sight on her district is ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous, however, is the suggestion that none of the violent language and imagery used by the talking heads on the right contributes to an environment where this sort of thing can happen. It takes absolutely zero effort to find numerous recent examples of right wingers invoking violence in political rhetoric, whether it's references to armed revolution, taking people "out," or "Second Amendment remedies." The list goes on and on, and even if there are examples of this same sort of rhetoric coming out of the loonies on the left, they are certainly far fewer than what we see on the right. That should be beyond serious dispute.
The world is a big and varied place, and when you pump this sort of vitriol into the popular consciousness, it goes to everyone, not just the people that understand that you're speaking metaphorically and can practice self-control. Back at the time of the gun-sight-map thing, Giffords herself noted: "For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, [B]they’ve gotta realize that there’s consequences to that action[/B]."
Would this have happened were it not for Palin putting a gunsight on Gifford's district? Probably. Would it have happened in the absence of all of this imagery and verbiage being used over the past couple of years? Who knows, but I think it's tough to say that none of it matters, that it has no impact upon society as a whole. There were a number of police officers that were shot by right wingers shortly after Obama got elected, and their stated reason for shooting them was that they were concerned that the government was coming to take their guns. Does that sort of thing happen in the absence of the BS coming from the far right suggestion that Obama is going to take away your guns? Uh, I doubt it.
I guess the point of it all is that while I'm not blaming those on the far right for this incident, I don't think they can wash their hands of the fact that they've contributed to creating an environment where the possibility that some whackjob is going to lose it and take it out on someone in a position of authority is higher, either. There are consequences to these words that people throw out there...
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=trick12;919388]i see your point, but unfortunately its governments that lead the army, even if they have their own agendas they will always claim its for public safety. let me ask u this, if a country attacks another (considering ur point that its against the public's will) and the other country attacks back, dont you think the harm will be public? but if one person is sick isnt it private? unless its a pandemic then i can see it as a threat to the public and national health[/QUOTE]
And its in the US its the government that will control a health service just like the army, and isnt public health also public saftey. When was the last time the US or the UK attacked a county that attacked the country back? Not in my life time.
If one person is sick it really depends on how they got sick in the first place. What about public toilets does the working man have to pay for them to. Maybe we should make the poor man shit in the street! Where do you stop?
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=chunky;919385]National Health is a public good. People looking after its own citizens. It’s like this whole patriot nonsense. We wave the patriotic flag, but really we couldn't give a fuck about each other. The army is not public when most of the country oppose an invasion but the government still sends them to war anyway.[/QUOTE]
governments don't exist to make sure you don't eat too many twinkies. governments exist to protect men from criminals via policing, to settle disputes among men via the court system that it maintains, and to protect men from foreign invasion or threats.
transportation isn't a right. food isn't a right. you have no right to property unless you purchase it. and so on...
the army IS public. no way around that. You want to end the wars? me too. I've been waiting for years. Too bad the lame-ass liberals stopped shouting when Obama was elected. Good, pacifistic sheep.
Being patriotic and 'giving a fuck about each other' are two distinct things. One is about taking pride in one's country. The other is a complaint that we don't exist like ants in a hive.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=toasty;919421]Let me preface this by reaffirming that Jared Lee Loughner is a Grade A, first class, USDA Prime nutball. I have no idea if he was a teapartier, a republican, a democrat, a communist, whatever, and I don't think it really matters. The suggestion that he tried to assassinate Giffords because Sarah Palin put a gun sight on her district is ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous, however, is the suggestion that none of the violent language and imagery used by the talking heads on the right contributes to an environment where this sort of thing can happen. It takes absolutely zero effort to find numerous recent examples of right wingers invoking violence in political rhetoric, whether it's references to armed revolution, taking people "out," or "Second Amendment remedies." The list goes on and on, and even if there are examples of this same sort of rhetoric coming out of the loonies on the left, they are certainly far fewer than what we see on the right. That should be beyond serious dispute.
The world is a big and varied place, and when you pump this sort of vitriol into the popular consciousness, it goes to everyone, not just the people that understand that you're speaking metaphorically and can practice self-control. Back at the time of the gun-sight-map thing, Giffords herself noted: "For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, [B]they’ve gotta realize that there’s consequences to that action[/B]."
Would this have happened were it not for Palin putting a gunsight on Gifford's district? Probably. Would it have happened in the absence of all of this imagery and verbiage being used over the past couple of years? Who knows, but I think it's tough to say that none of it matters, that it has no impact upon society as a whole. There were a number of police officers that were shot by right wingers shortly after Obama got elected, and their stated reason for shooting them was that they were concerned that the government was coming to take their guns. Does that sort of thing happen in the absence of the BS coming from the far right suggestion that Obama is going to take away your guns? Uh, I doubt it.
I guess the point of it all is that while I'm not blaming those on the far right for this incident, I don't think they can wash their hands of the fact that they've contributed to creating an environment where the possibility that some whackjob is going to lose it and take it out on someone in a position of authority is higher, either. There are consequences to these words that people throw out there...[/QUOTE]
"contributes to an environment where this sort of thing can happen"
ergo, there is no causation. no conection between Loughner and any words uttered from the right.
can we also blame violent rap lyrics on inner city crime rates? perhaps we could also blame violent video games, too. the very fact that you say 'who knows' to the querry "would this have happened in absence of all of this imagery' tells me you should DEFINITELY hold video games violent. Afterall, wasn't this kid posting on a gaming forum? I'm not sure why you still see a connection where none factually exists. "I don't blame them...i just think they contributed...." meaning.....what exactly? It's nebulous at best.
The call for 'civility' is merely a call to chill speech. This shit has been going on in the seventies. eighties. nineties...etc...
I wasn't alive when kennedy was shot, but I have read that liberals tried to pin the murder on anyone but the commie asshole who pulled the trigger. The more things change, the more things stay the same.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=88Mariner;919424]governments don't exist to make sure you don't eat too many twinkies. governments exist to protect men from criminals via policing, to settle disputes among men via the court system that it maintains, and to protect men from foreign invasion or threats
transportation isn't a right. food isn't a right. you have no right to property unless you purchase it. and so on...[/QUOTE]
Governments exist to protect men from criminals, many people in government are criminals who exploit the court system that they maintain. And when was the last time the US suffered an invasion.
Food isn't a right but killing people in foreign country's to steal resources is. And how can you take pride in your country if you don't give a fuck about the people in it?
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=chunky;919422] When was the last time the US or the UK attacked a county that attacked the country back? Not in my life time. [/QUOTE]
i was saying "if a country..?" as in general, not really specifying the US or UK...
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
Plenty of people didn't have a problem with slavery years ago. Most of them because they where brought up in an environment where that was considered normal. No different than people religious beliefs, people believe in the religion they are brought up in. In the US you don't want to pay for society’s healthcare because that is the environment you where brought up in. In the UK & Australia no one cares about paying for a healthcare system. I recon this healthcare debate is more about greed than anything else.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=toasty;919421]Let me preface this by reaffirming that Jared Lee Loughner is a Grade A, first class, USDA Prime nutball. I have no idea if he was a teapartier, a republican, a democrat, a communist, whatever, and I don't think it really matters. The suggestion that he tried to assassinate Giffords because Sarah Palin put a gun sight on her district is ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous, however, is the suggestion that none of the violent language and imagery used by the talking heads on the right contributes to an environment where this sort of thing can happen. It takes absolutely zero effort to find numerous recent examples of right wingers invoking violence in political rhetoric, whether it's references to armed revolution, taking people "out," or "Second Amendment remedies." The list goes on and on, and even if there are examples of this same sort of rhetoric coming out of the loonies on the left, they are certainly far fewer than what we see on the right. That should be beyond serious dispute.
The world is a big and varied place, and when you pump this sort of vitriol into the popular consciousness, it goes to everyone, not just the people that understand that you're speaking metaphorically and can practice self-control. Back at the time of the gun-sight-map thing, Giffords herself noted: "For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, [B]they’ve gotta realize that there’s consequences to that action[/B]."
Would this have happened were it not for Palin putting a gunsight on Gifford's district? Probably. Would it have happened in the absence of all of this imagery and verbiage being used over the past couple of years? Who knows, but I think it's tough to say that none of it matters, that it has no impact upon society as a whole. There were a number of police officers that were shot by right wingers shortly after Obama got elected, and their stated reason for shooting them was that they were concerned that the government was coming to take their guns. Does that sort of thing happen in the absence of the BS coming from the far right suggestion that Obama is going to take away your guns? Uh, I doubt it.
I guess the point of it all is that while I'm not blaming those on the far right for this incident, I don't think they can wash their hands of the fact that they've contributed to creating an environment where the possibility that some whackjob is going to lose it and take it out on someone in a position of authority is higher, either. There are consequences to these words that people throw out there...[/QUOTE]YES!!! Beautifully said. . Reason and logic ! :)
Re health care. A healthy population is good economically . Our health care dollar goes an awful lot further than America's. This subject deserves it's own thread. Some really good points have been made by various posters.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=bobjuice;919293][IMG]http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00532/cartoon110111_532642a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/dynamic/00534/cartoon140111_534660d.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] :lol:
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
USA bankruptcies for Medical bills [url]http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH[/url] 60% of bankruptcies.
Australia ?? Doesn't seem to happen.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
^ Weird that. :lol:
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=88Mariner;919313]Nobody has a right to private goods or services.
Of COURSE nobody in australia wishes it to be gone. They're having access to a private good paid for by the hard work of other people. If you rob peter to pay paul, you can always expect the support of paul.[/QUOTE]
As the old saying goes, " A society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable".
And it's all payed for by taxes.
Robbing on the other hand is what the US is doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, robbing is what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians.
Don't confuse the two.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=chunky;919429] In the UK & Australia no one cares about paying for a healthcare system. I recon this healthcare debate is more about greed than anything else.[/QUOTE]
It's the one thing alot Aussies are proud of.
Well over a trillion dollars has been wasted on the Iraq and Afghan "wars" and with no end in sight. And yet you have morons debating about where the money will come from and who will pay for it.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
thank you for proving my point florida. I don't really feel that way I just wanted a third party to point out that generalizations are ridiculous! Tea partiers aren't bad people just like most repubs and dems aren't.
Jedi trick worked.
Oh ya and Toasty what did you think was going to happen with drugged up people not working and guns and ammo at their disposal?
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=chunky;919429]Plenty of people didn't have a problem with slavery years ago. Most of them because they where brought up in an environment where that was considered normal. No different than people religious beliefs, people believe in the religion they are brought up in. In the US you don't want to pay for society’s healthcare because that is the environment you where brought up in. In the UK & Australia no one cares about paying for a healthcare system. I recon this healthcare debate is more about greed than anything else.[/QUOTE] That theory doesn't work for us. Our Health care system isn't all that old. Plus we realise we are actually better off financially on every level. We actually got it twice. The Whitlam government gave it to us and then the Liberal party, by liberal they don't actually mean liberal :lol:, took it away. We had to get another Labor Government before we got it back, and it has been damaged quite a bit by the last Liberal Government. But the population were always on side .
Even with it's faults it's great !! If you go into any public hospital you are treated exactly the same regardless of your insurance status. We do have a thriving private health industry as well . Although they are actually subsidised out of our taxes!! :evil: So it not strictly speaking socialised medicine. Our public hospitals are where all the major stuff happens . Even if you have private health insurance if you have a serious problem you will end up in one of our big public hospitals simply because that is what they do best. We go in cycles, Liberals [Conservatives] tear it down. Labor builds it up again. :lol: But no government would dare to remove our Medicare now.
One way or the other it is so far in front of America's health system it's like another world. It costs far less to everyone , we have world class public hospitals, we have private and public working together. Best of all if something happens to us we know we will be looked after and not have to mortgage our home. As I said, not perfect, and most of the not perfect was keeping private industry happy, But so glad we have it. So yes, proud !! :)
You are absolutely right about the greed !!
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
The govt. is inefficient (not to mention corrupt) at everything it does, and adding the responsibility of insuring everyone or sticking them with a penalty for breathing when the US is insolvent is asking for trouble. I have no idea how the govt. can even continue to function without cuts in Medicare and Social Security and others. The fact that 222 companies received waivers to opt out of some of the new law's requirements shows that it's flawed legislation. The new paperwork requirements alone add more administrative costs that could be better spent elsewhere. Speaking of greed, ambulance chasers and tort reform in general, as previously mentioned, need to be seriously addressed. I'm not about to make a comparison to the quality of insurance available in Australia, but everything comes at a cost. Oh yea, defense spending in 2010 was just [URL="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258"]20% of the budget[/URL] but I am in agreement with everybody else about the fruitlessness and waste spent on the war in Afghanistan that seems to accomplish nothing of any value.
On the Loughner topic, I'm also amazed at how a few of you are somehow blaming the right yet completely ignoring the vitriol instigated by the left as already revealed in riveting and extensive detail. Michelle Malkin is again dead-on in reminding us how the mainstream media and govt. leadership tries to paint almost every violent act as the fault of some right-wing radical, yet those are clearly in the minority: [URL]http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2011/01/14/blame_righty_a_condensed_history/page/full/[/URL]
[quote] In April 2009, a disgruntled, unemployed loser shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers in a horrifying bloodbath. The gunman, Richard Poplawski, was a dropout from the Marines who threw a food tray at a drill sergeant and had beaten his girlfriend. Was this deranged shooter who pulled the trigger to blame? Nope. Despite evidence that Poplawski's homicidal, racist tendencies manifested themselves years before Obama took office, lefty publications asserted that the real culprit of the spree was the "heated, apocalyptic rhetoric of the anti-Obama forces" (according to mainstream liberal Atlantic Monthly pundit Andrew Sullivan), along with Fox News and Glenn Beck (according to mainstream liberal journalist Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly online).
That same month, a sick, evil man named Jiverly Voong ambushed an immigration center in Binghamton, N.Y. Recently fired from his job, Voong murdered 13 people, critically wounded four others and then committed suicide. The instant psychologists of the left knew nothing about the disgruntled man of Vietnamese descent and undetermined political affiliation. But within hours of the shooting, liberal mega-website Huffington Post commenters had overwhelmingly convicted GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, the National Rifle Association, Fox News, Lou Dobbs and yours truly. Liberal radio host Alan Colmes pointed his finger at the "huge anti-immigrant backlash in this country" -- never mind that tens of millions of legal immigrants and naturalized citizens have coped with hardship, overcome racism and embraced assimilation without going bloody bonkers.
In June 2009, a depraved, elderly anti-Semite named James von Brunn gunned down a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in D.C. Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent and lefty Center for American Progress think-tank fellow Matthew Yglesias immediately invoked the Obama administration's report on right-wing extremism, leading to a wider chorus of condemnations against the tea party, talk radio and the entire GOP. The truth? Von Brunn was an unstable, equal-opportunity hater and 9/11 Truther conspiracy loon who bashed Jews and Christians, George W. Bush and Fox News, and had also threatened the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.
In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic Party decried a window-smashing vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. State Democratic Party Chair Pat Waak singled out tea party activists and blamed "people opposed to health care" for the attack. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for a labor union-tied political committee and canvassed for a Democratic candidate.
In September 2009, Bill Sparkman, a federal U.S. Census worker, was found dead in a secluded rural Kentucky cemetery with the word "Fed" scrawled on his chest with a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly's Andrew Sullivan rushed to indict "Southern populist terrorism, whipped up by the GOP and its Fox and talk radio cohorts" in an online magazine post titled "No Suicide," which decried the "Kentucky lynching." Liberal author Richard Benjamin blamed "anti-government" bile. New York magazine fingered conservative talk radio giant Rush Limbaugh, "conservative media personalities, websites and even members of Congress." So, who killed Bill Sparkman? Bill Sparkman. He killed himself and deliberately manufactured a hate crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.
In February 2010, ticking time-bomb professor Amy Bishop gunned down three of her colleagues at University of Alabama-Huntsville, and suicide pilot Joseph Andrew Stack flew a stolen small plane into an Austin, Texas, office complex that contained an Internal Revenue Service office. Mainstream journalists from Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart to Time magazine reporter Hilary Hylton leaped forward to tie the crimes to tea party rhetoric. Never mind that Bishop was an Obama-worshiping academic with a lifelong history of violence or that Stack was another Bush-hater outraged about everything from George W. Bush to the American medical system to the evils of capitalism to the city of Austin, the Catholic Church and airlines.
In May 2010, liberal New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to preemptively pin the Times Square bombing attempt on "someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something." The culprit was unrepentant Muslim jihadist Faisal Shahzad.
In August 2010, Democratic supporters of Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan blamed a "firebombing" at the congressman's St. Louis office on tea party suspects. The real perpetrator? Disgruntled progressive activist Chris Powers, who was enraged over a paycheck dispute.[/quote]Her "9/11 truther conspiracy loon" comment notwithstanding, I'll give her some credit. ;-)
She didn't even mention the dude who shot up a school board (but missed fortunately) because his wife was fired. Again, not remotely tea party members.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=trick12;919428]i was saying "if a country..?" as in general, not really specifying the US or UK...[/QUOTE]
If any country is attacked it has the right to retaliate, but why where they attacked in the first place. If both country's have the same military might they will very rarely attack each other. Attacks usually happen when the odds are stacked in favor of one country.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=chunky;919426]Governments exist to protect men from criminals, many people in government are criminals who exploit the court system that they maintain. And when was the last time the US suffered an invasion.
Food isn't a right but killing people in foreign country's to steal resources is. And how can you take pride in your country if you don't give a fuck about the people in it?[/QUOTE]
Listen, I agree with you. I am anti-war. I am against offensive wars (as opposed to defensive). Indeed, our elected officials have, and still, step beyond the scope of what government should do. But what our government is doing does not mitigate the fact that yes, they are stepping beyond their bounds, and yes, they are acting beyond the scope of what governments exist for. Nor does this mitigate the fact that providing taxpayer-funded healthcare is ALSO outside the scope of what governments should be doing.
Food isn't a right? Prove it. Without food, people die. And as Dig says below, "A society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable"
I'm curious, why do you say Food is not a right? Don't you care for your fellow countrymen? What is it, I wonder, that distinguishes an absolute necessity (as not a right) from something conditional (healthcare) that you think IS a right?
Also, i love my country. But I am highly skeptical of my government. Our country pulls together in adversity. There's no question about that. Hell, we pull together even when the adversity faces other countries. Are you saying I can't have pride unless I give a damn about everyone who is here legally?
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=DIDI;919541]That theory doesn't work for us. Our Health care system isn't all that old. Plus we realise we are actually better off financially on every level. We actually got it twice. The Whitlam government gave it to us and then the Liberal party, by liberal they don't actually mean liberal :lol:, took it away. We had to get another Labor Government before we got it back, and it has been damaged quite a bit by the last Liberal Government. But the population were always on side .
Even with it's faults it's great !! If you go into any public hospital you are treated exactly the same regardless of your insurance status. We do have a thriving private health industry as well . Although they are actually subsidised out of our taxes!! :evil: So it not strictly speaking socialised medicine. Our public hospitals are where all the major stuff happens . Even if you have private health insurance if you have a serious problem you will end up in one of our big public hospitals simply because that is what they do best. We go in cycles, Liberals [Conservatives] tear it down. Labor builds it up again. :lol: But no government would dare to remove our Medicare now.
One way or the other it is so far in front of America's health system it's like another world. It costs far less to everyone , we have world class public hospitals, we have private and public working together. Best of all if something happens to us we know we will be looked after and not have to mortgage our home. As I said, not perfect, and most of the not perfect was keeping private industry happy, But so glad we have it. So yes, proud !! :)
You are absolutely right about the greed !![/QUOTE]
Didi. Have you ever considered that the huge difference in eating habits and lifestyles between Australia and the US?
you said above: [quote]Re health care. A healthy population is good economically . Our health care dollar goes an awful lot further than America's. This subject deserves it's own thread. Some really good points have been made by various posters.[/quote]
Didi, do you realize that health care is only PREVENTATIVE? You don't go into a hospital when you're healthy. You go there when you are sick. A healthy population doesn't get healthy with 'free' healthcare. It only gets attended to after problems arise. The whole 'free healthcare' tribe has conveniently ignored the very health problems my country is facing and has faced for two decades now (if not longer).
I submit that a country will NEVER have a health population so long as the root causes of its ills subsist
btw, [url]http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13833438[/url]
these idiots should NOT be receiving free healthcare.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=chunky;919557]If any country is attacked it has the right to retaliate, but why where they attacked in the first place. If both country's have the same military might they will very rarely attack each other. Attacks usually happen when the odds are stacked in favor of one country.[/QUOTE]
my point was an army attack to a country would lead to an attack back and will affect the public more than a sick person would. im all for recognizing the poor in a country, everyone should be able to get treatment if they have an emergency or need to see a doctor, it may be in a public hospital where its not as equipped and well managed as a private one, but they need to have something thats free. having equal healthcare for everyone tho i would see as an extra privilege given to the public, its good and def a plus but its not as public as the army.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=88Mariner;919424] transportation isn't a right. food isn't a right. you have no right to property unless you purchase it. and so on... [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=88Mariner;919424] Food isn't a right? Prove it. Without food, people die. And as Dig says below, "A society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable
I'm curious, why do you say Food is not a right? Don't you care for your fellow countrymen? [/QUOTE]
I didn't say food is not a right. I was being sarcastic following your first post. :what
No I don't really care for people based on geographical nonsense. I remember as a child being told to support England during the World Cup. When I asked why I was told "because its your country" This is not good enough for me. I take no pride in the accomplishments of various UK citizens, like wining the Ashes the World Cup the Second World War etc because I did nothing to contribute to any of these and the people who did didn't achieve them because of some inbreed character traits that they don't have. If I have any respect or admiration for anyone it's based on how they conduct themselves not on where they live.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=trick12;919632]my point was an army attack to a country would lead to an attack back and will affect the public more than a sick person would. [/QUOTE]
Really
Iraq No retaliation in the US or UK Afghanistan No retaliation in the US or UK Vietnam No retaliation in the US Korea No retaliation in the US Bosnia No retaliation in the US or UK
We are more than happy to give money to kill people in foreign country's but we do not want to give money to look after people in our own country's
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=chunky;919640]Really
Iraq No retaliation in the US or UK Afghanistan No retaliation in the US or UK Vietnam No retaliation in the US Korea No retaliation in the US Bosnia No retaliation in the US or UK
We are more than happy to give money to kill people in foreign country's but we do not want to give money to look after people in our own country's[/QUOTE]
It's better that we don't have to fight on our soil. Hell, we let them have home field advantage! can be mad about that!
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=88Mariner;919309]You have a point. but 'controlling their media image' is such a horseshit request. Only the media controls their image. this is why the MSM keyed them as the scapegoats for the shooting before the bodies had been put in the ambulance.[/QUOTE]
The Tea Party saying that they're victim of a media character assassination is more pathetic than that 8 minute video that Palin put on her facebook page crying foul before anyone from the shootings in Tuscon were buried. Any political movement can take control of their media image - part of the solution is getting control over their own supporters and putting a muzzle on the more extreme members which can make them look bad. Any group that says that they're at the mercy of the media's whim are undisciplined, uneducated or just plain unwilling to take control of the image they're putting forward. Any political movement worth it's salt would get a decent media consultant to make sure that they're putting their best foot forward each time they're making it into the news.
It's like saying that you didn't get a job you interviewed for because the interviewer was prejudiced against you before you even got in the door, not the fact that you didn't interview well. I'm sure runningman keeps this excuse handy whenever things don't work out for him.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=runningman;919537]thank you for proving my point florida. I don't really feel that way I just wanted a third party to point out that generalizations are ridiculous! Tea partiers aren't bad people just like most repubs and dems aren't.
Jedi trick worked.
Oh ya and Toasty what did you think was going to happen with drugged up people not working and guns and ammo at their disposal?[/QUOTE]
when did "Jedi Mind Trick" involve backpedaling frantically on shit you just invented?
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=Highsteppa;919674]The Tea Party saying that they're victim of a media character assassination is more pathetic than that 8 minute video that Palin put on her facebook page crying foul before anyone from the shootings in Tuscon were buried. Any political movement can take control of their media image - part of the solution is getting control over their own supporters and putting a muzzle on the more extreme members which can make them look bad. Any group that says that they're at the mercy of the media's whim are undisciplined, uneducated or just plain unwilling to take control of the image they're putting forward. Any political movement worth it's salt would get a decent media consultant to make sure that they're putting their best foot forward each time they're making it into the news.
It's like saying that you didn't get a job you interviewed for because the interviewer was prejudiced against you before you even got in the door, not the fact that you didn't interview well. I'm sure runningman keeps this excuse handy whenever things don't work out for him.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i825.photobucket.com/albums/zz178/GrapeSoda_album/14sntcy.gif[/IMG]
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[i]ghhhhuuuuuuurrrrrrrrr [/i]
(right back at ya!)
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=toasty;919421]Let me preface this by reaffirming that Jared Lee Loughner is a Grade A, first class, USDA Prime nutball. I have no idea if he was a teapartier, a republican, a democrat, a communist, whatever, and I don't think it really matters. The suggestion that he tried to assassinate Giffords because Sarah Palin put a gun sight on her district is ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous, however, is the suggestion that none of the violent language and imagery used by the talking heads on the right contributes to an environment where this sort of thing can happen. It takes absolutely zero effort to find numerous recent examples of right wingers invoking violence in political rhetoric, whether it's references to armed revolution, taking people "out," or "Second Amendment remedies." The list goes on and on, and even if there are examples of this same sort of rhetoric coming out of the loonies on the left, they are certainly far fewer than what we see on the right. That should be beyond serious dispute.
The world is a big and varied place, and when you pump this sort of vitriol into the popular consciousness, it goes to everyone, not just the people that understand that you're speaking metaphorically and can practice self-control. Back at the time of the gun-sight-map thing, Giffords herself noted: "For example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list, but the way she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. And when people do that, [B]they’ve gotta realize that there’s consequences to that action[/B]."
Would this have happened were it not for Palin putting a gunsight on Gifford's district? Probably. Would it have happened in the absence of all of this imagery and verbiage being used over the past couple of years? Who knows, but I think it's tough to say that none of it matters, that it has no impact upon society as a whole. There were a number of police officers that were shot by right wingers shortly after Obama got elected, and their stated reason for shooting them was that they were concerned that the government was coming to take their guns. Does that sort of thing happen in the absence of the BS coming from the far right suggestion that Obama is going to take away your guns? Uh, I doubt it.
I guess the point of it all is that while I'm not blaming those on the far right for this incident, I don't think they can wash their hands of the fact that they've contributed to creating an environment where the possibility that some whackjob is going to lose it and take it out on someone in a position of authority is higher, either. There are consequences to these words that people throw out there...[/QUOTE]
The thing about this situation that strikes me as funny is that the right wing are being looked at with the same scrutiny they (and other politicians on both sides of the isle) have famously held towards pop culture society in the name of family values. I don't see the scrutiny being placed on them being any different than the bullshit that they've pulled when it comes to rap music, heavy metal, violent films or video games whenever a similar situation has occurred. The kids who did Columbine? Must have been caused by them playing Doom on their computers at home. A kid shoots a cop? Must have been caused by his listening to Tupac or playing Grand Theft Auto. Both the right and the left have done this for years, and it's always been a cop out every time - partly because the issue is a lot more complicated than anything that can be explained in a news cycle soundbyte.
Now the right are in a situation where they're being called on months of toxic political behavior and commentary (maybe rightfully so, maybe not) and people are wondering if this contributed to this tragedy. It doesn't help that they've got pundits and members on their side that are more concerned with their political survival at any costs because they're being backed into a very tight corner right now - political commentators that are on the extreme can't backtrack, otherwise they'll be looked upon as weak, insincere or even possibly a traitor by their own supporters. I've never been convinced that those that pander to the more extreme wing of either side of the political spectrum really believe what they say, because their punditry is what puts food on the table for them, and any backing down now could be a disaster for their future. But anyone ensuring their own political future before their actual function of being a publicly elected servant of the people comes at the cost of them being looked at as possible sources of situations like the one that occurred in Tucson.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=88Mariner;919604]Didi. Have you ever considered that the huge difference in eating habits and lifestyles between Australia and the US?
you said above:
Didi, do you realize that health care is only PREVENTATIVE? You don't go into a hospital when you're healthy. You go there when you are sick. A healthy population doesn't get healthy with 'free' healthcare. It only gets attended to after problems arise. The whole 'free healthcare' tribe has conveniently ignored the very health problems my country is facing and has faced for two decades now (if not longer).
I submit that a country will NEVER have a health population so long as the root causes of its ills subsist
btw, [url]http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13833438[/url]
these idiots should NOT be receiving free healthcare.[/QUOTE] I agree with most of what you say here, but unfortunately our diet is fast becoming yours. In fact I believe we have overtaken you in the obesity scales , we are at least running a close second. But we have healthier fat people. :lol: Some because of the preventive programs funded by our healthcare system and some because the problems that obesity causes diabetes etc are actually treated well and controlled . Everyone has access to good healthcare. Not ignoring at all, and always saying there can be massive improvements. I think our population is healthier rather than healthy , mainly because of the issues you bring up. But healthier is still better economically. Amount spent here per capita is considerably lower than the US and we have much better outcomes.
That link opens up a whole new set of problems , but even that has positive aspects in that they are trying to deal with it. And I hate to point this out but if you take away health care from the mother you are also taking it away from the babies. Maybe just neuter all the men, a bit like cats, you prevent more kittens if you neuter the toms :lol: That is a joke by the way. :lol: But I have to say I wouldn't be opposed to compulsory contraception in some cases.
I'm still proud. :)
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=88Mariner;919656]It's better that we don't have to fight on our soil. Hell, we let them have home field advantage! can be mad about that![/QUOTE]
Its better you don't fight at all. If the Bush administration really thought that Iraq had WMD's they would not of invaded them at all. They picked a fight they knew they couldn't lose. If the odds where 50/50 they wouldn't have even considered it, unless there was a real threat to main land America.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
Highsteppa always the man trying to get in on the conversation.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=runningman;919982]Highsteppa always the man trying to get in on the conversation.[/QUOTE]
^Is that not what a public internet forum is by definition? :roflmao:
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
yes. the difference is that nobody cares what he says.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
I disagree with that...that said I have no interest in this topic definitely.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=Highsteppa]The Tea Party saying that they're victim of a media character assassination is more pathetic than that 8 minute video that Palin put on her facebook page crying foul before anyone from the shootings in Tuscon were buried. Any political movement can take control of their media image - part of the solution is getting control over their own supporters and putting a muzzle on the more extreme members which can make them look bad. Any group that says that they're at the mercy of the media's whim are undisciplined, uneducated or just plain unwilling to take control of the image they're putting forward. Any political movement worth it's salt would get a decent media consultant to make sure that they're putting their best foot forward each time they're making it into the news.[/QUOTE]
So all Saddam Hussein needed was a decent media consultant?
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
[QUOTE=runningman;920018]yes. the difference is that nobody cares what he says.[/QUOTE] Concurred.
And really, the left has no room, NO ROOM to point fingers, as the evidence continues to mount:
[video=youtube;KaOMRdUdgCk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaOMRdUdgCk[/video] [quote]"You're Dead": Tucson Survivor Eric Fuller Tells Tea Partier Trent Humphries On ABC This Week[/quote][URL]http://www.prisonplanet.com/media-buries-youre-dead-threat-by-leftist-against-tea-party-leader.html[/URL]
[B]While the establishment media continues to run with the hoax that violent political rhetoric, tea partiers, and the second amendment were responsible for last weekend’s Tucson shooting, leftists continue to brazenly issue death threats against anyone who disagrees with them, with the press complicit in burying the story.
For over a week, pro-Obama leftist blogs like Huffington Post, the Daily Kos and Media Matters, enthusiastically backed up by the likes of the New York Times and the Associated Press, have blamed vitriolic conservative political rhetoric for the massacre that killed six people and seriously wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, despite the fact that shooter [/B] [B][URL="http://www.prisonplanet.com/political-hacks-still-seek-to-exploit-shootings-before-bodies-are-buried.html"]Jared Loughner was a liberal, skull-worshipping occultist who liked to dress up in women’s clothing[/URL].
In the meantime, the only vitriolic rhetoric witnessed has come from the mouths of the very vultures who are seeking to exploit the tragedy to ram through their control freak agenda to shut down free speech and eviscerate the second amendment.[/B] [B]
After the media blamed Tea Party figurehead Sarah Palin for the shootings, she was bombarded by scores of [/B] [B][URL="http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/arizona-shooting-sparks-internet-death-t-0"]vile and obscene death threats[/URL] made by leftists.
Following a taping of ABC’s “This Week,” a liberal angry that Tucson Tea Party leader Trent Humphries disagreed with his call for draconian gun control laws [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347683/Arizona-shooting-victim-James-Eric-Fuller-sectioned-Tea-Party-leader-death-threat.html?ito=feeds-newsxml"]directly identified Humphries, took his picture, and then shouted “you’re dead,” according to the Pima County Sheriff’s office[/URL], who subsequently arrested J. Eric Fuller, charged him with a misdemeanor and had him involuntarily committed for psychiatric evaluation. At the 50 second point in the clip embedded above, Fuller can also be heard saying, “you’re dead,” while Humphries is talking.[/B][INDENT][B]In a statement Humphries said, “I was asked to give my thoughts on gun control laws and perhaps the passage of new laws. … A gentleman in the audience who I had never met before began booing and made the comment ‘you’re dead’ while taking my picture. I was escorted from the location of the filming and spoken to by several deputies about the incident. I told them I was very hesitant to press any charges against this gentleman, but after they urged me to do so based on the gravity of the situation, and the lessons learned from the recent tragedy. I allowed them to proceed as recommended,” he said. “This is another sad piece to add to an already tragic set of events,” Humphries added in the statement. “My hope continues to remain that we as a community be allowed the ability to heal and focus on those things that will best help our city and its citizens recover from this deadly tragedy,” he said. [/B] [/INDENT][B]Fuller, who was injured during the shootings last Saturday, blamed “second amendment activism” for the massacre during his appearance on the ABC show. He [URL="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/01/16/only-partial-improvement-ap-finally-notes-fullers-democracy-now-appearan"]also blamed gun rights for the massacre during a Friday appearance on Democracy Now[/URL] with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. The fact that Fuller followed his appearance on Democracy Now by making direct death threats against a Tea Party leader is noteworthy given the fact that Democracy Now [URL="http://www.democracynow.org/seo/2011/1/10/jeff_biggers_arizona_facing_lethal_combination"]tried to pin the responsibility for the deaths on Alex Jones and Congressman Ron Paul[/URL] during an interview with [URL="http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-nato-secretary-general-admits-bilderberg-sets-global-policy.html"]Chip Berlet, a Ford Foundation-funded debunker[/URL] [/B] who routinely attacks anyone who suggests that powerful men plan global policy as a lunatic or a racist. [B] Imagine if a conservative or a Tea Party leader had made death threats against a leftist gun control advocate during a live ABC taping. The statist blogs, along with the Washington Post, New York Times and Associated Press, would be up in arms – loudly proclaiming the perils of violent political rhetoric and ordering that so-called right wingers be silenced.
And yet what was the reaction to Fuller’s open and public death threat against Tea Party leader Humphries? Barely a whimper. Local news stations and Fox News reported on the incident, while the likes of ABC and the AP tried their level best to hush it up.[/B] [B]
[URL="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/16/christiane-amanpour-omits-fuller-saying-tea-partier-week-town-hall-yo"]ABC News omitted the “you’re dead” comment from the transcript and during her brief end of show whitewash [/URL][/B] [B]afterthought, host Christiane Amanpour failed to tell viewers exactly what Fuller had said. Amanpour also completely failed to explain that the threat was directed towards Trent Humphries, a Tea Party leader who had mildly disagreed with Fuller about gun control.
“Upon further reflection, the idea that ABC News actually has a videotape of Fuller making this disgusting comment at a town hall meeting they sponsored, and they chose to not bring any attention to it is an outrage,” [/B] [B][URL="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/01/16/christiane-amanpour-omits-fuller-saying-tea-partier-week-town-hall-yo"]writes Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard[/URL].
Think back to the healthcare debate when media outlet after media outlet alleged that someone had yelled the N-word at black Congressmen. To this day, not one audio or videotape has proven this assertion.[/B] [B]
Now, after these same folks dishonestly accused conservatives of igniting the shootings in Tucson – also without a shred of evidence – a liberal activist said “You’re dead” to a Tea Party leader during an ABC News-sponsored town hall meeting.[/B] [B]
As demonstrated above, ABC actually has videotape of this being said, yet “This Week” completely ignored it.[/B] [B]
If Fuller was the Tea Party leader and Humphries the liberal shooting survivor, this video clip would have been a large focus of Sunday’s program, and would be all over the mainstream media.[/B] [B]
Just imagine the field day MSNBC would be having with it.
[/B]I'm beginning to think the commie left is actively pursuing a civil war.
Re: The Smearing of the Tea Party
^^ :lol: What that proves is that everyone should consider that they are dealing with a lot of loonies out there, and that you have crap media , as we do :( If you use inflammatory rhetoric it comes back to bite you in the arse.
[QUOTE=runningman;920018]yes. the difference is that nobody cares what he says.[/QUOTE] Wrong again .