Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:


It's amusing, when you think about it:

The Tea Partiers yell and scream about wanting to get rid of government and "save the country". Yet:

The Second Amendment rally in Washington DC, people complained that the mass-transit system wasn't up to their "standards". Government-created; I wonder what they'd bitch about without it?

The one over in Virginia, close as they could get WITH their weapons, was held in a state park. State parks, remember, paid for by government?

Not only that, but the fact that they COULD openly carry their weapons was made possible by that Socialist/communist/nazi/facist Obama by recent legislation.

---

Quote:

---

It goes on and on...would be interesting to see how they dealt with the results of doing away with big government.

Yes, I know some of that stuff was paid for by state government; and I know they're not against ALL government, but to hear them, then watch them utilize what the government "bought" them (like Medicare and Social Security) just makes me smile.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
What Obama DID do, though, which would come as quite a shock to these people, if they ever stopped hollerin' "He's gonna take our guns!" - is he signed the legislation allowing open-carry in the national parks. And for that, did one single member of those pro-gun rallies stand up on the stage and say, "Thank You, Mister President, for allowing us to be hear today with our guns!"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Sorry, I was just so terribly happy that nothing *did* come of it, was all, no panic and disorder, naught but a bunch of folk having fun and celebrating in a festive atmosphere.
-F

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
It's about being anti-government while happily using everything the government provides...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What is the Tea Party stand on US military spending?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
It's about being anti-government while happily using everything the government provides...

---

Being anti-government/anti-taxation doesn't mean you refuse to use government services. It means you want to stop being forced to buy govt services, and IF or WHEN you are free from such force, you will happily stop using said services.

You may want to vote against mandatory purchase of car insurance, for example. It doesn't mean that while you're being forced to buy it, you won't submit a claim if you get into a car wreck. You're paying the premiums; you have every right to use what you're paying for.



-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

What about pacifists who don't wish to be forced fund a military at all? What about people who don't own cars and don't want to be forced to fund roads? Or who don't have children so don't want to be forced to fund education?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So how many of those same people would have supported Bush's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan?

It persistently amuses me how anti those war most Americans are now, but a few years ago if you dared voice opposition, you were branded as a traitor and anti American.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
It's about being anti-government while happily using everything the government provides...

---

Being anti-government/anti-taxation doesn't mean you refuse to use government services. It means you want to stop being forced to buy govt services, and IF or WHEN you are free from such force, you will happily stop using said services.

You may want to vote against mandatory purchase of car insurance, for example. It doesn't mean that while you're being forced to buy it, you won't submit a claim if you get into a car wreck. You're paying the premiums; you have every right to use what you're paying for.



-----
"I was aiming for his head." -- Richard Castle, Season 2, Episode 18, "Boom"

---

What about pacifists who don't wish to be forced fund a military at all? What about people who don't own cars and don't want to be forced to fund roads? Or who don't have children so don't want to be forced to fund education?

Does the Tea Party support a totally user pays system for all government services? If you pay taxes, you ear mark what you want them used for?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
52% of them have a favorable view of Dubya Bush.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What about pacifists who don't wish to be forced fund a military at all? What about people who don't own cars and don't want to be forced to fund roads? Or who don't have children so don't want to be forced to fund education?

Does the Tea Party support a totally user pays system for all government services? If you pay taxes, you ear mark what you want them used for?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've yet to converse with a single Tea Partier (Tea Partyite?), here or anywhere else, who'll flat out say that our military should be SMALLER, or that we should decrease defense spending in any way whatsoever.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Funding for healthcare, with the view to providing an efficient healthcare service available to all citizens - OUTRAGE.

---

Quote:

---

A pointless war entered into on false premises, and which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands - NO OUTRAGE.

---

Quote:

---

Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources - OUTRAGE

---

Quote:

---

90% of earths resources owned by 10% of population - NO OUTRAGE

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
52% of them have a favorable view of Dubya Bush.

---

52% of Americans need more powerful meds, it seems.
Or LESS powerful.


The laughing Chrisisall

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
CTS, I think you may have hit upon something: You say you're anarcho-libertarian, whereas it would certainly seem - from all the coverage I've seen and the folks I've dealt with - that at least a large part (if not an overwhelming majority) of the Tea Party folks are the right-wing brand of "libertarian". In other words, today's tea partier tends to be yesterday's Republican/neocon.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Funding for healthcare, with the view to providing an efficient healthcare service available to all citizens - OUTRAGE.

---

If that were what health insurance reform provided, I wouldn't be outraged. Unsatisfied perhaps, but not outraged. I'm outraged because that is NOT what got voted into law. And this outrage is not just on the conservative end, but on the liberal end as well. Just read what firedoglake and Michael Moore have to say about it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A pointless war entered into on false premises, and which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands - NO OUTRAGE.

---

This outrages me deeply, more than any other current issue.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources - OUTRAGE

---

I haven't heard any of my conservative friends express outrage over any of these points. What outrage I hear is about perceived misrepresentation of facts and conclusions on global warming, such as classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

Personally, I am for everything you listed. Fighting against global warming? Not so much. Forcing me to fight against a GW spectre that I don't see empirical evidence for? Outrage.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

90% of earths resources owned by 10% of population - NO OUTRAGE

---

The ownership alone isn't nearly as outrageous as the fact that the 10% use their resources to forcibly oppress the other 90% economically and politically. I would call the first disturbing, and the oppression outrageous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
CTS, I think you may have hit upon something: You say you're anarcho-libertarian, whereas it would certainly seem - from all the coverage I've seen and the folks I've dealt with - that at least a large part (if not an overwhelming majority) of the Tea Party folks are the right-wing brand of "libertarian". In other words, today's tea partier tends to be yesterday's Republican/neocon.

---

I think yesterday's Republican/Neocon is in the Tea Party because they ARE disenchanted and disillusioned with their old party and want to move in a more libertarian direction.

---

Quote:

---

But you make a good point. I suspect that is why I haven't jumped into bed with them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:



If that were what health insurance reform provided, I wouldn't be outraged. Unsatisfied perhaps, but not outraged. I'm outraged because that is NOT what got voted into law. And this outrage is not just on the conservative end, but on the liberal end as well. Just read what firedoglake and Michael Moore have to say about it.

---

Quote:

---

I haven't heard any of my conservative friends express outrage over any of these points. What outrage I hear is about perceived misrepresentation of facts and conclusions on global warming, such as classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

---

Quote:

---

The ownership alone isn't nearly as outrageous as the fact that the 10% use their resources to forcibly oppress the other 90% economically and politically. I would call the first disturbing, and the oppression outrageous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Are you saying that the rest of us should be taxed for the things those people use, or that none of us should pay taxes if we don’t want to?

---

Quote:

---

If that were the case, who would build the roads, schools, public transportation, etc., etc.? In your scenario, nobody would be forced to pay taxes, ergo there would be no money to provide those things...how do you work that out?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Sounds like you're not outraged, except when you are. :)

---

Quote:

---

I liken the whole dismissal of the possibility that humankind could ever in any way possibly influence the climate on Earth....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
As for global warming, the ones who disagree have vested interests in keeping the status quo because anything else will lose them money

---

Quote:

---

Or every local community could collect from every family, much like a home owners association collects for maintaining its driveways and streets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
If 10% of the people control 90% of the resources AND DON'T USE IT to subjugate and oppress the other 90% of people, they're not being good little capitalists, are they?

---

Quote:

---

I'm NOT outraged by "Steps to combat pollution, over population, environmental destruction, mass extinction of species, increased use of diminishing resources." I am all for fighting any destruction of our planet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
If 10% of the people control 90% of the resources AND DON'T USE IT to subjugate and oppress the other 90% of people, they're not being good little capitalists, are they?

---

They can always use it for good, instead of for evil. Good capitalism, actually, is the best form of capitalism.

If you use your capital to develop safer and more efficient technology that makes lives easier, you're using it for good. If you use it to strengthen local communities and environments, you're using it for good. If you operate your business for good, you are shoring up a long and prosperous financial future with loyal employees and customers that will stand the test of time and earn money forever.

THAT is good capitalism.

The problem is, our current system encourages short term gains, and ONLY short term gains. CEO's are rewarded by the performance of their quarterly earnings. So they use their capital to swindle and scam. That is bad capitalism, because short-sightedness loses tons of future earnings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So you're in favor of HOAs? Can I move into a home in a particular neighborhood and opt out of an HOA if I don't want to play?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

---

They can always use it for good, instead of for evil. Good capitalism, actually, is the best form of capitalism.

If you use your capital to develop safer and more efficient technology that makes lives easier, you're using it for good. If you use it to strengthen local communities and environments, you're using it for good. If you operate your business for good, you are shoring up a long and prosperous financial future with loyal employees and customers that will stand the test of time and earn money forever.

THAT is good capitalism.

The problem is, our current system encourages short term gains, and ONLY short term gains. CEO's are rewarded by the performance of their quarterly earnings. So they use their capital to swindle and scam. That is bad capitalism, because short-sightedness loses tons of future earnings.

---

Capitalism is neither inherently good nor bad. It's a rather organic system based on demand and supply and it's aim is to create a profit. It has it's plus sides, it does create wealth and it can be responsible for large scale, innovative projects. By it's very nature it relies on short term goals, and tends to be exploitative towards labour and resources.

We've seen first hand how exploitative systems based purely on supply and demand can be. Someone mentioned the bison as an example, hunt a creature to extinction, tomorrow be damned. I think we have a well documented history of screwing up our environment. Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse' documents the rise and fall of a number of civilisations based on misuse and over exploitation of the environment, so it's not like these claims of it happening are outragous.

I said before, much of the world is like a toilet and it's true. If you visit countries with high populations and few environmental controls and a history of being exploited by first world corporations and you can see the future that lays ahead of us all. Personally, I'd prefer to keep the rainbow colours away from our waterways.

So I can't see why some of the current movement towards creating more sustainable lifestyles is creating such a hoo ha. Leaving aside the fact that global warming is a well documented phenomena, why would there be such an outcry except that it effects some business profit and loss margins?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
"Fighting", how exactly? Not by force, obviously. Not by threatening someone to make them stop. How would you fight any destruction of our planet? I'm not being snarky; I'm really interested in how one fights this stuff.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It's a rather organic system based on demand and supply and it's aim is to create a profit.

---

Quote:

---

By it's very nature it relies on short term goals, and tends to be exploitative towards labour and resources.

---

Quote:

---

Leaving aside the fact that global warming is a well documented phenomena, why would there be such an outcry except that it effects some business profit and loss margins?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So how do you get good capitalism from our current system, and do so without laws, taxes, or "force"?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

What nature is that? Profit can be calculated in both long and short term goals. I don't see what kind of "nature" restricts it to short term goals.

---

Quote:

---

Exploitation occurs only with short sighted capitalism, the "bad" kind that have no long term commitments and no long term profits.

---

Quote:

---

It's not as well documented as you think. :)

---

Quote:

---

Where is this outcry coming from, have you noticed? How are these people being affected financially by GW? Do you have any concrete examples of outcriers being financially invested in denying GW? (A link and source would be nice too.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:


Think of economics like an ecological system. A good natural system has a good cycle of life, where everything has a predator or other natural factor to limit its population growth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Even long term business goals are relatively short term - long term might be considered 10 -20 years?

Quote:

---

Exploitation occurs only with short sighted capitalism, the "bad" kind that have no long term commitments and no long term profits.

---

There is no 'only' about it. It's not like exploitation within the capitalist system is rare phenomenon.

---

Quote:

---

sorry i'm not going to link and source because there's too much stuff around. Google 'cap and trade' or 'carbon tax' and you'll see that most of the concern is about the affect upon profit and with it the denial or minimisation of GW.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Well it depends on how you define 'good' again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
It is quite well documented. The theory is supported by the vast majority of scientific institutions in the world, and discredited with a tiny but very vocal minority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

It seems like you are defining capitalism as only short-term, then saying all capitalism is exploitive. I have already agreed short term capitalism is exploitive, and if long-term capitalism truly does not exist, then you would be right that it is inherently exploitive.

But long term does not mean 10-20 years. In our current quarterly earnings system, perhaps. But capitalism doesn't have to operate within this current system. It has no inherent time limit, as you allege. Ten to twenty years might be mid-term. Long-term goals have NO inherent ceiling. A business can think about the next 1000 years if it wants to. Who's to say it can't?

---

Quote:

---

Oh I see. You are equating outcry over "cap and trade"/"carbon tax" as outcry over "global warming." They are not the same thing you know.

---

Quote:

---

My reasons for outcry over cap and trade is very different from my outcry over global warming. The first outcry is over cost to businesses and society, and the second outcry is over intellectual exaggeration if not outright fraud.

---

Quote:

---

Now you will note I don't own any of those business and I have no financial or emotional investments in them. But it makes very little sense to me to penalize businesses for something that has no empirical substantiation. You do know it is all based on data from computer modeling, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:

I find it very interesting that "well documented" means "faith in lots of authority I trust."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:


I mean sustainable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
As opposed to believing crap that someone has written on the internet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Scientists might say that one day people will land on Uranus - who'd care that it was hyperbole unless they thought it would affect them adversely in some way.

---

Quote:

---

Data based on what has happened ...

---