Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Friday, October 22, 2010 by CommonDreams.org
Ten Questions for Tea Partiers
Here are ten questions for Tea Partiers that they want or do not want to answer. I say it this way because people who call themselves Tea Partiers do not have the same view of politics, government, Big Business or the Constitution. Their opinions range from pure Libertarian to actively furthering the privileges of plutocracy. Their income and occupational background vary as well, though most seem to be middle-income and up.
My guess is that most Tea Partiers come from the conservative wing of the Republican Party who are fed up with both the corporate Republicans like Bush and Cheney, as well as the Democrats like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
With the above in mind, the following questions can serve to go beyond abstractions and generalizations of indignation and get to some more specific responses.
1. Can you be against Big Government and not press for reductions in the vast military budgets, fraught with bureaucratic and large contractors’ waste, fraud and abuse? Military spending now takes up half of the federal government’s operating budgets. The libertarian Cato Institute believes that to cut deficits, we have to also cut the defense budget.
2. Can you believe in the free market and not condemn hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare-bailouts, subsidies, handouts, and giveaways?
3. Can you want to preserve the legitimate sovereignty of our country and not reject the trade agreements known as NAFTA and GATT (The World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland) that scholars have described as the greatest surrender of local, state and national sovereignty in our history?
4. Can you be for law and order and not support a bigger and faster crackdown on the corporate crime wave, that needs more prosecutors and larger enforcement budgets to stop the stealing of taxpayers and consumer dollars so widely reported in the Wall Street Journal and Business Week? Law enforcement officials estimate that for every dollar for prosecution, seventeen to twenty dollars are returned.
5. Can you be against invasions of privacy by government and business without rejecting the provisions of the Patriot Act that leave you defenseless to constant unlawful snooping, appropriation of personal information and even search of your home without notification until 72 hours later?
6. Can you be against regulation of serious medical malpractice (over 100,000 lives lost a year, according to a study by Harvard physicians), unsafe drugs that have serious side effects or cause the very injury/illness they were sold to prevent, motor vehicles with defective brakes, tires and throttles, contaminated food from China, Mexico and domestic processors?
7. Can you keep calling for Freedom and yet tolerate control of your credit and other economic rights by hidden and arbitrary credit ratings and credit scores? What Freedom do you have when you have to sign industry-wide fine print one-sided “contracts” with your banks, insurance companies, car dealers, and credit card companies? Many of these contracts even block your Constitutional access to the courthouse.
8. Can you be for a new, clean system of politics and elections and still accept the Republican and Democratic Two Party dictatorship that is propped up by complex state laws, frivolous litigation and harassment to exclude from the ballot third parties and independent candidates who want reform, accountability, and stronger voices for the voters?
9. If you want a return to our Constitution—its principles of limited and separation of power and its emphasis on “We the People” in its preamble—can you still support Washington’s wars that have not been declared by Congress (Article I Section 8) or giving corporations equal rights with humans plus special privileges and immunities. The word “corporation” or “company” never appears in the Constitution. How can you support eminent domain powers given by governments to corporations over homeowners, or massive week-end bailouts by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department of businesses, even reckless foreign banks, without receiving the authority and the appropriations from the Congress, as the Constitution requires?
10. You want less taxation and lower deficits. How can you succeed unless you stop big corporations from escaping their fair share of taxes by manipulating foreign jurisdictions against our tax laws, for example, or by letting trillions of dollars of speculation on Wall Street go without any sales tax, while you pay six, seven or eight percent sales tax on the necessities you buy in stores?
Let’s hear from you Tea Partiers. Meanwhile, see the work of video-journalist, Steve Ference, who has interviewed and given voice to those among you in his new paperback “Voices of the Tea Party” published by Lulu.com on July 4, 2010. Contact VoicesoftheTeaParty@gmail.com.
My guess is that most Tea Partiers come from the conservative wing of the Republican Party who are fed up with both the corporate Republicans like Bush and Cheney, as well as the Democrats like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi.
With the above in mind, the following questions can serve to go beyond abstractions and generalizations of indignation and get to some more specific responses.
1. Can you be against Big Government and not press for reductions in the vast military budgets, fraught with bureaucratic and large contractors’ waste, fraud and abuse? Military spending now takes up half of the federal government’s operating budgets. The libertarian Cato Institute believes that to cut deficits, we have to also cut the defense budget.
2. Can you believe in the free market and not condemn hundreds of billions of dollars of corporate welfare-bailouts, subsidies, handouts, and giveaways?
3. Can you want to preserve the legitimate sovereignty of our country and not reject the trade agreements known as NAFTA and GATT (The World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland) that scholars have described as the greatest surrender of local, state and national sovereignty in our history?
4. Can you be for law and order and not support a bigger and faster crackdown on the corporate crime wave, that needs more prosecutors and larger enforcement budgets to stop the stealing of taxpayers and consumer dollars so widely reported in the Wall Street Journal and Business Week? Law enforcement officials estimate that for every dollar for prosecution, seventeen to twenty dollars are returned.
5. Can you be against invasions of privacy by government and business without rejecting the provisions of the Patriot Act that leave you defenseless to constant unlawful snooping, appropriation of personal information and even search of your home without notification until 72 hours later?
6. Can you be against regulation of serious medical malpractice (over 100,000 lives lost a year, according to a study by Harvard physicians), unsafe drugs that have serious side effects or cause the very injury/illness they were sold to prevent, motor vehicles with defective brakes, tires and throttles, contaminated food from China, Mexico and domestic processors?
7. Can you keep calling for Freedom and yet tolerate control of your credit and other economic rights by hidden and arbitrary credit ratings and credit scores? What Freedom do you have when you have to sign industry-wide fine print one-sided “contracts” with your banks, insurance companies, car dealers, and credit card companies? Many of these contracts even block your Constitutional access to the courthouse.
8. Can you be for a new, clean system of politics and elections and still accept the Republican and Democratic Two Party dictatorship that is propped up by complex state laws, frivolous litigation and harassment to exclude from the ballot third parties and independent candidates who want reform, accountability, and stronger voices for the voters?
9. If you want a return to our Constitution—its principles of limited and separation of power and its emphasis on “We the People” in its preamble—can you still support Washington’s wars that have not been declared by Congress (Article I Section 8) or giving corporations equal rights with humans plus special privileges and immunities. The word “corporation” or “company” never appears in the Constitution. How can you support eminent domain powers given by governments to corporations over homeowners, or massive week-end bailouts by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department of businesses, even reckless foreign banks, without receiving the authority and the appropriations from the Congress, as the Constitution requires?
10. You want less taxation and lower deficits. How can you succeed unless you stop big corporations from escaping their fair share of taxes by manipulating foreign jurisdictions against our tax laws, for example, or by letting trillions of dollars of speculation on Wall Street go without any sales tax, while you pay six, seven or eight percent sales tax on the necessities you buy in stores?
Let’s hear from you Tea Partiers. Meanwhile, see the work of video-journalist, Steve Ference, who has interviewed and given voice to those among you in his new paperback “Voices of the Tea Party” published by Lulu.com on July 4, 2010. Contact VoicesoftheTeaParty@gmail.com.
Comments are closed
133 Comments so far
Show AllGreat questions Ralph but I'm afraid you're trying to ask puppets to answer. The "Tea Party" is a sock puppet Republican Party whose only goal was to reinvigorate the Reagan-esque nature of the Republican Party than existed since 1981 and peaked in 2004. The "Tea Party" will disappear as soon as the Republicans are done taking over thanks to the Democratic Party working to fail itself like never before.
"The "Tea Party" will disappear as soon as the Republicans are done taking over thanks to the Democratic Party working to fail itself like never before."
Yep.
Ralph needs to update his sales tax data. Sales taxes keep going up in order to keep corporate taxes diminishing as they have for 40 years. Sales tax exceeds 10% in many US locations.
In 1970 corporations paid 29% of US income taxes. In 2009 they paid less than 6% and within a decade they will pay no US income tax. You and I will be pay higher taxes to offset the loss of taxes from corporations.
Maxpayne,
Quite right. But all the same those ten questions should be ongraved in stone on 12 foot high lettering and arranged around the Capitol building, the White House AND the Supreme Court building.
Those crooks should have to answer those questions each and every day and before each and every vote.
I would add one more.
11. Would you sign a pledge for strict separation of church and state...and pledge that any church that tries to tell their congregants how to vote or who NOT to vote for will lose their tax-exempt status?
Because I am sick of these Tea Party types telling all these lies, and their holier than thou attitude in trying to force Americans to promise to abide by the Bible and the 10 Commandments, deny evolution and substitute "creationism" for scientific explanations of the origins of man, and base our government's policies on religious teachings. That makes us no better than Iran which is ruled by Sharia Law.
We are a secular representative democracy, not a theocracy.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Gee, that is a pretty simple and one-sided restriction protecting religious freedom from government. Where does it make restrictions on preachers or their followers if they want to advocate a political view? I don't go to church and I don't mind if Gaia worshippers want to advocate for Green candidates or union-worshippers want to advocate for Obama. What's the difference for churches? The fact that the anti-religious zealots have tried to muzzle the voices of church-goers by threatening their tax-exempt status is unAmerican. If we would just stick to pure constitutional principles we could just let the best ideas win...
There was a deal cut in (I believe, I could be wrong) 1965 where the churches would get freedom from taxation if they would keep out of politics. They had been making a pain in the ass of themselves, apparently, and so the deal was made. Now they see fit to NOT go along with their side of the deal, which hardly seems an appropriate way for spiritual people to be acting.
To be honest, I see this as the "give to Caesar" idea in actual life. Church is supposed to deal with the spiritual life, especially since so many of them don't give a flying rat's ass about anyone's lives here. Something else has to take up that slack, and that would be the case for gov't, assuming that you want to have a society that works for someone other than just the rich.
Personally, I don't think that one benefits from mixing religion and gov't. It always ends up forcing someone's beliefs on someone else. If you say that the Christian view has to overrule, then WHICH version? And is it even constitutional to mix the two at all? I see nothing that says it's a good idea. When you mix the two, you end up giving gov't a sense of dignity that it doesn't really deserve, and you pollute religion with the affairs of state. Neither one wins, and both lose.
If they want to give up their tax free status, then fine, let them stink up their churches with the stench of politics. One would think that they would want at least ONE place they could go to get away from the barrage of crap that we are being bombarded with. But if these guys insist on the intermingling of their religion and politics, then they need to pony up.
Really, I don't see much difference between this and corporate personhood. Both are artificial groups banded together. That doesn't create a new superhuman that now gets more rights than an average citizen. But that is the way things work out.
"We are a secular representative democracy, not a theocracy."
No, 'we' are not.
Your statement sounds like "You know man; I am a millionaire." Too bad you
only got 5 bugs in your pocket and no bank account at all. We have a lot
of people who want to believe that this is a real democracy. But when was
the last time that something happened that the MAJORITY of the people would
really benefit from?
Dumbo, under the Constitution we've never been a "real democracy" and I hope we never will be. The Constitution guarantees us a republican form of governance. But you make a good point about what we've become. Under crony capitalism, hardly a true free market system, the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights in particular, has been all but gutted. And the Democrats aren't the only ones to blame; Bush and Ashcroft certainly did their share of damage.
However, Fisher Ames, in a speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention of 1788 said "The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."
John Adams wrote that "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."
By the way, Graham Greene & Orson Wells, in the movie "The Third Man", had a character say "In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? - the cuckoo clock."
However, we're well on our way to a theocracy; one of secular humanism, a religion, with judges as the high priests.
As for the majority of Americans benefitting from something, how about the fact that the top 5% of Americans pay 60% of the tax burden and the bottom 50% pay 3%? How about the benefits to everyday life for Americans from the space program? Of course we could all benefit from stopping a lot of the government interference in our lives.
Sock Puppet is probably the best description I've heard for the TPs in a while. As far as channeling Reagan, that may have been the intent, but I think it ran way off the rails. Reagan’s handlers did a much better job at packaging his snake oil, so that it would sound appealing to a much larger segment of the electorate. The Tea Baggers, on the other hand, just come across as crass, hateful, ignorant bullies. The most unfortunate and disturbing thing about them, is that there seems to be a real media market for crass, hateful, ignorant bullies in America right now and they know it. It seems that everything "conservative" groups do in each successive election cycle to reignite the Reagan fire, requires trotting out an ever more radical group of crazies in front of the cameras. At this rate, the next “conservative” front group will make Reagan and Daddy Bush look like a couple of progressives.
"At this rate, the next “conservative” front group will make Reagan and Daddy Bush look like a couple of progressives."
I thought that Obama was already halfway on accomplishing that goal. Once finished, either by him or that next front group, efforts will be underway to make Obama look "progressive". It could get interesting to note that for the first time in 30 years, a strong Reagan supporter, Obama, will be the first one term president. W was close to that in 2004 but Obama is unlikely to be lucky in 2012.
Lemme be clear - I didn't vote for Obama.
I hope that he's not a shoe-out (vs a shoe-IN) in the 2012 election.
Why?
Because if he's a shoe-out, it means his presidency is a complete failure. A failed Presidency is most definitely BAD for our country. I don't care WHO I vote or don't vote for - I want good things for my country.
I think Obama has decent intentions. I think he has belief in himself & his intentions. I think he's naive. And, as fabulous a speaker he is, I'm MIND-BOGGLED he hasn't figured out how to bring Republicans onto his side MORE.
But, that may be more Pelosi than Obama, to be honest. (Sorry to anyone who likes Pelosi, but she kinda scares me. And her bit of, "Pass this so we know what's in it?" EEK!! NO!!! LOL)
"It could get interesting to note that for the first time in 30 years, a strong Reagan supporter, Obama, will be the first one term president. W was close to that in 2004 but Obama is unlikely to be lucky in 2012."
Fair enough. However, if the alternative is Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Caribou Barbie or one of her hell spawned clones, I certainly hope that you're wrong. Nothing personal max.
I suppose you believe the Democratic Party isn't a puppet of George Soros with an ineligible person as president? The problem with Nader is that he asks questions but is unwilling to listen to answers, preferring to presume the answers. It's a very progressive trait born of hubris. Of course the Democrats failed as their anointed one, a false "professor" of constitutional law, couldn't instigate a coup d'etat and install a socialist/fascist welfare nanny one-party state.
The Democratic defeats at the polls was well deserved. Unfortunately I doubt the neoconservative controlled GOP will be able to understand the solution, a restoration of a democratic Republic under the rule of constitutional law. It's obvious that the Democratic-Socialist Party doesn't understand that. Most of the politicians in DC don't know more than a fifth grader about the Constitution, or don't care about it.
If you think the "Tea Party" is your ticket to change you can believe in, you're deluding yourself. I'm not a fan of the Democratic or Republican Party fyi.
The reason you won't get answers to these questions is that they will not permit themselves to hear them. They will become angry, talk over you, try to overwhelm you with a barrage of angry words.
They don't want to hear anything that might upset them, and if you can get into a debate situation, you can get at them by not getting angry and pointing out their anger, as in calmly saying "You cannot even listen to an opposing point of view; what are you afraid to hear?"
Because the anger is a cover for fear. It makes them feel good about themselves because preaching with passionate anger upstages all their fear.
However, even if you could get them to consider these questions, it wouldn't matter. Logic and facts are, to them, just the efforts of smarty pants liberals to make them seem dumb. Thomas Frank, author of "The Wrecking Crew" and "What's The Matter with Kansas" tried to explain this to Keith Olbermann the other night without complete success. Keith and Rachel Maddow keep believing that if the ridiculousness of what the tea party folks are saying is pointed out and scoffed at that the rest of the public will wake up to it. It doesn't seem to be going that way.
For 8 years Dubya's ignoramus persona was his biggest selling point among voters and it still is.
Really? Ya wanna go there??
You think the Tea Party has a monopoly on this?
"The reason you won't get answers to these questions is that they will not permit themselves to hear them."
"They don't want to hear anything that might upset them, and if you can get into a debate situation, you can get at them by not getting angry and pointing out their anger, as in calmly saying "You cannot even listen to an opposing point of view; what are you afraid to hear?""
I joined CD LESS than a week ago, because I DO want to discuss...I DO want to think. I don't need to have someone always agree with me - I'd rather exchange thoughts & ideas. We may NEVER agree on ANYTHING. But, I feel discussions are more productive than simply patting each other on the back. Since I joined, I've seen:
"The Right Winger haters lie"
"They are a bunch of self centered, pampered, liars."
"Rubbish." (In response to one of my comments)
"I think you got lost on the way to "Free Republic". This is Common Dreams." (In other words, "you're not welcome, here")
"your screen-name "anti-idiocy" is surely ironic given the idiotic Big Lies you parrot."
"Given the givens I suggest you take your pseudo-intellectual demagoguery to a more suitable medium. Indeed -- had its publication not been terminated by the events of 1945 -- I'd recommend der Voelkischer Beobachter as your perfect outlet." (Again, "You're not welcome, here" would have been a wee bit more succinct)
"There is an arrogance fee on CD. You owe the rest of us ten cents apiece." (Wow! Now I hafta PAY you for expressing my opinions!)
"Intelligence never prevails when it comes to republicans, but it doesn't deter their efforts."
"It's simple, a well informed American cannot be a republican."
"go into most white Americans' houses and guess what's on in the background?" (Said about Fox News being on people's TVs. Wouldn't it be just as bad to suggest rap or R&B was on a black person's radio or TV?)
"Well, if this is your position, not only is this plain idiocy, its also the road that leads to despotism."
"Just wondering--have you ever considered the significance of that name you use? Idiocy seems to be the operative word."
That's in just a few days. Examples of NOT listening & just wanting to insult and/or dismiss a contradicting opinion.
That said - there have been plenty who HAVE engaged in conversations and/or debates with no problems. They DO see that they may NEVER change my mind, but I'm willing to hear them out. Minds, hearts & opinions DO NOT CHANGE without open-minded, open-heart discussions. You will NEVER understand, much less agree, with my opinion unless you are willing to listen. Likewise, I will NEVER understand, much less agree, with YOUR opinion, unless I'm willing to listen.
Insisting YOUR logic & facts are irrelevant to "them"? Feeds the fire. It shows you dismiss their thought process. It shows you don't consider them to have your superior intelligence & logic.
Stop. They are your equals - whether they be politicians, PhDs, nurses, trash collectors, military, whatever - they are your equals. Treat them as you want to be treated. Do you want them dismissing your logic because it makes no sense to them? Or do you want them to listen, so you can have a discussion? Islam makes no sense to me (esp not the black from head-to-toe on women - I'd bet it's worse than tight pantyhose AND 6" high heels! LOL), but I DO respect them & realize their zealots are no worse & no better than our "pride & joy" of Christianity - Westboro Baptist! *smirk* So, the lady I see at the mall may very well belong with the zealots...or she may hide her head in shame at the zealots, as I do when Westboro calls themselves "Christian".
If you dismiss or judge them...they will automatically dismiss and/or judge you. If you listen & they still dismiss? You were the better person & you at least tried.
"Really? Ya wanna go there??"
Apparently you have never gone to Little Green Footballs and/or Free Republic.
I did....and I have never seen so much disgusting language and denigrating of ANYONE who attempted to say or do anything different than what the bloggers there offered.
AND I'M A BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL!!
Scared me so much, I have never been back.
And this site wasn't at least a little disturbing for those that don't automatically agree?
I think you are missing the point here. I think few people around here would deny the corporation-funded tea partiers to express their corporation-benefiting ideas. The only problem is: if these people get their way that changes the life of all people around.
Example: it seems like 'god' likes to create people that are more interested in their own gender ... unfortunately 'god' forgot to mention that in all the holy books he came up with. Too bad for the gay people. Because now you have all those zealots running around that do whatever they can to mess up the live of OTHER people.
One could come with with fact over fact on the consequences of current US policies. Few ideas of the tea partiers would make things better; for the most part, it would just mean MORE misery for John Doe every day. And to be honest: i am pretty sure that the only reason for right wing
assholes to NOT run around and shoot and kill every "progressive", "muslime" or however they
call the enemy-of-theday ... is for sure not that they think that would be the wrong
thing.
Thing is: what we know about how the human brain and all the "patterns" that humankind
picked up over thousands of years pretty much explains why people act like they do.
I dont mind that, as long as the consequences are with person acting.
I think these are valid observations, and indeed closed-mindedness is not confined to conservatives. Believe it or not, CD used to have occasional pieces by Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. I was impressed by the spectrum of views. As time passed, the spectrum has narrowed, and this site took on a very pro-Obama bent leading up to the 2008 election.
In this piece, Ralph Nader is reaching out to Tea Partiers. If he believed as a group that they were incapable of reason or reflecting on these questions, he would not have bothered directing these questions toward them. I saw a piece by Noam Chomsky on this site nearly a year ago where he said that we should not ridicule the Tea Party movement but listen. I think many progressive figureheads recognize that the Tea Party has valid anti-establishment rage which is a positive first step toward action. People should be angry, and despite the fact that many Tea Partiers have been roped back under the umbrella of the establishment GOP, at least they were out actively raising a stink. What have liberals done to "rage against the machine?" Where are their protests at town halls? Many people on this site who think they're "progressives" still play the lesser of two evils game at election time and still reinforce the Democrat vs. Republican fairytale. Many of these same people flooded this site in 2008, and ridiculed all of us who wanted to vote 3rd Party because of serious misgivings about Obama. Now 2 years in, most of these apologists have adopted regretful tones, yet still furiously defend the Democratic Party and attack the Republican Party because they've been conditioned to do so. In my opinion, there is far more more hope for an angry, misguided Tea Partier who is bent on voting out all incumbents, than there is for a pacified Obama apologist who continues to believe the Democratic Establishment offers us any hope for change.
I am VERY surprised the Libertarian Party hasn't been able to get a better stronghold.
I heard a suggestion on Meet the Press this morning - campaign raising/spending limits. GOD FORBID! A campaign has to rely on...wait for it...ISSUES vs MONEY!!! ALL contenders have the same budget (assuming they raise it) & that means instead of being able to flood with "Yay me / Boo you" crap (I hate that stuff) - you have to defend your policies! Imagine - lobbyists can't all buy their chosen candidate! Go into every election on equal footing. I like it! :-)
Tea Partiers are doin same thing progressives/liberals have done, but on a different platform. And, you're right - the GOP pulled 'em in, but they have criticized the GOP too - they don't want to see incumbents win.
I'm a bit of a math geek - if Congress has a 20% approval rating, doesn't it stand to reason only 20% of incumbents should return to their elected office?
"They don't want to hear anything that might upset them, and if you can get into a debate situation, you can get at them by not getting angry and pointing out their anger, as in calmly saying "You cannot even listen to an opposing point of view; what are you afraid to hear?"
The main problem is....they HAVE no ideas---just the usual vague Rethuglican generalizations: slash taxes on the rich (15% capital gains is too high?) and privatize everything, regulating nothing.
How do you know that is what they'd do? Have you tried with a small sample, say 10-20 of them, to let 'them' speak? I'm just asking since it would be interested to actually try rather than spout these kind of statements without the proof or effort to back it up...
sorry ralph but gotta argue w/ you on this one!
the teabaggers don't want any of that stuff....
freedom ONLY applies to them - and they have the right to determine who else gets to have freedom....
they want another war - they want the end times and don't care what it takes.....
and who cares about the environment w/ the end times coming up?
joe miller should have shown you they want the welfare programs and no taxes - at least for the rightwing white christians -
but they totally support high taxes and a usurious wall street - at least on us.....
and the constitution only applies to them -at least the parts they like - they'll change the parts they don't....
and the Constitution won't be applied to the progressives, minorities, immigrants and gay people......
they have a good cleansing in mind for the rest of us!
I think that's what Ralph is getting at with his 10 (rhetorical) questions.
And maybe a little whipping as punishment?
And I might add, I am perplexed that they scream "Government off my back, out of my Social Security and Medicare, and no regulating of my business. Freedom to do what we want is all we care about."
and then turn around and tell me what I can do with my body, what I can do in my bedroom, who I can marry, and that I have to go to church.
If you don't want an abortion--don't have one; if you don't want gays to marry, don't marry one.
Stay out of my womb and my bedroom, you hypocrites.
Oh, and BTW, if you insist you hate Big Government, stop drinking the city water, stop using the city sewer system, stop driving on the city, state and federal highways and walking on the sidewalks, using the city parks, and start taking your kids out of public school and start home-schooling them--and the next time your house catches on fire or a burglar breaks into your house, the fire and police will just drive over and watch.
If any Tea Bag lurkers are even reading this, you probably lost most of them at "And maybe...". I couldn't agree with you more, however. Well said.
Tea partiers want to deliver us from the oppression of percieved government totalitarianism and into the gentle hands of real corporate totalitarianism. They just don't seem to be able to understand the idea that at least with our government, we have the ability to vote for change. Its a broken system but we have the power to fix it. With the corporate structure, as it is, we have none of the options available to us.
Get outta my head, twisty.
Thank you for saying that.
Excellent 10 questions ( I would add the lack of prosecuting war crimes).
To think it is possible to vote on corporate owned and programed electronic voting machines in elections where money is speech and corporations are people in order to undo the already fascist corporate government that we already live under is a fantasy.
Only a massive third party movement that overwhelms the corrupt elections may overcome the "Machine". But a I regretfully doubt this will happen.
Unless there is a coup d’état.
Good one, Glenn. I would only edit your sentence, thus, deleting some redundant words and correcting a misspelling, as well as adding hyphens and commas. Well said!
"To think it possible to vote on corporate-owned and programmed electronic voting machines in elections where money is speech, and corporations are people, in order to undo the already fascist-corporate government, is a fantasy."
We have the ability to vote for change? where?
If you really think that the electronic paperless voting systems that much of the country relies on gives anyone the power to fic it, go look at the brad blog sometime - they're not inherently flawed but easily hackable. One guy even installed Pac Man on one of the more common voting machines, WITHOUT breaking the "tamper-evident" seals.
Rhetorical, succinct and to the point. Unfortunately it's much like having a discussion about the existence of Jesus with a devout christian. Historical records, reasonable debate, alternative ideas of any sort? Heresy! A term most often used by bigots.
I find it more entertaining to argue with devout Christians about what the Bible they refer to actually says this Jesus guy taught. You know, the whole camel in the eye of the needle thing, that which ye do to the least of these ye do unto me... and his actions like protecting a hooker and turning over the moneychangers temple...
I think arguing from inside someone's belief system tends to be a bit more effective.
If they would actually listen to this Jesus guy, whether or not he existed, we'd all be better off.
Gandhi said that he really liked Christ but didn't like "Christians" so much. I believe the quote was "How unlike your Christ your Christians are". How accurate he was.
"listen to jesus whether he existed or not" Alas. Words have value in poetry and song. In politics they are slogans and progaganda aimed at the ignorant. In religion, they disguise bigotry as rightousness.
Very clever.
Please notice that Ralph did NOT ask "How can you . . . ?" but siomply "Can you . . . ?" His wording undersores the impossibility of both maintaining the values and accepting the practices described in each question.
His approach is direct and not plaintive.
q
Yep. He forces anyone not addressing these issues while making a lot of noise and thunder about freedom and fiscal responsibility to face their total hypocrisy.
He's trying to convince the Klan to accept democracy
Answers from an imaginary member of the tea party:
1. The military needs even more money, because nothing is more important than military strength, while social programs just weaken our moral fiber.
2. Corporate bailouts and corporate welfare strengthen our financial and moral character by growing our economy.
3. Job outsourcing keeps corporations strong and profitable and weakens those commie unions, and anyway my job wasn't outsourced so what difference does it make to me?
4. Corporate crime is just the free market in action.
5. The Patriot Act only hurts the terrorists, not decent law-abiding conservative god-fearing Americans.
6. Yes I can be against unnecessary regulation; let the free market handle it, including the deaths (which are good for the funeral business).
7. My credit rating is just fine (today) and banks can do whatever they want, it's a free country and contracts, no matter how corrupt, are sacrosanct.
8. The two-party system is just fine, considering that we tea party folks are completely taking over the Republican party and the commie Democrats are doomed.
9. The constitution was written by god-fearing free-marketeering white men like me, so whatever is done in its name must be right and good, and the only problem with it are those stupid amendments, except for the second.
10. That's a trick question; we don't want anyone to pay any taxes at all!
By the way, Ralph, thanks for Election year 2000! We couldn't have done it without ya!
joshua, if you are still blaming Nader for Bush, you haven't been paying attention.
You might find "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" instructive on that point.
philiphoko, I thought that Ralph's Scapegoat of the Year 2000 Award had been taken off the shelf like New Coke, Crystal Pepsi, and Billy Beer. The product just never lived up to the (angry) buzz.
Reading that flavor of Nader-bashing used to aggravate the hell out of me, but now that it's become kind of quaint it just amuses me.
I think you are missing the context and irony; my take is that "joshua's" thanking Ralph for 2000 is supposed to be coming from the same teabagger who "gave" the kooky answers right above them. It would be consistent for a repub apologist who is OK with all those repub positions to "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" that Ralph was instrumental in "siphoning" dem or liberal votes from Gore, which "handed the White House" to Bush. I don't think Joshua is of that opinion himself.
Short version:
Of course we understand the hopeless contradiction and hypocrisy in our position. How in the hell do you think we got rid of nearly 60 million Native Americans while claiming to be decent, God fearing, clean living, community loving assholes (I mean white men). Ralph, baby, don't you understand code speech? When we say freedom ain't free, what do you think we are talking about? It's fun to take stuff from other people with a smile on our face and a flag in our hand.
As to the idea that Ralph had jack to do with the 2000 (s)election, you obviously don't understand the way a corporatocracy works. Oh, but you will very soon.
Here's a hint: When you want to get real change about the condition of your burger and fries at the fast food joint, you never see the manager; you see the franchise owner. Did you know that a franchise owner can own a burger king franchise AND a MacDonald's franchise at the same time? And the employees don't know nutin'. (Thanks to KRS - one)
in 2000 on the florida ballot there was a ballot measure to protect the everglades against an airport expansion -
and it received more votes than both bush and gore....
and the "environmental" guy gore REFUSED to endorse the measure as he had family money to be made w/ the expansion......
so gore blew it for himself!
and he couldn't even carry his own state!
had gore done either of those things he would have been president......
and maybe still would have if he wouldn't have caved to the righties and drop his case....
Gore is a hypocrite and a loser!
which makes him the PERFECT democrat!
As i see it, one cannot be for/against US governance at the same time. US governance emanates from a set of laws called constitution.
Thus, if constitution is infallible [it appears to be to most americans]; then so is governance. And if governance in US is sacred, then, so are all gov'ts, al judges, or pols, etc., unless any of them break a law.
because to have governance one must have jurisprudence, armed forces, congress, WH. And each aspect of the one reality, US governance, is integral part of the whole, the governance.
So the question to teapartiers wld be: are u for or against US institution? Or, in view, that congress people often say: We are a nation of laws; i.e. solely governed by laws and what is a constitution but a set of laws?
However, US constitution is not entirely composed of laws; there are some vague advice; such as pursuit of happiness, right to life, and more.
Tell it to afghanis, pal'ns, iraqis and american soldiers! Tell it to cindy, who lost her son and who had a right to life regardless what constitution says.
And what of cindy's happiness??
And since present govt had not broken any law and is acting egzactly as constitution commands them to act, what is their problem.
And we all shld know what it is. It is money. They want to pay less for wars, health care.
And lo and behold, this is quite legal and morally correct!
However, US had never been governed from street or town halls or by any movement or organization.
This latest one wld wane and bite the dust like all others; not changing and iota the basic structure.
in short the invariance, the master-serf relationship-- now 10 k yrs old-- stays the same.
what changes is weaponry, amount of freedom allowed,size of crumbs, but the invariant master-serf stays forever the same; if left unchallenged or seriously threatened.
tnx for ur left, right, black, white ear and the Finger!
"Tell it to afghanis, pal'ns, iraqis and american soldiers!"
Since when does OUR Constitution apply world-wide to Afghani's, Pal'ns & Iraqi's?
As for the American Soldiers? I heard one once say it best: The 4th of July is a celebration of the freedoms they CHOOSE to give up, so the nation may have them.