# On Tea Parties and Republicans



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Neil MacDonald is on a roll lately...



> That sort of language, of course, just gets the Tea Partiers angrier. And when they are angry, they frighten the Republican elite, including, apparently, Frum's boss at AEI.
> 
> With their confusingly contradictory demands, their goon tactics, and their ability to organize and channel spluttering visceral fury, they are truly the loose cannon of American politics, endangering any conservative politician who doesn't either ride with them or hide from them.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Wraps it up, nicely.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Really good article, CM. When the militant wing of the Tea Party start to put on brown shirts, then I shall really start to worry. We shall see. Hasta luego, mi amigo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is the diseased progeny of the Bush presidency. If he continues pushing hard to the left, there's going to be some mighty ugly pushback.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Bush had a baby named Obama, who's now the president? Who knew.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Obama is the diseased progeny of the Bush presidency. If he continues pushing hard to the left, there's going to be some mighty ugly pushback.


Sorry, MF, you'll need to walk me through that mashup. Bush, a right-wing, evangelical who furthered the U.S. empire, violated international law, started an unnecessary war, introduced massive new domestic spying efforts and the ever-so-lovely "Patriot Act", is in your mind the "father" of what you describe as a left-winger?

Not even Obama's *centrist* supporters are happy with his _*lack*_ of movement to the left.

The health care reform bill is a disaster, I agree, though for reasons which I think are not the same as yours. It does nothing to keep the insurance companies reigned in, and the lack of a true public option is a disgrace.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Obama is the diseased progeny of the Bush presidency. If he continues pushing hard to the left, there's going to be some mighty ugly pushback.


I could have bet on it!

Macfury's first word in his new-thread-derail-attempt is 'Obama'!

There is no excuse for the extreme antics of an organisation like the Tea party.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> I could have bet on it!
> 
> Macfury's first word in his new-thread-derail-attempt is 'Obama'!
> 
> There is no excuse for the extreme antics of an organisation like the Tea party.


I agree, SQ. They are making long-time conservatives worry about the direction of the fiscal conservative values in the Republican Party. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a thread derail?

Say it ain't so.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Sorry, MF, you'll need to walk me through that mashup. Bush, a right-wing, evangelical who furthered the U.S. empire, violated international law, started an unnecessary war, introduced massive new domestic spying efforts and the ever-so-lovely "Patriot Act", is in your mind the "father" of what you describe as a left-winger?
> 
> Not even Obama's *centrist* supporters are happy with his _*lack*_ of movement to the left.
> 
> The health care reform bill is a disaster, I agree, though for reasons which I think are not the same as yours. It does nothing to keep the insurance companies reigned in, and the lack of a true public option is a disgrace.


Bush was a believer in big government. Obama is a believer in bigger government. Both presidents define freedom as what is left over after they're through with their agendas. The only difference between them is their reasons for wanting to reduce the range of personal choices open to the country's citizens.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Bush was a believer in big government. Obama is a believer in bigger government. Both presidents define freedom as what is left over after they're through with their agendas. The only difference between them is their reasons for wanting to reduce the range of personal choices open to the country's citizens.


Why don't you start another thread of your own?

You are an Obama bore.

Tea Party. That's what this thread is about.

Tea Party.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Why don't you start another thread of your own?
> 
> You are an Obama bore.
> 
> ...



The Teas Party movement is a direct response to Obama's presidency. Did you not know that?


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Teas Party movement is a direct response to Obama's presidency. Did you not know that?


This thread is about the Tea Party, not Obama (your rather unhealthy obsession). Did you not know _that_?

You want to talk about Obama, not the Tea Party. Start yet another thread.

You are a serial derailer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama is the raison d'etre of the Tea Party. I think I'll stick with my original plan. Just put me on "ignore"and it will look pristine to you.

While there are always protesters on both sides of the aisle who cross the line into nastiness, most protesters--on both sides--are decent, law abiding citizens.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

lol...

anyway. This blogger Gil smart really nails the teabaggers quite succinctly I think...

"you gotta work for everything you got!" even parkinsons disease I presume.




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Good clip, gt. It is a return to Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus and Francis Galton. These people are starting to scare me even here in Canada.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Obama is the raison d'etre of the Tea Party. I think I'll stick with my original plan. Just put me on "ignore"and it will look pristine to you.
> 
> While there are always protesters on both sides of the aisle who cross the line into nastiness, most protesters--on both sides--are decent, law abiding citizens.


The Tea Baggers are threatening to kill Democratic Reps.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Reps on both sides frequently receive threats of death or violence. Goes with the territory of U.S. politics.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

For some:

The Right is never wrong, The Right is always right; Repeat 
The Right is never wrong, The Right is always right;
The Right is never wrong, The Right is always right;
The Right is never wrong, The Right is always right;

Now it's truth  You Betcha!

The Teaparty is just misunderstood they're individuals just caught up in reaction to an intolerable force of the One and only One. It's all his fault 

Teaparty is good Teaparty is decent Teaparty must prevail, The Right is never wrong, The Right is always right. Now it's truth  You Betcha!

Say it long enough and often enough it shall be true. Keep on with this strategy is this the plan


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Big DL, that's just nonsense. The so-called "tea party movement" is just a group of issue driven voters who will flush the Dems and their big ideas out of office. Nothing more.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Why is it the word "delusional" keeps coming to mind when I read some of these posts?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> Why is it the word "delusional" keeps coming to mind when I read some of these posts?


Because the Democrats think they're going to be allowed to make big changes?


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

Wow, I'm really playing catch up on this Tea Party thing. I thought the major issue in America right now was sex addiction.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I don't think they like the term "Tea Baggers," but "Tea Party" isn't correct either because they aren't a political party.

I prefer to call them Ignorant-Americans.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> I don't think they like the term "Tea Baggers," but "Tea Party" isn't correct either because they aren't a political party.
> 
> I prefer to call them Ignorant-Americans.


Ignorant of what? The great strides the country has made in the past two years?


----------



## hbp (Apr 18, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Ignorant of what? The great strides the country has made in the past two years?


Man, it would suck to be you.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Macfury specialises in thread derailments in the cause of anti-Obamaism. It's an autonomic thing with him. He can't help it. 

He doesn't have too much to say about the Tea Party. In his world, these people are merely a useful tool to unseat the Democrats so the Right can get their Frat house back. Then perhaps the 'right' Right will get their hands on the levers of power and bring about his dream world.
While he might not be a pom-pom waving cheerleader for the Tea Party, he's quite content to see them at their wretched mischief.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Big DL, that's just nonsense. The so-called "tea party movement" is just a group of issue driven voters who will flush the Dems and their big ideas out of office. Nothing more.


Along with some moderate and conservative Republicans. They will spit upon, threaten and shout out obscenities to members of both regular parties. They have no issues to replace the ones they want stopped, but it is far easier to tear down than to build up.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

To be fair, in some ways this whole thing is a direct result of the two main parties in the US crushing all attempts to have a legitimate third (or more) party.

The fact that the Teabaggers are hypocritical morons with contradictory positions and racist motivations doesn't enter into that point -- the US would benefit from more political parties. I don't think much of the Teabaggers, but at least some of them (definitely NOT the "leadership," though) are motivated by what they sincerely feel is community spirit, and that's not the worst thing to have going for you.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Chas_m, there is the same sense of 'both parties offering much the same' here in the UK, certainly since the rebirth of the Labour Party as 'New Labour' courtesy of Tony Blair and his cronies. He basically stole the Tory Party's identity and re-branded it with the red rose emblem.

There _is_ a third party here, the Liberal Democrats, but they are not well represented in Parliament.

We are seeing the development of very nasty political groups, such as the English Defence League. It is racist, far right and has a mainly white working class membership. These groups are of course shunned by the mainstream parties, and have grown out of a feeling that said parties no longer represent their interests.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chas_m said:


> The fact that the Teabaggers are hypocritical morons with contradictory positions and racist motivations doesn't enter into that point -- the US would benefit from more political parties.


Well no. This would be like me saying all Democrat party members are morons because of the people ho believed Obama would make sure their gas tanks were filled and that they would no longer be required to pay their mortgages. Or that the Democrat party is hypocritical in claiming they offer meaningful health care reform by forcing Americans to buy health insurance. Or that Jeremiah Wright's racist ramblings represent the views of the Democrat party.

The Tea Party movement will merely ensure that the type of people who are Constitutionalist and believe in free market solutions will defeat those who believe in large governments and larger entitlement programs. 

This may be really frightnening to people who want to sell their freedom for a little security. I really understand it. It's pretty frightening for children to get out on a bicycle for the first time too, but eventually self-reliance gets to be a habit we can all be proud of.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yes that was quite evident when the gentleman went up the the guy with parkinsons disease throwing dollar bills at him yelling he'd pay for him.

A true, constitutionalist him.

OUTRAGE!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I love how the left can focus in on the acts of a few and paint the many with the same ****ty brush. They also have a gift for seeing the splinter in their neigbours eye while ignoring the plank in their own. Yes there are loons on the right but there are just as many on the left. Many of them in the Whitehouse. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's just a little too in your face for you to accept it though, so you need to explain it away as the 'actions of a few'. But the actions depict perfectly the attitudes of the teabaggers. Frame it any way that makes you feel better...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Yes that was quite evident when the gentleman went up the the guy with parkinsons disease throwing dollar bills at him yelling he'd pay for him.
> 
> A true, constitutionalist him.
> 
> OUTRAGE!


If you're the emotional type, you might collect anecdotes, get enraged and bump up your type size. It would be really easy to flip this around and collect skanky anecdotes of Democrats and other left-leaners--but it wouldn't illuminate the issues any more than the one anecdote that outraged you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

groovetube said:


> lol...
> 
> anyway. This blogger Gil smart really nails the teabaggers quite succinctly I think...
> 
> ...


I like his line "vicious selfishness". Seems to distill them down to their essence.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Yes that was quite evident when the gentleman went up the the guy with parkinsons disease throwing dollar bills at him yelling he'd pay for him.
> 
> A true, constitutionalist him.
> 
> OUTRAGE!


Same guy later apologized for his actions, saying he got caught up in everything, and donated money to Parkinson's research.

Man who threw money at Parkinson’s patient calls behavior ‘shameful’ | Columbus Dispatch Politics


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal: People get caught up in all sorts of things that may be regrettable. If we allow the focus to be placed entirely on the few protesters who get face time and not the issues themselves, we do ourselves a great disservice. After stories like that don't usually get much press.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Same guy later apologized for his actions, saying he got caught up in everything, and donated money to Parkinson's research.
> 
> Man who threw money at Parkinson’s patient calls behavior ‘shameful’ | Columbus Dispatch Politics


showing one's true colors in the heat of things can be a b!tch. Realizing after the fact just how damaging showing that attitude really was, that was the least he could do to try and minimize it I guess.

I wonder if he would have done the same had it not been caught on video and displayed publicly. I doubt it...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I like his line "vicious selfishness". Seems to distill them down to their essence.


I thought he nailed these teabaggers quite well in this clip. 

"actions of a few". All except for the fact the few actions truly depicts the attitudes amongst the teabaggers quite well.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I wonder if he would have done the same had it not been caught on video and displayed publicly. I doubt it...


Neither of us have any way of knowing.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Same guy later apologized for his actions, saying he got caught up in everything, and donated money to Parkinson's research.
> 
> Man who threw money at Parkinson’s patient calls behavior ‘shameful’ | Columbus Dispatch Politics


The way it reads to me is that he's backtracking because he's scared. I doubt highly he's 'seen the light'. I think he is just a blowhard who got singled out. The angry mob had moved on to greener pastures.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> The Tea Party movement will merely ensure that the type of people who are Constitutionalist and believe in free market solutions will defeat those who believe in large governments and larger entitlement programs.


Really? I see the 'Tea Party' movement as having the potential to alienate and discredit Conservatives of all stripes. I welcome it with open arms and hope that no one ends up getting hurt in the gutting process.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> Really? I see the 'Tea Party' movement as having the potential to alienate and discredit Conservatives of all stripes. I welcome it with open arms and hope that no one ends up getting hurt in the gutting process.


That would be unfortunate, and a little unlikely: in a similar vein the actions of boneheads who damage property during G8 conventions in the fervour of protesting for example do not colour all lefties.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Really? I see the 'Tea Party' movement as having the potential to alienate and discredit Conservatives of all stripes. I welcome it with open arms and hope that no one ends up getting hurt in the gutting process.


I don't welcome it myself. Seems like dangerous times in America these days. Much more of this stuff and we'll be seeing the kinds of civil unrest and abuses that happened in the 60s. If you think liberals are going to come out of this stuff smelling of roses you're mistaken. This kind of rift damages the body politic and slams the very idea of civil political and social discourse. Too, live, 24/7 coverage of these demos means more and more people 'acting out' for the cameras. That's one area where the internet doesn't actually clarify things,


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I don't welcome it myself. Seems like dangerous times in America these days. Much more of this stuff and we'll be seeing the kinds of civil unrest and abuses that happened in the 60s. If you think liberals are going to come out of this stuff smelling of roses you're mistaken. This kind of rift damages the body politic and slams the very idea of civil political and social discourse. Too, live, 24/7 coverage of these demos means more and more people 'acting out' for the cameras. That's one area where the internet doesn't actually clarify things,


+1 Agreed.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

chasMac said:


> That would be unfortunate, and a little unlikely: in a similar vein the actions of boneheads who damage property during G8 conventions in the fervour of protesting for example do not colour all lefties.


With the exception that the Tea Party has a face:


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> I don't welcome it myself. Seems like dangerous times in America these days. Much more of this stuff and we'll be seeing the kinds of civil unrest and abuses that happened in the 60s. If you think liberals are going to come out of this stuff smelling of roses you're mistaken. This kind of rift damages the body politic and slams the very idea of civil political and social discourse. Too, live, 24/7 coverage of these demos means more and more people 'acting out' for the cameras. That's one area where the internet doesn't actually clarify things,


I never implied that the Liberals were exempt, only that the the Tea Party is not helping chart a course into more fruitful Conservative waters. It's choppy seas out there indeed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

And those opposed to the "ideals" of the Tea Party have targets on the map of the US representing their districts. Yes, "be afraid ............ be very afraid." This is starting to look like the novel "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. We shall see.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It often happens with revolutions that the replacement gubbmint turns out to be more hellacious than the deposed gubbmint. May things cool down a tad so we can take stock of what's actually going on and what regular Americans feel about their nation and its place in the world.

But I don't think that'll happen. This is pure theatre threatening to take over and get in the drivers' seat. If that happens, watch out... you ain't seen nuttin' yet.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> With the exception that the Tea Party has a face:


A picture of Palin?

I still find this more insteresting:



> I see the 'Tea Party' movement as having the potential to alienate and discredit *Conservatives of all stripes*. I welcome it with open arms...


You have no time for a pluralism of ideas? I'd hope even stauch left-wingers would be uncomfortable with your hoped for scenario.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> And those opposed to the "ideals" of the Tea Party have targets on the map of the US representing their districts. Yes, "be afraid ............ be very afraid." This is starting to look like the novel "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis. We shall see.


May Snapple Quaffer look the other way, but I saw the election of the "folksy" Obama as a direct parallel to that book. I may start a topic devoted it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max said:


> It often happens with revolutions that the replacement gubbmint turns out to be more hellacious than the deposed gubbmint. May things cool down a tad so we can take stock of what's actually going on and what regular Americans feel about their nation and its place in the world.
> 
> But I don't think that'll happen. This is pure theatre threatening to take over and get in the drivers' seat. If that happens, watch out... you ain't seen nuttin' yet.


Sad, but all too true, Max. The Tea Party is being fueled by irrational anger against various elements of government and society, and it will be interesting to see what happens in 2012 if the Republican Party nominates someone other than Sarah Palin. I can see her leading a third party in the next presidential election. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> A picture of Palin?


I agree. Palin supports a lot of the Tea Party goals. So what? She's just a former governor of Alaska. It doesn't relate to the issues.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Sad, but all too true, Max. The Tea Party is being fueled by irrational anger against various elements of government...


Why is the anger irrational? They don't like what their government is doing to them and they want to reverse it. Can't they be angry about the direction the government is taking? It's only benign if you agree with it in the first place.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I think it's dangerous for 'either side' to reign supreme, however, it's this pluralism that seems to me, to be the root of this us and them rift, and the cause of boiling over of the crap we're seeing today.

Many ordinary Americans, jumping onto a 'side', not really quite knowing exactly what their side truly stands for. Just a whole lotta catch phrases, and some lofty sounding nationalistic ideals, that really, don't have a lot to do with their sides' real agenda.

I see examples of those people, everyday, in person, and, on, forums.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

chasMac said:


> You have no time for a pluralism of ideas? I'd hope even stauch left-wingers would be uncomfortable with your hoped for scenario.


It's hard to find a 'moderate' these days isn't it? I'm all for the Utopia of a pluralistic society, but sadly, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> it's hard to find a 'moderate' these days isn't it? I'm all for the utopia of a pluralistic society, but sadly, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction.


+1


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> It's hard to find a 'moderate' these days isn't it? I'm all for the Utopia of a pluralistic society, but sadly, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction.


I have nothing really enthusiastic to say about moderates. Just what's left over after people with ideas take a stand. The Poly-Filla between two positions. I take the Biblical view of them:



> *Revelation 3:16*
> So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> It's hard to find a 'moderate' these days isn't it? I'm all for the Utopia of a pluralistic society, but sadly, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction.


A most brief perusal of history will indicate this is simply not true. Even at federal levels of government the trend has been for policies to collect near the centre, no matter that you toil under the banner of Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Labour, etc... Those wishing to be elected are realizing that we are becoming more uniform in our outlook. The impudent nature of the tactics adopted by the tea-partiers are a recognition of this, and smack, ever of so slightly, of desperation (to me anyways).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> It's hard to find a 'moderate' these days isn't it? I'm all for the Utopia of a pluralistic society, but sadly, we appear to be moving in the opposite direction.


Agreed, mrj. I still find it amazing that so much anger is being at a federal government trying to actually help people. Now, I could see those in the Tea Party being angered if the federal government started to cut their social security and Medicare supports. Thus, it is fine for them to receive help from the federal government, but that is where it should end. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I have nothing really enthusiastic to say about moderates. Just what's left over after people with ideas take a stand. The Poly-Filla between two positions. I take the Biblical view of them:


Well the Bible isn't exactly known for it's moderate take on things.

I am in complete disagreement. Being a moderate is a valid position and one that is difficult to maintain given the extremes of various sides. Maintaining a position of balance amidst polarities is honourable and is far from being wishy washy.

To put a different spin on your analogy: The mortar holding the bricks together that stops the wall from crumbling and tumbling down.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I still find it amazing that so much anger is being at a federal government trying to actually help people. Now, I could see those in the Tea Party being angered if the federal government started to cut their social security and Medicare supports.


Because they don't believe the legislation helps people. Because they do not see it as the responsibility of the federal government. Because they don't wish the help the federal government offers. Because they don't wish their free right to choose the services they want to buy to be taken away by the government. Because they do not think their money is being used wisely.

As Thoreau states, the person who depends the least on government has the greatest true liberty. To those who do not value their liberty above "a little security" the idea that the government is "only helping" sounds like a great trade-off.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Well the Bible isn't exactly known for it's moderate take on things.
> 
> I am in complete disagreement. Being a moderate is a valid position and one that is difficult to maintain given the extremes of various sides. Maintaining a position of balance amidst polarities is honourable and is far from being wishy - washy or diluted.
> 
> To put a different spin on your analogy: The mortar holding the bricks together that stops the wall from crumbling and tumbling down.


There's a difference between being a "moderate" and being someone who is passionate about various issues. The moderate is the person whose position is determined by triangulation--someone whose position is defined as halfway between "here" and "there."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Well the Bible isn't exactly known for it's moderate take on things.
> 
> I am in complete disagreement. Being a moderate is a valid position and one that is difficult to maintain given the extremes of various sides. Maintaining a position of balance amidst polarities is honourable and is far from being wishy washy.
> 
> To put a different spin on your analogy: The mortar holding the bricks together that stops the wall from crumbling and tumbling down.


a winner of an analogy screature!


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I see that many of the 'Tea Baggers' don't take advantage of their State funded educational system. It's their freedom of choice!

Teabonics - a set on Flickr


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> There's a difference between being a "moderate" and being someone who is passionate about various issues. The moderate is the person whose position is determined by triangulation--someone whose position is defined as halfway between "here" and "there."


Not necessarily at all. One can be very passionate about their position (which can be/is viewed as moderate) without being extreme in their displays of conviction. 

There is nothing definitive of a moderate position being halfway between here and there at all. It can be a position unto itself regardless of the extremes, i.e. there can be a "third way" that comes about not as a compromise to two extreme positions but via its own internal logic, ethics/morals, that in light of other alternatives is seen as a moderate position but did not come about in reaction to those extremes.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm with screature on this. But then again, moderate stances inevitably annoy those who would are comfortably perched on the ideological fringe... those nasty anti-triangulationists!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Sad, but all too true, Max. The Tea Party is being fueled by irrational anger against various elements of government and society, and it will be interesting to see what happens in 2012 if the Republican Party nominates someone other than Sarah Palin. I can see her leading a third party in the next presidential election. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.


I hope she does, Dr. G. Might help break the eternal deadlock of the two-party system. The ebb and flow of that, historically, gets tiresome. It also might throw a very harsh light on Palin and co.... one which might find them squirming a wee tad.

Too, Palin leading the charge for the teabaggers might also help the Republican cause... drain away some of their more extreme and more rabidly vocal adherents. But then again, moderate republicans must be an endangered species these days. The media beast tends to reward the angrier, more shrill among us... and the public in turn laps it up and goes tsk-tsk... thus completing the circle.

If nothing else, a 3rd party of some substantial size and heft would shake up the established order, would it not?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

or bleed support from a 'competing side'.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

The same thing... shake things up. If a natural third party were to emerge and take hold, that would really be interesting.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I'm with screature on this. But then again, moderate stances inevitably annoy those who would are comfortably perched on the ideological fringe... those nasty anti-triangulationists!


I don't find "moderate stances" annoying. I just don't find them interesting.

I'd like to see a third party, but in almost each case it appears that this is bloody near impossible to manage. Establishing a third party always runs the risk of allowing the party one least supports to win. Ross Perrot bled off enough Republican votes to elect Clinton, for example. The Tea Party movement is trying to work to defeat the most liberal Democrats while electing the most conservative Republicans--a far more workable strategy in the U.S. system.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I see that many of the 'Tea Baggers' don't take advantage of their State funded educational system. It's their freedom of choice!
> 
> Teabonics - a set on Flickr


That's a lie, mrj, and you should be ashamed of yourself in spreading such vicious lies. There is no way anyone in the Tea Party would support state-funded schools, in that education is the main way to spread liberal propaganda and sex education. Keeping the masses just functionally illiterate is the best way to try and hold back the hands of the clock. This is the best way to go back to a better time in the US, where those who were different knew their places, and "the business of America was business". 

So, ignore their spelling and read their message. America is in trouble and this is the one way to save all that is good and holy about America. Heed their words of wisdom (regardless of the spelling), and do what is right ............... all the way right. 

This movement is just gaining momentum, and shall be guided through the darkness by "One Thousand Points of Light" ........... with each "point" a pile of burning books .............. books that contain evil liberal thoughts ............ books with untrue information about creation .................. books that don't contain misspelled words .................................

You have been forewarned, mon ami. Paix.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Lol


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Judging by the tenor of your many previous posts, MF (and allowing for what you might term "a careful reading" of same),I think you _do_ find them annoying, but no matter.

The problem with the tea partiers is that their tactics could have the unfortunate side effect of making American conservatives in general look like a bunch of angry fascist hicks.... whereas if they had their own party, the Republicans and Democrats in turn would have to work a lot harder at defining actual ideas and planks for their respective sides.

Or am I being idealistic again?

I do agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see a move beyond the two-party system any time soon.... it's a pretty entrenched situation with a rich history and tradition.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

This is my favourite one:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. That one looks Photoshopped to me.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Lol


Laugh if you will, gt, but your kind is the first to go to the "re-education camps" that would be set up under a Tea Party Sarah Palin presidency.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Adrian. That one looks Photoshopped to me.


I agree. I am outraged at the vicious lies that liberals like Adrian are placing in the mouths and misspelled signs of Tea Party supporters. He and gt will be the first to be sent to the "re-education camps" should Palin be swept into victory in 2012, guided by the lights of piles of burning books, so that she might restore America, once again, to its role of greatness.

Those liberals kept saying, "America, change it or lose it", and it got Obama elected. 

Well, with Palin and the Tea Party, it shall once again be "America, love or leave it." 

In Solidarity, MF, paix, mon ami. "Death before Dishonor".


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

seems to me the the Tea Party is filled up with Crackers, ....sadly


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Seriously, Dr. G: that one has the earmarks of a Photoshop job.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why is the anger irrational? They don't like what their government is doing to them and they want to reverse it. Can't they be angry about the direction the government is taking? It's only benign if you agree with it in the first place.


It is not just government they are left out of.

My impression is they like many average citizen in the Excited States are left out of the Political Process.

Obama gave many the feeling they would be let in. For the Teabaggers no such feelings. 

Scary to think, You Betcha Palin, could be the leader that collects these loonies for her political capital.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Scary to think, You Betcha Palin, could be the leader that collects these loonies for her political capital.


A Palin presidency could be the result of Obama's excess. If he had governed as a centrist, the Tea Party would have been stillborn. Caveat emptor.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Macfury said:


> A Palin presidency could be the result of Obama's excess. If he had governed as a centrist, the Tea Party would have been stillborn. Caveat emptor.


"Obama presidency could be as a result of Bush's excess. If he had governed as a centrist, the Health Care debate......" A'int opinion grand, never having to rely on facts.  Then again facts are over rated as facts can be used to prove anything.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> A Palin presidency could be the result of Obama's excess. If he had governed as a centrist, the Tea Party would have been stillborn. Caveat emptor.


Right on, brother. America bought a bill of goods from Obama, and is now regretting it. Luckily, there will be the means to peacefully change this travesty with a Palin presidency. If she helps to being in a Tea Party-friendly Congress in 2010, and then again in 2012, the Obama legislation can be taken off the books ............... along with that pesky 22nd Amendment. Then, since she is young enough, she could have an extended presidency, not limited to two terms. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.

"Live free or die"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Seriously, Dr. G: that one has the earmarks of a Photoshop job.


I don't know how to use Photo Shop, so I would not know.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> seems to me the the Tea Party is filled up with Crackers, ....sadly


Another "re-education camp" candidate. If this keeps up, there will have to be a camp just for ehMacLanders. We shall see.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> "Obama presidency could be as a result of Bush's excess. If he had governed as a centrist, the Health Care debate......" A'int opinion grand, never having to rely on facts.  Then again facts are over rated as facts can be used to prove anything.


BigDL, deep thinkers like Macfury will not let facts stand in the way of a valid arguement. "The end justifies the means", and an end to an Obama presidency, through peaceful means, will be the first thing to set America back on the path of prosperity and "right thinking".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> "Obama presidency could be as a result of Bush's excess. If he had governed as a centrist, the Health Care debate......" A'int opinion grand, never having to rely on facts.  Then again facts are over rated as facts can be used to prove anything.


I've already said that. Obama came in on promises of moderation.Those who formerly supported Bush until they saw the full the excess of his spending stayed home in droves to avoid voting for McCain--who promised even more of the same. Only the full realization that Obama intended to outdo both McCain and Bush put together has created the Tea Party movement.

You may disagree with my analysis, but neither of us can disagree with the results of the 2010 mid-terms.

We shall see.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Another "re-education camp" candidate. If this keeps up, there will have to be a camp just for ehMacLanders. We shall see.


Not to quibble but under Palin's Teabaggers would it not be re-edujamaction kamp?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I've already said that. Obama came in on promises of moderation.Those who formerly supported Bush until they saw the full the excess of his spending stayed home in droves to avoid voting for McCain--who promised even more of the same. Only the full realization that Obama intended to outdo both McCain and Bush put together has created the Tea Party movement.
> 
> You may disagree with my analysis, but neither of us can disagree with the results of the 2010 mid-terms.
> 
> We shall see.


You stole my line, Macfury. 

Still, you are correct. The Democrats who supported Obama, and any moderate Republicans or independent free-thinkers are all under the gun to be thrown out of office. Time to restore "power to the people" and return America back over to those who know how to run a country. As for those who don't agree, or who have a differing POV, well .................. there shall be ways of dealing with these sorts of pseudo-Americans.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Not to quibble but under Palin's Teabaggers would it not be re-edujamaction kamp?


Laugh if you will, BigDL ................ and laugh while you can ........... but the day of judgment and reckoning shall soon be upon us all. Bon chance, mon ami.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> ... but the day of judgment and reckoning shall soon be upon us all. Bon chance, mon ami.


Better start picking sides.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

To be fair, it will take some time for ObamaCare to control the people.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

I dunno Macfury, by the looks of that photo stream of Tea Party grammar, I think they need some ObamaLove.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Laugh if you will, BigDL ................ and laugh while you can ........... but the day of judgment and reckoning shall soon be upon us all. Bon chance, mon ami.


You are correct Dr.G. 

My Mother even warned my wife before we were married "the boy just doesn't have the good sense to know when to to stop teasing."


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

chasMac said:


> Better start picking sides.


YouTube - pete seeger which side are you on

YouTube - Solidarity Forever (Pete Seeger)


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> To be fair, it will take some time for ObamaCare to control the people.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably true, but in the end, the people shall overcome the Obamacrats and retake America. Power to the People ........... especially those in the Tea Party, for they know what is best for all of us. Paix, mon ami.

YouTube - Pete Seeger - We shall overcome

YouTube - Barack Obama: We Shall Overcome


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice" ............. and justice for the Tea Party is coming ............ if not today ......... and not tomorrow ........... but someday. And for those who stand in their way ................ well, "the end justifies the means".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

BigDL said:


> You are correct Dr.G.
> 
> My Mother even warned my wife before we were married "the boy just doesn't have the good sense to know when to to stop teasing."


There might be hope for you yet, BigDL. Maybe you can get a note saying that you now support the Tea Party and wish to renounce all of your evil ways, and are ready to rise up to reclaim what is needed in America. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Obama hit the basketball court and talked politics with CBS "Early Show" co-anchor Harry Smith this morning. Smith asked Mr. Obama, who is left-handed, if he can ever go to his right. 

"I can go to my right, but I prefer my left," the president says.

This tells it all. It's the Tea Party ................ or anarchy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> YouTube - pete seeger which side are you on


I have to take my stand stand on the other side of Pete. Sorry, man!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I have to take my stand stand on the other side of Pete. Sorry, man!


You're not standing with the Tea Party??? What are you ......... some sort of commie pinko??? 

If they could get think-tank American Enterprise Institute's David Frum fired as a resident scholar, just think what they could do to you, Macfury. Time to get straight and fly right ..................... or else. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

American politics right about now is starting to remind me of those gigantic Ayn Rand novels I read back when I was young whippersnapper. The characters are either despicable sheep and unruly weasels or sterling visionaries with impeccable credentials.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

The ironic thing about the Tea Baggers is that they are starting to look like defectors of the Weimar Republic in Germany, demanding an uber nationalist, conservative government. I don't want to make huge comparisons like this, but they are f-*-c-k-i-n-g racist SOBs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> The ironic thing about the Tea Baggers is that they are starting to look like defectors of the Weimar Republic in Germany, demanding an uber nationalist, conservative government. I don't want to make huge comparisons like this, but they are f-*-c-k-i-n-g racist SOBs.


What makes them racist, Adrian.?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> If they could get think-tank American Enterprise Institute's David Frum fired as a resident scholar, just think what they could do to you, Macfury.


I would have fired him too, Dr. G. Not over his latest columns, but the fact that he championed George Bush as a conservative President (Bush himself said he wasn't) and John McCain as a strong conservative candidate. Whatever his interests in promoting those two, they were not conservative interests.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> What makes them racist, Adrian.?


They are extremely xenophobic and ultra-nationalist. I am not going to get into the semantics of this with you, because as all arguments with you go with you, we will get nowhere.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OvtyCP6uWJ0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OvtyCP6uWJ0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






No racism at all... right? They are ****ing animals.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> They are extremely xenophobic and ultra-nationalist. I am not going to get into the semantics of this with you, because as all arguments with you go with you, we will get nowhere.


I've seen a few placards from nasty individuals. Beyond that, the uniting feature of the tea Party movement is fiscal conservatism. 

In terms of international policy, they don't want the U.S. to sign treaties that place it in submission to outside powers. They don't want illegal immigrants granted amnesty.

I don't see these policies as racist or xenophobic.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Adrian. said:


> No racism at all... right? They are ****ing animals.


The one of the many ironies is the fact they want people to pass a literacy test before voting. Please see placards in my previous post.

I'd say it's some wishful thinking to support the 'ideology' of The Tea Party. Perhaps that's what the pundits wish them to aspire to but to the rest of us they appear to be an ignorant, racist, unruly mob.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> The one of the many ironies is the fact they want people to pass a literacy test before voting. Please see placards in my previous post.
> 
> I'd say it's some wishful thinking to support the 'ideology' of The Tea Party. Perhaps that's what the pundits wish them to aspire to but to the rest of us they appear to be an ignorant, racist, unruly mob.


I can post lots of placards from protesters on the left as well. Angry, violent, badly spelled. But it doesn't illuminate any issue. It shows that all movements attract emotional types and loose cannons.

However, I do see that some incitements to hatred. Calling a large group of people "****-ing animals" because of a few ugly placards among the others, for example. Marginalizing people as less than human is often the first step toward human rights abuse.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I can post lots of placards from protesters on the left as well. Angry, violent, badly spelled. But it doesn't illuminate any issue. It shows that all movements attract emotional types and loose cannons.
> 
> However, I do see that some incitements to hatred. Calling a large group of people "****-ing animals" because of a few ugly placards among the others, for example. Marginalizing people as less than human is often the first step toward human rights abuse.


Perhaps, in some cases, hatred begets hatred.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Let's not play coy here, they are just not nice people. They are terrible people.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So what's next, Adrian? What do you recommend for these so-called "terrible" people? What justice do you advocate? Jail 'em? Gas 'em? What?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

just get rid of them. No blood or anything.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max said:


> So what's next, Adrian? What do you recommend for these so-called "terrible" people? What justice do you advocate? Jail 'em? Gas 'em? What?


No that breaks the foundations of society and sets a noxious precedent. I didn't say they should be killed, but they should be recognised as abhorrent examples of people.

Everyone knows I am no fan of conservatism, particularly as it has manifested itself in the United States. But even the Republicans are stretching themselves to capture this audience. These people are so far to the extreme, that they are starting to look a lot like National Socialism did in January 1933. You can call it what you want, maybe _National Conservatism_, but very recent history shows the outcomes of such blatant hatred, greed and selfishness rendering itself as a populist movement.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> No that breaks the foundations of society and sets a noxious precedent. I didn't say they should be killed, but they should be recognized as abhorrent examples of people.
> 
> Everyone knows I am no fan of conservatism, particularly as it has manifested itself in the United States. But even the Republicans are stretching themselves to capture this audience. These people are so far to the extreme, that they are starting to look a lot like National Socialism did in January 1933. You can call it what you want, maybe _National Conservatism_, but very recent history shows the outcomes of such blatant hatred, greed and selfishness rendering itself as a populist movement.


Adrian.: I'm surprised you're playing the Nazi card so early on. I can handle this one of two ways. Either I show you why the Tea Party movement _is not_ like the Nazi movement--or show you why the Democrats under Obama _are_. This is all low-hanging fruit, but if you want to play the game--and it _is_ a game--have at it. 

But I want to warn you about the path you're heading down:



> Initially, Hitler's policies simply marginalized the Jews... The Nazi's believed that the Germans were a superior people - stronger, smarter, and superior to other people.


General History: Hitler's rise to power, bateman elementary school, hitler and the nazi party

That's from an elementary school curriculum.

Pointing out spelling errors in conservative placards, or declaring those who hold them to be less intelligent than others seems de rigeur for some. I've seen study after study posted here indicating that those who believe in God, or those with conservative beliefs are less intelligent and less evolved than those who hold other beliefs.

I've seen conservatives and those belonging to a protest movement calling for fiscal conservatism to be called "terrible people," "abhorrent" and "racists."

We need to be careful about marginalizing others to build ourselves up.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The absolutely hilarious part of all this baloney is the same teabaggers who are screaming for fiscal conservatism probably voted in droves for Bush.

Where was the tea bagging during his presidency?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> The absolutely hilarious part of all this baloney is the same teabaggers who are screaming for fiscal conservatism probably voted in droves for Bush.
> 
> Where was the tea bagging during his presidency?


Do you follow U.S. politics fairly closely?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> The absolutely hilarious part of all this baloney is the same teabaggers who are screaming for fiscal conservatism probably voted in droves for Bush.
> 
> Where was the tea bagging during his presidency?


True fiscal conservatives were betrayed by Bush, along, in part, with the Christian right in his party. Bush drove the US into the greatest recession since the Great Depression, and somewhat ignored those who wanted religious right issues brought into the forefront. He chose war in Iraq over those agendas.

Luckily, Obama came to the presidency, just as FDR did back in 1932/33, to help set the economy back on a path of prosperity.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

where were the tea baggers during bush's presidency?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> where were the tea baggers during bush's presidency?


They were busy voting for him and watching him betray their trust. Now, they are taking out their anger on Obama.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

right.

I mean, left.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> where were the tea baggers during bush's presidency?


During the Bush presidency, there was considerable pressure placed on him by conservative voters to cut spending. When it became clear that Bush had no such leanings, conservative voters refused to continue supporting him, leading to a loss of the House in the 2006 mid-terms. The more formal Tea Party movement had its roots during the Bush presidency in initial protest of the first major bank and auto bailouts in 2008, then gained steam as Obama continued the Bush policies--with greater vigour.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Luckily, Obama came to the presidency, just as FDR did back in 1932/33, to help set the economy back on a path of prosperity.


FDR's policies managed to prolong the agony well beyond the normal business cycle--but as a genial fellow, he made those worst affected feel better about what was happening. World War II was his greatest policy achievement, delivering true economic prosperity to all.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> FDR's policies managed to prolong the agony well beyond the normal business cycle--but as a genial fellow, he made those worst affected feel better about what was happening. World War II was his greatest policy achievement, delivering true economic prosperity to all.


Paraphrasing your question to gt ("Do you follow U.S. politics fairly closely?"), do you understand the depth of the Great Depression? Neither of us have experienced that sort of wide-scale panic/suffering, but to say that FDR made the Depression worse is a gross misinterpretation of historical fact.  Granted, the Second World War brought greater employment to the US due to the need for arming Europe, at first, and then bring the US military into the battle, but to say he just made people "feel better, and to blame WW II on him is beyond a misinterpretation of history.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Granted, the Second World War brought greater employment to the US due to the need for arming Europe, at first, and then bring the US military into the battle, but to say he just made people "feel better, and to blame WW II on him is beyond a misinterpretation of history.


I did not say that FDR caused WWII. I said that he could count it as his greatest policy achievement, because his others did not bring prosperity to the country. I used to believe that FDR had saved the country from the Depression, but having looked at the record in recent years, I no longer believe that he did. Some of his welfare programs clearly eased the suffering of those worst affected, but did not lead to any recovery.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Adrian.: I'm surprised you're playing the Nazi card so early on. I can handle this one of two ways. Either I show you why the Tea Party movement _is not_ like the Nazi movement--or show you why the Democrats under Obama _are_. This is all low-hanging fruit, but if you want to play the game--and it _is_ a game--have at it.
> 
> But I want to warn you about the path you're heading down:
> 
> ...


Pulling out elementary school textbooks? What theory is it? When was the book published, in what country and by whom? AJP Taylorian thesis, _Sonderweg_, Fischer Thesis, Martin Kitchen's from UBC, Gehrard Ritter?

Elementary school books are nearly as bad as newspapers. Most textbooks in the late 70s and early 80s said Hitler did all that because his left nut was small, his dad beat him and his right leg was a big shorter! Oh the good gods of psycho-history that was so popular then. 

Briefly: 

Nazis blamed Germany's feebleness during the Weimar Years (compounded by 1929 and hyperinflation) on the SPD _Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands_ and the Liberal party for overthrowing the second reich in 1918 and signing Versailles, particularly for accepting the guilt clause. 

The Tea Baggers blame anything left of the KKK for just about everything that is wrong with the US: legality of abortions in some states, taxes, hospitals, health-care, the economy, not allowing people to own automatic machine guns etc.,

_Lebensraum_ laws and policies did two things: exterminate the Jews, Gypsies, delayed/challenged people etc., under the auspices of the Final Solution and extend Nazi borders to include all "Aryan" peoples. 

Tea Baggers want "all the filthy Mexicans" out of the country, and the "muslim, Kenyan born, Indonesian terrorist/socialist" out of the White House and replaced with a "White Christian". The border extensions isn't an issue because the Americans did all that between 1810-1848, continentally anyway.

For them being such radically economic conservatives, they are sure as hell ultra-national mercantilists:get rid of NAFTA, get the jobs back to the motherland, and so on.

The propaganda is really good too. Have you seen Tom Tancredo and Glenn Beck speak recently? 

It's all just rhetoric until the "Enabling Laws" are drawn up and pushed through by the Dictatorship of the Tea Pot.

Dr. G can take on the narrative of the Dictatorship of the Tea Pot from here!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I did not say that FDR caused WWII. I said that he could count it as his greatest policy achievement, because his others did not bring prosperity to the country. I used to believe that FDR had saved the country from the Depression, but having looked at the record in recent years, I no longer believe that he did. Some of his welfare programs clearly eased the suffering of those worst affected, but did not lead to any recovery.


 If you say that "WWII was his greatest policy achievement", then either the second world war was of his doing, or it was something that happened and he had to prepare/react to these events. I don't see WWII as his "policy". You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr. G can take on the narrative of the Dictatorship of the Tea Pot from here! " I am a bit busy trying to help Macfury understand the realities of history from the Great Depression to WWII, Adrian. So, it is up to you to educate on this point. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> If you say that "WWII was his greatest policy achievement", then either the second world war was of his doing, or it was something that happened and he had to prepare/react to these events. I don't see WWII as his "policy". You can't have it both ways.


WWII was not of his doing, because it predated him. However, the U.S. entry into the war was the policy that created the greatest economic benefit. As an Act of Congress, I am probably inclined to say that it was the greatest economic policy of his presidency, as he could not declare war unilaterally.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Briefly


Excellent attempt, Adrian.! I will get back to you later today.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> WWII was not of his doing, because it predated him. However, the U.S. entry into the war was the policy that created the greatest economic benefit. As an Act of Congress, I am probably inclined to say that it was the greatest economic policy of his presidency, as he could not declare war unilaterally.


WWI predated FDR, WWII came just before his 4th term. He did not use the war as policy. You can't rewrite history. That is like saying that those in London used the German Blitz as an urban renewal project. Stop trying to rewrite history. Go back to bashing those who oppose the Tea Party. There, at least, you have a chance. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Stop trying to rewrite history.


There, in a nutshell, you have it Dr. G. Poor old Macfury is prone to forget which one of his parallel universes he is in at any one time. Or should that be 'times'?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> There, in a nutshell, you have it Dr. G. Poor old Macfury is prone to forget which one of his parallel universes he is in at any one time. Or should that be 'times'?


I could have said "Stop trying to hold back the hands of the clock, for it will rip your arms off", but I like Macfury. We disagree of policy, and, at times, historical facts, but deep down, he is a good person.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> We disagree of policy, and, at times, historical facts, but deep down, he is a good person.


I don't dislike like Macfurious, Dr. G. He has an entertaining, often hilarious, take on matters, and keeps me amused. He likes the attention and showing how slippery he can be in an argument. He is living proof (as if proof were needed) of the true way - Intelligent Design.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> WWI predated FDR, WWII came just before his 4th term. He did not use the war as policy. You can't rewrite history. That is like saying that those in London used the German Blitz as an urban renewal project. Stop trying to rewrite history. Go back to bashing those who oppose the Tea Party. There, at least, you have a chance. Paix, mon ami.


WWII predated the entry of the U.S. into World War II. Therefore FDR did not cause it. It did, however, create prosperity in a way that Roosevelt did not.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Excellent attempt, Adrian.! I will get back to you later today.


MF is going to the library, doo da, doo da, MF is going to the library all day long!

Robarts is open late, you just have to evade the UofT security while you are there.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury, you wrote that "WWII was not of his doing, because it predated him." WWII did NOT predate FDR. WWI predated WWII and WWII began with the German invasion of Poland in 1939. FDR was president then, just as he was president on Dec.7th, 1941. Get your facts straight or take on the wrath of SQ and Adrian.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So let me take it one point at a time:



Adrian. said:


> Briefly:
> 
> Nazis blamed Germany's feebleness during the Weimar Years (compounded by 1929 and hyperinflation) on the SPD _Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands_ and the Liberal party for overthrowing the second reich in 1918 and signing Versailles, particularly for accepting the guilt clause.
> 
> The Tea Baggers blame anything left of the KKK for just about everything that is wrong with the US: legality of abortions in some states, taxes, hospitals, health-care, the economy, not allowing people to own automatic machine guns etc.


So the only parallel you can draw here, between the Nazis and the Tea Party movement is that they believe their political opponents are responsible for the country's problems?



Adrian. said:


> _Lebensraum_ laws and policies did two things: exterminate the Jews, Gypsies, delayed/challenged people etc., under the auspices of the Final Solution and extend Nazi borders to include all "Aryan" peoples.
> 
> Tea Baggers want "all the filthy Mexicans" out of the country, and the "muslim, Kenyan born, Indonesian terrorist/socialist" out of the White House and replaced with a "White Christian".


It doesn't do your argument any good to refer to illegal aliens as "filthy." They are not asking that illegal aliens be deported. They are asking that they not receive government benefits and that they not be given a pardon if they came here illegally.

They are not killing anyone (Gypsies, mentally challenged people). If anything, I believe that they often stand up for the notion that those with Downs Syndrome have a right to be born, and not aborted merely because they might be born mentally challenged.

A very few refer to Obama in the way you suggest, I think socialist is apt and it is on that ground that most of them want him to be elected out of office. Not deposed or overthrown. I suspect that if Obama had been fiscally conservative he would have sealed the re-election of Democrats for years to come.



Adrian. said:


> The border extensions isn't an issue because the Americans did all that between 1810-1848, continentally anyway.


Why not attack Canada then? Your explanation isn't apt.



Adrian. said:


> For them being such radically economic conservatives, they are sure as hell ultra-national mercantilists:get rid of NAFTA, get the jobs back to the motherland, and so on.


Not at all. Have you even read their policies? They favour free trade and decry Obama's _President's 2010 Trade Policy Agenda_.



> The 2010 Trade Agenda is a recipe for economic failure and stagnation. Much of the focus is on enforcing rules to restrict other countries' access to the U.S. market. It's a begger-thy-neighbor approach in which we would sell more to other countries while restricting their ability to sell to us. Such a model is unsustainable...


The movement in fact decries efforts to establish the mercantilist Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which Obama favours. Obama has also attempted to institute "Buy American" policies.

In short, then:

The Tea Party movement is like the Nazi movement because it:
a) It blames the opposition party for the country's problems.
b) Does not want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
c) Wants somebody else elected to the White House--someone who is not a socialist.

and

d) Because some people who carry signs are racist.

However, by your own words, Obama is more like a Nazi because he does not favour free trade, instead preferring mercantilist trade agreements and "Buy American" policies.

Similarly, Obama and the Democrats are more like Nazis in that they support the abortion of those who may be mentally challenged or severely ill at birth.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The war predated the U.S. declaration of War. Are you referring to behind-the-scenes machinations? While many fingers point to FDR engineering the U.S. defeat at Pearl Harbor in order to by-pass his promise to keep the U.S out of foreign wars in which the U.S. was not attacked, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. The Pearl Harbor attack would have occurred regardless of the strength of the response.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The war predated the U.S. declaration of War. Are you referring to behind-the-scenes machinations? While many fingers point to FDR engineering the U.S. defeat at Pearl Harbor in order to by-pass his promise to keep the U.S out of foreign wars in which the U.S. was not attacked, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. The Pearl Harbor attack would have occurred regardless of the strength of the response.


Macfury, for the last time, YOU wrote "WWII was not of his doing, because it predated him." You said that the Second World War predated FDR's presidency, and I keep telling you to check out the history books. FDR was elected president on Nov. 8th, 1932 and took office on March 4, 1933. The start of the Second World War is generally held to be September 1st, 1939 beginning with the German invasion of Poland; Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The war predated the U.S. declaration of War. Are you referring to behind-the-scenes machinations? While many fingers point to FDR engineering the U.S. defeat at Pearl Harbor in order to by-pass his promise to keep the U.S out of foreign wars in which the U.S. was not attacked, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here. The Pearl Harbor attack would have occurred regardless of the strength of the response.


Now you are bringing "fingers" out of the closet saying that FDR was "engineering the U.S. defeat at Pearl Harbor ...."???????? I am glad that at least you are "willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here". You really need to go back and think about some of the things you write. All these "fingers" do is to deflect the fact that you made an error in what you said. Why not just say you made a mistake, and move on??? That would end it and all will be laid to rest. Better than this tiresome back and forth. :yawn:

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> During the Bush presidency, there was considerable pressure placed on him by conservative voters to cut spending. When it became clear that Bush had no such leanings, conservative voters refused to continue supporting him, leading to a loss of the House in the 2006 mid-terms. The more formal Tea Party movement had its roots during the Bush presidency in initial protest of the first major bank and auto bailouts in 2008, then gained steam as Obama continued the Bush policies--with greater vigour.


you truly, are gullible.

Do you follow US politics much?

If you really think that congress was lost to the democrats because the 'fiscal conservatives' thought the democrats better, you're delusional.

Macfury somehow, believes there's this magical kingdom of fiscally responsible people, which apparently are the tea baggers we're led to believe...

Somehow, they're never really accountable in the real world, because they are this mythical group, that seems not to ever be in power really, and only exist, in... theory.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Now you are bringing "fingers" out of the closet saying that FDR was "engineering the U.S. defeat at Pearl Harbor ...."???????? I am glad that at least you are "willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here". You really need to go back and think about some of the things you write. All these "fingers" do is to deflect the fact that you made an error in what you said. Why not just say you made a mistake, and move on??? That would end it and all will be laid to rest. Better than this tiresome back and forth. :yawn:
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


macfury deflect? 

Naaaaawwww.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> Now you are bringing "fingers" out of the closet saying that FDR was "engineering the U.S. defeat at Pearl Harbor ...."???????? I am glad that at least you are "willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here". You really need to go back and think about some of the things you write. All these "fingers" do is to deflect the fact that you made an error in what you said. Why not just say you made a mistake, and move on??? That would end it and all will be laid to rest. Better than this tiresome back and forth. :yawn:
> 
> Paix, mon ami.



As a matter of fact, Dr. G. I will admit that the beginning of WWII did not predate the birth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, nor his first term of office as President of the United States. I believe I owe you this much. While the form of the sentence may have indicated something to the contrary, that was not my intention. This correction is unequivocal and not subject to later adjustment or amendment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> If you really think that congress was lost to the democrats because the 'fiscal conservatives' thought the democrats better, you're delusional.


No, it was because because they refused to support the candidates they had once supported, not because they suddenly decided to vote for Democrats.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> No, it was because because they refused to support the candidates they had once supported, not because they suddenly decided to vote for Democrats.


I see and this is why the democrats took over.

Let me see if I have this logic straight. Don't support your candidate, so that a democrat, who is apparently worse, gets elected.

Check.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I see and this is why the democrats took over.
> 
> Let me see if I have this logic straight. Don't support your candidate, so that a democrat, who is apparently worse, gets elected.
> 
> Check.


Bush was elected by a slim majority because of a heavy voter drive program. Voter apathy among a small segment of Republicans allowed Dems to regain control of the House.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

When you guys are finished debating the past and vying to supply your own special alt-histories (and, not coincidentally, positing who's allegedly to blame for the present mess), please let me know so I can tune back in - cheers.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> When you guys are finished debating the past and vying to supply your own special alt-histories (and, not coincidentally, positing who's allegedly to blame for the present mess), please let me know so I can tune back in - cheers.


That's a paid service, Max. Check my PayPal account for fee schedule.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Now you are bringing "fingers" out of the closet saying that FDR was "engineering the U.S. defeat at Pearl Harbor ...."???????? I am glad that at least you are "willing to give him the benefit of the doubt here". You really need to go back and think about some of the things you write. All these "fingers" do is to deflect the fact that you made an error in what you said. Why not just say you made a mistake, and move on??? That would end it and all will be laid to rest. Better than this tiresome back and forth. :yawn:
> 
> Paix, mon ami.


Dr. G, you have been Macfuried. The man is Gordian Knot meets the Möbius Strip, in eleven dimensions. Once he has written, he cannot go back. As he ties himself in ever more complicated contortions, black becomes white and up becomes down.

Do not follow him there, rather let him spiral in upon himself. He will be reborn in another thread, de-railing tools in hand.

I told you he was good fun.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Bush was elected by a slim majority because of a heavy voter drive program. Voter apathy among a small segment of Republicans allowed Dems to regain control of the House.


hilarious post.

Get macfury yapping, and you never know what gems might appear.

So there you have it folks. The only way, the democrats could ever be elected and have any control of the house, is if that... small segment of republicans say it's ok.
:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> hilarious post.
> 
> Get macfury yapping, and you never know what gems might appear.
> 
> ...


Of course not. This is the danger of rushing to conclusions GT. It was true of the Obama election, but not true of the second Clinton election.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Max, I'm not spewing alt-history. I positioned myself with the debate to some extent by identifying other contesting theories on Nazi rise to power. MF sources elementary school books...

Anyway,

Here is a good article about the Tea Pots from the NY Times:

With No Jobs, Plenty of Time for Tea Party - NYTimes.com

Has a couple interesting points:

1) the irony that because most of the Tea Pots are unemployed they are relying on government welfare right now to afford them the time to fight against it. <-- oh that's going to be a hot tamale! 

2) As the economy recovers, the Tea Pots will probably go back to being quiet idiots instead of loud ones.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Of course not. This is the danger of rushing to conclusions GT. It was true of the Obama election, but not true of the second Clinton election.


I didn't rush to any conclusion macfury, I just echoed what you said.


> Voter apathy among a small segment of Republicans *allowed* Dems to regain control of the House.


Really eh...

Now I guess we can witness pages of you backtracking, 'oh I never said that' (even though it's right there...) derailing, just like you do with everyone else.

how about pass. I'll just laugh for now thanks.
LOL.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Groove, I'm of the opinion that, in these threads especially, everyone is doing alt-history - you being no exception. Not attempting to single you out - in fact, I was thinking of our intrepid MacFury and his insistent re-reading of the past. But I've said before that history invariably seems to be a matter of conjecture, context and whose side is telling the story... and to whom! Lots of variables there. Yes, there are facts, but it's what we make of them that slants everything. And then, just to muddy up the waters further still, there are lots of disputed facts. Happy happy, joy joy!

No one has a lock on the truth in here. This is a bloody chat forum! It's all up for grabs.

Finally: everything I've told you is a lie.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Groove, I'm of the opinion that, in these threads especially, everyone is doing alt-history - you being no exception. Not attempting to single you out - in fact, I was thinking of our intrepid MacFury and his insistent re-reading of the past. But I've said before that history invariably seems to be a matter of conjecture, context and whose side is telling the story... and to whom! Lots of variables there. Yes, there are facts, but it's what we make of them that slants everything. And then, just to muddy up the waters further still, there are lots of disputed facts. Happy happy, joy joy!
> 
> No one has a lock on the truth in here. This is a bloody chat forum! It's all up for grabs.
> 
> Finally: everything I've told you is a lie.


I think, you are being, very kind Max. Very, diplomatic of you. 

But similar results tells a different story thread after thread.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

OK, have it your way Groove. Nothing I can do about it anyway. Nothing you can do to change MF's mind, for that matter. No way he can change yours. 'tis a mighty wind, after all.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> OK, have it your way Groove. Nothing I can do about it anyway. Nothing you can do to change MF's mind, for that matter. No way he can change yours. 'tis a mighty wind, after all.



It's all about the narrative, and what makes personal sense. I enjoy sharing mine!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> OK, have it your way Groove. Nothing I can do about it anyway. Nothing you can do to change MF's mind, for that matter. No way he can change yours. 'tis a mighty wind, after all.


I don't think I've ever thought I'd change his mind Max. :lmao:


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> As a matter of fact, Dr. G. I will admit that the beginning of WWII did not predate the birth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, nor his first term of office as President of the United States. I believe I owe you this much. While the form of the sentence may have indicated something to the contrary, that was not my intention. This correction is unequivocal and not subject to later adjustment or amendment.


You said that the Second World War predated FDR's presidency, (there was no mention of his birth) and I kept telling you to check out the history books. FDR was elected president on Nov. 8th, 1932 and took office on March 4, 1933. The start of the Second World War is generally held to be September 1st, 1939 beginning with the German invasion of Poland; Britain and France declared war on Germany two days later. Thus, FDR was president of the US, and in his third term, when the outbreak of the war took place in Europe. 

"While the form of the sentence may have indicated something to the contrary, that was not my intention. This correction is unequivocal and not subject to later adjustment or amendment." Great. End of debate on this historical matter. We are in agreement.

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> Dr. G, you have been Macfuried. The man is Gordian Knot meets the Möbius Strip, in eleven dimensions. Once he has written, he cannot go back. As he ties himself in ever more complicated contortions, black becomes white and up becomes down.
> 
> Do not follow him there, rather let him spiral in upon himself. He will be reborn in another thread, de-railing tools in hand.
> 
> I told you he was good fun.


All is clarified now, SQ. So, end of this segment of the debate. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I don't think I've ever thought I'd change his mind Max. :lmao:


One of the reasons I've become a regular participant here is because some people _have_ changed my mind on certain issues.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Same here. Once in awhile it happens! Whodathunkit.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

The only time any of you would change my mind, is if you're the one buying the beer.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> One of the reasons I've become a regular participant here is because some people _have_ changed my mind on certain issues.





groovetube said:


> I don't think _I've ever thought_ I'd change his mind Max. :lmao:


that's just peachy macfury. However.

One of the first things you need to do macfury, is learn to read someone's post. It might be the first step to reaching that nirvana, of, changing your mind.

To recap, what I posted, I couldn't give a rats arse if you do.



Max said:


> Same here. Once in awhile it happens! Whodathunkit.


well Max, one could actually have a 2 way conversation with you. I'da thunk it!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> that's just peachy macfury. However.
> 
> One of the first things you need to do macfury, is learn to read someone's post. It might be the first step to reaching that nirvana, of, changing your mind.


If the post is cogently expressed and the poster reads the response, we have what I like to call "communication."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and it appears you've proven that theory with a few other posters here too I see.
:clap:


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> If the post is cogently expressed and the poster reads the response, we have what I like to call "communication."






+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Kps, I am glad that occasionally someone posts something that knocks me off of my habitual perch and makes me think along different lines. But if I have to buy you a beer in order for you to see it my way, so be it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> ...


Adrian., you still need to adderss your rather weak parallels between the German National Socialist Party and the Tea Party movement.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> But if I have to buy you a beer in order for you to see it my way, so be it.


I think we're due...

I like the Mfury, he puts an interesting and sometimes very different spin on things.


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I like the Mfury, he puts an interesting and sometimes very different spin on things.


"sometimes" 

" ... a different spin ... " 

Really? That's a whole new take on the MF phenomenon!


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Adrian., you still need to adderss your rather weak parallels between the German National Socialist Party and the Tea Party movement.


Dude, you cited an elementary school textbook. I don't have to respond to anything you say anymore about comparative analyses between National Socialism and the Tea Pots.

You're all about these huge discreditations of peoples arguments, while you are citing books that 11 year olds are drawing penises on. 

Start with David Welch, he does a really good job of Nazi propaganda.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Snapple Quaffer said:


> "sometimes"
> 
> " ... a different spin ... "
> 
> Really? That's a whole new take on the MF phenomenon!


as I said several times before, if it would only try to have a conversation, it would be a whole other matter.

But after the BS it pulled in the other thread, I've taken to just poking fun, it's really all you can do. Draw out a few gems, laugh at it, don't bother actually trying to address it in any real meaningful way, or you'll get as you say, "macfuried". I call it the merry-go-round.

I don't know how anyone could see such a slippery dodge of a position as anything remotely near a... "different spin"...
lol.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Dude, you cited an elementary school textbook. I don't have to respond to anything you say anymore about comparative analyses between National Socialism and the Tea Pots.
> 
> You're all about these huge discreditations of peoples arguments, while you are citing books that 11 year olds are drawing penises on.
> 
> Start with David Welch, he does a really good job of Nazi propaganda.


Why don't we start with YOU, since you were the one who claimed he could draw great parallels between the Tea Party Movement and the German Nazi movement. Of course you don't have to respond to anything I say. You could just leave your argument exactly where you dropped it and withdrew, earlier on in the thread--although I wouldn't be happy with that if I were you. To recount your theory:



> The Tea Party movement is like the Nazi movement because it:
> a) It blames the opposition party for the country's problems.
> b) Does not want to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.
> c) Wants somebody else elected to the White House--someone who is not a socialist.
> ...


Are you going to illuminate this any further, or talk about drawing penises on textbooks?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

To everything.... turn, turn, turn...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I call it the merry-go-round.


Was that the one where SINC caught you trying to escape the scene on a merry-go-round because you were afraid to answer a direct question? Yes, I believe it was.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

priceless.

Oh yes Macfurby that's exactly what happened.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> Pulling out elementary school textbooks? What theory is it? When was the book published, in what country and by whom? AJP Taylorian thesis, _Sonderweg_, Fischer Thesis, Martin Kitchen's from UBC, Gehrard Ritter?
> 
> Elementary school books are nearly as bad as newspapers. Most textbooks in the late 70s and early 80s said Hitler did all that because his left nut was small, his dad beat him and his right leg was a big shorter! Oh the good gods of psycho-history that was so popular then.
> 
> ...


No, this is what I said. I stand by this.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> No, this is what I said. I stand by this.


Unassailable? Undiscussable? Thanks, Adrian. I think the Tea Party movement is safe from your fierce intellectual blows.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL

And so it continues. The mighty forum giants, hurling gold-plated shibboleths against one another, for yet another day.

[Had to work that crazy word "shibboleth" in there... it's just good timing.]


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Well, you had me right-clicking on the dictionary with that one...lol


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

My work here is done, then!

Sometimes threads like these remind me of a bunch of dented pots and kettles sitting jammed together.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Your work here is never done...you should know that by now. lol


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> LOL
> 
> And so it continues. The mighty forum giants, hurling gold-plated shibboleths against one another, for yet another day.


You got a speech impediment or something?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No. Why do you ashk?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> No. Why do you ashk?


No reason really. Hey! Would you look at this sword!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Lol


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> My work here is done, then!
> 
> Sometimes threads like these remind me of a bunch of dented pots and kettles sitting jammed together.


you've joined the fray it seems!


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Unassailable? Undiscussable? Thanks, Adrian. I think the Tea Party movement is safe from your fierce intellectual blows.


I hope you returned that history book to the elementary school.

Tut, tut.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Groove: some days I'm a kettle. Some days I'm a pot. Sometimes I feel black and will defend that feeling to the other kettles and pots. Other days people call me black and it's an outrage! Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> I hope you returned that history book to the elementary school.


The essence of such a jab would have required me to pretend it did not come from an elementary school. If I were you, I would stop pointing out the fact that you were corrected by an Elementary School text.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Seems to me that anyone who can relate and see value and merit with the actions of the leadership and sheeple of the Tea Potty must be a wee bit themselves.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> Seems to me that anyone who can relate and see value and merit with the actions of the leadership and sheeple of the Tea Potty must be a wee bit themselves.


It would be just as easy for me to say that those who fear the Tea Party movement are timid "sheeple" who prefer to give up their freedom for a little security. 

Your comment has no intellectual merit.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

who 'fears' the tea baggers?

laugh at them? Sure.

See them as hypocritical idiots? Absolutely. But fear? Bah ha ha ha.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> who 'fears' the tea baggers?
> 
> laugh at them? Sure..... Bah ha ha ha.


GT, it would probably startle people if you responded to this topic in any way differently than you respond to others on EhMac:



groovetube said:


> LOL!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

like who macfury?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> like who macfury?


Do you want to know a list of people who are _like_ the people who might be startled, or their actual screen names?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> like who macfury?


Like me.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> The essence of such a jab would have required me to pretend it did not come from an elementary school. If I were you, I would stop pointing out the fact that you were corrected by an Elementary School text.


Such a comment underlines the fact that you know anywhere from absolutely nothing to very little about the study of history, or the transmission of knowledge. 

The only thing a history book can certainly prove is the pedagogical perspective of the author, the location of production and the time of authorship. That is about it. 

Read about it: 

Texas Conservatives Win Vote on Textbook Standards - NYTimes.com

Letters - The Battle Over Textbooks in Texas - NYTimes.com

What Values Are Apparent in Your School Textbooks? - The Learning Network Blog - NYTimes.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Such a comment underlines the fact that you know anywhere from absolutely nothing to very little about the study of history, or the transmission of knowledge.
> 
> The only thing a history book can certainly prove is the pedagogical perspective of the author, the location of production and the time of authorship. That is about it.


So therefore your effort to compare the Tea Party to the German National Socialists was also a "pedagogical perspective of the author, the location of production and the time of authorship" and therefore meaningless? 

And why did you even try to bolster your argument with oblique references to Gerard Richter or Martin Kitchen, since you've just invalidated them in the same fell swoop as well?

I wish you had stated your view of history before you made an attempt at debate. Your dadaist view of history defies all rational discourse, then, and shows that you know absolutely nothing to very little about either debate or logic.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MF: The thing is Adrian. knows about the New York Times and believes every word they print. Risky business at best for an educated man.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So are you saying that Obama is like a Nazi?


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

CubaMark said:


>





Macfury said:


> So are you saying that Obama is like a Nazi?


Or are you saying it is the Tea Potty?


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

SINC, all the other national news outlets covered the same thing. NY Times was handy. Terrible assumption to make.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

According to Gallup: "Tea Partiers are Fairly Mainstream in their Demographics."



> Tea Party supporters skew right politically; but demographically, they are generally representative of the public at large. That's the finding of a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted March 26-28, in which 28% of U.S. adults call themselves supporters of the Tea Party movement.


While primarily Republican (49%) , 43% call themselve independent and 8% are Democrats:

Tea Partiers Are Fairly Mainstream in Their Demographics


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> SINC, all the other national news outlets covered the same thing. NY Times was handy. Terrible assumption to make.


That's hilarious! By the way, have you worked up enough nerve to respond to my arguments with your Nazi/Tea Party analogy yet, or are you going to keep posting your university reading list as a response?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

only 28%?

well...

I'll see your google link, and raise you 36% for socialism.
Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> SINC, all the other national news outlets covered the same thing. NY Times was handy. Terrible assumption to make.


I made no assumptions, I based an opinion on a post that touted a single source.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

and let that be a lesson to any smartarse who EVER posts only one link/source.

Sinc, is on it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> and let that be a lesson to any smartarse who EVER posts only one link/source.
> 
> Sinc, is on it.


And gt is off it.

He posted 1 - 2 - 3 links. Go back and count 'em.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

can't fool sinc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> I'll see your google link, and raise you 36% for socialism.


Well, they got it! And it's working great so far!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

they got what? And when does what work?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Yes, but you have to ascertain the quality of the links and their respective Google placement in the overall scheme of things. Otherwise...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Yes, but you have to ascertain the quality of the links and their respective Google placement in the overall scheme of things. Otherwise...


.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Yes, but you have to ascertain the quality of the links and their respective Google placement in the overall scheme of things. Otherwise...


yes google warz is serious bizness. You certainly got the thumbs up from one of them.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

To-may-to...To-mah-toe.

We could use a little tax revolt in this country.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> To-may-to...To-mah-toe.
> 
> We could use a little tax revolt in this country.


Agreed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

sure. What's a little tax revolt in between some googlin' whilst eating a to-MAY-toe sandwich?

go nuts!

The tea baggers are the mainstream! Oh wait, or is it the communists are mainstream. Hmmm. Confused.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Confused.



.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

enlighten us macfury.

First it was the tea baggers that was, mainstream.

Then, we had, socialism.

Perhaps you can clear this all up for us confused folk.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> enlighten us macfury.
> 
> First it was the tea baggers that was, mainstream.
> 
> ...


Why are you talking about which is mainstream? That isn't of much interest to me. No wonder you're confused. Google it yourself.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Why are you talking about which is mainstream? That isn't of much interest to me. No wonder you're confused. Google it yourself.





Macfury said:


> According to Gallup: "Tea Partiers are Fairly Mainstream in their Demographics."


hah yea I guess not.

well that's what I thought.
LOL


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> hah yea I guess not.
> 
> well that's what I thought.
> LOL


That was the title of the article. I was pointing out the composition of the adherents:



> While primarily Republican (49%) , 43% call themselves independent and 8% are Democrats:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

composition, which was concluded to be mainstream.

What is this, romper room?

Macfuried again. If you ever answered a question straight on, you surprise a lot of people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> composition, which was concluded to be mainstream.


No, the poll shows that they are mainstream in every respect except political party adherence. If you read the polling link you would know that. Again, I was pointing out that the Tea Party movement has many adherents who are independents and a sizable contingent of Democrats.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

unless there is the "mainstream party" you're just being our silly macfury again.

Try again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> unless there is the "mainstream party" you're just being our silly macfury again.
> 
> Try again.


You're not making any sense. That's just a word salad. SINC, help this boy out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Of course it doesn't make sense to you macfury. Of course!

Conversation in any meaningful way is impossible with you.

If sinc is your backup god help you.

macfuried as always!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

The way you guys (mf and gt) go at it, If I didn't know better I would swear you were a couple of teenagers in love. Get a room...  :lmao:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Been thinking the same thing for a few days now, thanks to this one purple thread. Glad I'm not the one who pointed it out! Thank you, screature.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature is likely patting himself on the back for being so witty.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> screature is likely patting himself on the back for being so witty.


I would but I'm not that flexible any more. Need to take up yoga...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yogas for treehuggers anyway.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I would but I'm not that flexible any more. Need to take up yoga...


Now you're playin' with groove!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

now you've made the macfury jealous! He's gonna cry for sinc again.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Again, I was pointing out that the Tea Party movement has many adherents who are independents and a sizable contingent of Democrats.


MacFury is right. "Mainstream" in the US means right-wing, religious (i.e. anti-science and more precisely anti-evolution), patriotic and afraid of any new idea. You'll find that this definition fits many Democrats especially in the South.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

macfury apparently changed his tune mid step. He wasn't talking about the tea baggers being mainstream at all. Just their makeup.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Gilles said:


> "Mainstream" in the US means right-wing, religious (i.e. anti-science and more precisely anti-evolution), patriotic and afraid of any new idea. You'll find that this definition fits many Democrats especially in the South.


Seems like a massive generalization.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a generalization, only if it doesn't suit you.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Then, there is that massive group of "independents" who make up a huge portion of Tea Party members. These were supposedly the ones that skewed left.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you can paint them with any direction you want. Their message is still the same.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you can paint them with any direction you want. Their message is still the same.


The part I like is where they say they'll kick Obama's ass in the mid-term elections.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

groovetube said:


> a generalization, only if it doesn't suit you.


What does "suit" have to do with it? You or I or anyone should be contentedly smug that the bulk of Americans, "the mainstream", are intolerant hill-billies as the poster indicated?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

chasMac said:


> What does "suit" have to do with it? You or I or anyone should be contentedly smug that the bulk of Americans, "the mainstream", are intolerant hill-billies as the poster indicated?


well that's -one- way to look at it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

An interesting article with a unique perspective.

5 presidents more 'radical' than Obama - CNN.com


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G:

I have a question for you, based on this paragraph in the article:



> More broadly, we've grown almost accustomed to these overheated attacks on the presidency. Obama Derangement Syndrome on the right -- of which Gingrich's claim was a mild example -- was preceded by Bush Derangement Syndrome on the left, with protestors comparing W. to a Nazi and a terrorist.


Did you ever step up to the plate and defend "W" when it was claimed here on EhMac that he was a Nazi and a terrorist 

(No, I haven't checked the EhMac records--I'm just curious).


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Dr. G:
> 
> I have a question for you, based on this paragraph in the article:
> 
> ...


I would not use the word "Nazi" in describing anyone other than those who were a member of the Nazi party in Germany. Being Jewish, and having lost one side of my family in the Holocaust, I don't throw around that term lightly. Thus, while I did not support Bush in any manner, I would never call him a Nazi. 

I just found the listing of the five "more radical" presidents interesting. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I recall a few comparisons to some of the things the nazis did, or said. But I don't recall too many statements saying W -was- a nazi.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

chasMac said:


> Seems like a massive generalization.


It may seem so, but read this recent Pew Research *survey* of what Americans think.


----------



## ScanMan (Sep 11, 2007)

^^Thanks, good article.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Gilles said:


> It may seem so, but read this recent Pew Research *survey* of what Americans think.



A healthy distrust of the government as detailed in the posted article is hardly proof of this:




> "Mainstream" in the US means right-wing, religious (i.e. anti-science and more precisely anti-evolution), patriotic and afraid of any new idea. You'll find that this definition fits many Democrats especially in the South.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^^^^^^

Agreed. "Angry over bad ideas" is not the same as "Afraid of new ideas."


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Agreed. "Angry over bad ideas" is not the same as "Afraid of new ideas."


Not only that. Nowhere does the article appear to address, let alone _support_ the poster's original assertion: "...religious (i.e. anti-science and more precisely anti-evolution)..." Rather, it highlights a growing disgust with government intervention.

I can only conclude that it is a leap made in the poster's mind: that if you are vehemently anti-government, you _must_ be anti-science, etc.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I agree. There's this notion that somehow a faith in big government is somehow a hallmark of enlightenment. pretty funny to hear the libs in the U.S. now claiming that the Tea Party movement is "seditious" because it is anti-government. It's clearly that group who doesn't understand the foundations and nature of American freedom--and it isn't "Be happy with what government gives you."


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

if I saw the tea parties screeching during the Bush years, then perhaps I could see as somewhat valid. Where were they when the neo cons pretty much took out the US economy?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> if I saw the tea parties screeching during the Bush years, then perhaps I could see as somewhat valid. Where were they when the neo cons pretty much took out the US economy?


They're not protesting the mishandling of the economy. Any attempt to "handle" it results in disaster. 

They are protesting a growth in the scope of government.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

they're not protesting the mishandling of the economy? They're ok with that part then. Or, simply mute when the republicans were in. But holy lord defile a duck a democrat, fire up the megaphones!

Well, thanks for answering my question.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> they're not protesting the mishandling of the economy? They're ok with that part then. Or, simply mute when the republicans were in. But holy lord defile a duck a democrat, fire up the megaphones!
> 
> Well, thanks for answering my question.


Of course they're not happy with Obama's economic policies--who could be? However, they're focused on reducing the scope of government. That in itself will improve the economy.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> they're not protesting the mishandling of the economy? They're ok with that part then. Or, simply mute when the republicans were in. But holy lord defile a duck a democrat, fire up the megaphones!
> 
> Well, thanks for answering my question.


You are way off base, gt. "The business of America is business". YouTube - For Years

Listen to the wisdom of Macfury since he is right ..... as he always is. Why won't you listen to reason for once in your life and just accept the fact that he is right and you are wrong. Your life would be so much simplier if you only accepted this simple fact. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Of course they're not happy with Obama's economic policies--who could be? However, they're focused on reducing the scope of government. That in itself will improve the economy.


Once again, VERY true. Cut all Social Security and Medicare payments (except for those card carrying members of the Tea Party), greatly reduce regulations on food safety, scrap the clean air and water laws, vastly reduce corportate taxes, eliminate wasteful programs like Food Stamps, etc, etc, etc. Business will create great wealth that will trickle down to the common person, and everyone will be proserous and happy. Sounds like a working plan to me, Macfury. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Of course they're not happy with Obama's economic policies--who could be? However, they're focused on reducing the scope of government. That in itself will improve the economy.


God dang friggin right! Reducing the government everywhere and anywhere will ALWAYS improve the economy! Always!!!!!!! Remember that, it is important: always!!! Absolutely always! No two ways about!!!

Yeeeeeeeee, hawwwwwwwww! Where's those Lehmann Brothers when I need to invest some money! God digggity, where's Long Term Capital Management when I need them!? God damn government regulation!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> You are way off base, gt. "The business of America is business". YouTube - For Years
> 
> Listen to the wisdom of Macfury since he is right ..... as he always is. Why won't you listen to reason for once in your life and just accept the fact that he is right and you are wrong. Your life would be so much simplier if you only accepted this simple fact. Paix, mon ami.


I never learn do I.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Adrian. said:


> Yeeeeeeeee, hawwwwwwwww! Where's those Lehmann Brothers when I need to invest some money! God digggity, where's Long Term Capital Management when I need them!? God damn government regulation!


It's clear, even in your attempts at humour, how dependent on government you are Adrian. You want government to protect you from making bad investments. That's impossible.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

She wears the mantle of the Tea Party well...

*Hegemoron*
*Sarah Palin's ignorant imperialism.*



> Sarah Palin thinks Barack Obama is a wimp. She's been going around to Tea Party rallies, invoking the spirit of revolutionary Boston and castigating Obama for failing to exalt American power and punish our adversaries. She seems blissfully unaware that the imperial arrogance she's preaching isn't how the American founders behaved. It's how the British behaved, and why they lost. Palin represents everything the original Tea Party was against.


(Slate.com)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Obama may be a wimp, but the Tea Party movement has little to say about international relations and much to say about domestic affairs. 

Sarah Palin's speech is just that--a stump speech made at a Tea Party rally, not a policy statement by Tea Party activists.

William Saletan's attempt to draw parallels to the original Tea Party--which involved Tea, not the acronym for "Taxed Enough Already"--isn't really apt at all. It fails further by making Palin and her presidential aspirations his focus, since the Tea Party movement hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate at all.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well then the tea party movement should publically distance themselves from her.

oh but wait... they won't.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> well then the tea party movement should publically distance themselves from her.


If she supports the Tea Party movement's goals, and helps draw crowds, why should they distance themselves from her?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> I never learn do I.


No, and it time you start thinking the right way ....... before it is too late. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Adrian. said:


> God dang friggin right! Reducing the government everywhere and anywhere will ALWAYS improve the economy! Always!!!!!!! Remember that, it is important: always!!! Absolutely always! No two ways about!!!
> 
> Yeeeeeeeee, hawwwwwwwww! Where's those Lehmann Brothers when I need to invest some money! God digggity, where's Long Term Capital Management when I need them!? God damn government regulation!


Try Goldman Sachs instead. Go where the real money is being made.

CBC News - Money - Goldman Sachs Q1 profit doubles


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


>


zing...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macfury said:


> If she supports the Tea Party movement's goals, and helps draw crowds, why should they distance themselves from her?


I agree. "Birds of a feather ......" as the old saying goes. Anyone can stand up for reason, principle, justice ............ but it takes a true patriot to stand up again the king. "Give me liberty, or give me death."

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Where is Barry Goldwater when we need him???


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Sonal said:


>


That fish is a dumbass, but I sympathize with the dog, and the cat to a degree.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Nice, Sonal, Nice!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chasMac said:


> That fish is a dumbass, but I sympathize with the dog, and the cat to a degree.


I'd agree. Though I don't even quite get the dog--why would a libertarian dog not want to work for his food? He sounds more like a welfare case than a libertarian. 

The libertarian fish would be most likely pissed off only if the filter cost twice what it did on the open market--and he were paying for it, typical of real life government construction contracts.

I'm good with the suck-up cat.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well it didn't say the dog didn't work.... just he felt he didn't need to fetch the newspaper.

And it isn't surprising you missed the irony of the cat. Not surprising at all.:clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> And it isn't surprising you missed the irony of the cat. Not surprising at all.


What's ironic about the cat? He's sucking up to the humans so that he can stay there.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Where you got that, is beyond me. Perhaps there's another text bubble there I missed...


Yes Macfury, you indeed, are that cat. Let''s leave it at that.:baby:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Yes Macfury, you indeed, are that cat. Let''s leave it at that.:baby:


Check your avatar.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*a new avatar for MF*

The similarities between MF and Groove are becoming more obvious


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, bryanc, even if your Photoshop skills are lacking, your ambition to pull off a gag is not!

Wait'll you get an avatar!!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Check your avatar.


wrong cat. The one in the cartoon macfury. 

Do you still want to align yourself with it, or did you reread it and figure it out. :lmao:


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Wait'll you get an avatar!!!


Go ahead and make one up... if I like it, I may even use it


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

bryanc said:


> The similarities between MF and Groove are becoming more obvious


Me thinks "The Cat" is a might miffed.


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

chasMac said:


> A healthy distrust of the government as detailed in the posted article is hardly proof of this: [Mainstream = anti-science]


Sorry, the Pew Survey didn't ask a specific question about science. On this topic, read *here* and *here*. You might also read Phil Plait's [Bad Astronomy] and Pr Myers [Pharyngula] blogs.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gilles said:


> Sorry, the Pew Survey didn't ask a specific question about science.


That's what he's saying!


----------



## Gilles (May 6, 2006)

Macfury said:


> That's what he's saying!


Yes. ChasMac says that the Survey I quoted doesn't indicate anything specific about the attitude of Americans towards science. He's right. My mistake. I'll find the other Pew Research Survey on science. Meanwhile, I quote two articles on this subject.

I hope it's _more clearer_ this way?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_*The amount of ignorance and outright stupidity expressed in the following video is astounding.

Words of wisdom from Tax Day Tea Party protestors

*_




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






(via BoingBoing)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

In fact they're largely correct, except for the ringers who couldn't express themselves well.

You wanted to put a 12 minute video on as your evidence? Do a little work and explain which points you disagree with.

Although I don't usually stoop to this sort of "those folks are so stupid" tactic, here are four randomly selected YouTube videos hilighting pro-Democrat voters.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.










+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.










+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.










+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Record Number of Stealth Creationism Bills Introduced in 2011*



> The latest is Texas’ HB 2454, which would prohibit an institution of higher learning from "discrimination related to research related into intelligent design."
> 
> *“PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN.* _An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.”_​
> What makes this bill such a precious gem is that it relies on creationists’ persecution complex and oft-repeated talking point that the science community discriminates against ID research. But as we all know, there is no such thing as ID research, which has not yet produced one single legitimate peer reviewed paper. But that doesn’t keep its proponents and gullible lawmakers from whining that science is mean to them.


(Religion Dispatches)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

So essentially, what you appear to be saying is that it would be fine to discriminate against students or faculty if they had ever examined the topic of intelligent design. That's pretty illiberal of you CB. This is the only thing the proposed bill you've shown addresses.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So essentially, what you appear to be saying is that it would be fine to discriminate against students or faculty if they had ever examined the topic of intelligent design.


No, but it should be perfectly acceptable to discriminate against researchers or students who consistently demonstrate that they don't understand what science is and is not. Depending on the way it's presented, ID either makes no testable hypotheses and therefore is not science, or it does make testable hypotheses, which have been tested and found to be false, in which case it's just wrong.

Either way, it's obviously a waste of money to fund students or researchers who pursue ID as if it were a viable scientific theory. What's obscene here is that legislators, who clearly have a religious/political agenda, are trying to dictate the science by directing the funding. tptptptp

The only upside to this is that it's pretty much restricted to the U.S. and Iran.


----------

