Irish Times Tea Party Article

veritable

oscarBravo wrote: »

It could. And if it did, more houses will be allowed to burn to the ground than currently do.

Are you denying that a market-oriented fire-fighting business would make commercial decisions as to whether or not to put out fires?

If they did, they would lose business as a result and another fire fighting company would gain more business. Let their customers decide what is acceptable and what is not, rather than being told by some special interest politician.

A business is simply a collection of people like our friends, brothers, fathers, sisters all working together to provide a good or service that people want. You get the impression these days that business is a load of crooks just trying to rip people off.

metrovelvet

oscarBravo wrote: »

They do, but it's a nominal fee to discourage frivolous callouts.

That's not a bad idea. WOuld stop people like my mother who called the fire department when she smelled cigarette smoke coming out of my brother's room. Jesus Christ. And army, like twenty NYC fireman showed up.

oscarBravo

veritable wrote: »

If they did, they would lose business as a result and another fire fighting company would gain more business. Let their customers decide what is acceptable and what is not, rather than being told by some special interest politician.

The key word there is "customers". A firefighting business will not put out fires in houses of people who have decided not to pay for their services. Because some people will choose to prioritise other things over paying for fire protection, those people's houses will, of necessity, be allowed to burn.

Whereas, with a fire service that is run as a public good, every house fire will be dealt with. Therefore, a privatised fire service will result in more houses being allowed to burn. It's a pretty simple equation.

A business is simply a collection of people like our friends, brothers, fathers, sisters all working together to provide a good or service that people want. You get the impression these days that business is a load of crooks just trying to rip people off.

I'm sure a privatised fire-fighting service would provide a top-quality service to its customers. I've never suggested otherwise. I'm merely pointing out that it makes no commercial sense for them to fight fires that they're not being paid for, and therefore they will make the sound commercial decision not to fight some fires.

Am I being unclear, or missing something?

Lockstep

English Defence League forges links with America's Tea Party

This does not impress me.

Overheal

veritable wrote: »

For people in favour of big govt, why is it that they always say the reason the govt programs aren't working is because of a lack of funding?

You assume that I'm in favor of Big Government. The example however provided is one of a district I'm sure believes in strong Fiscal Liberty that has come at the expense of someone's family home. I wonder if their Insurance will pay out. I doubt it.

On the subject of Big G though where do you stand on Medicare and Social Security? Frankly I'd rather shut them both down; those poor people that paid into it all their lives can get that out but *snap* oh wait, the money's gone. oops!
And unfortunately, there is barely a political entity in existence today that is willing to shut either down. Not the Democrats; not the Republicans. And quite frankly, not the Tea Party either.

And to propose a more pointed question: Why doesn't the Tea Party elect Ron Paul in 2012? We're still winking and nudging about Palin.

Killer Wench

veritable wrote: »

The author talks about how there are fewer blacks in the tea party than in the civil rights marches in the 1960s. What has race got to do with it? Why is race always brought in by the left?

In the four weeks that I have lived here in Dublin, I have learned that there is a huge difference in perception regarding race and ethnicity. I believe that if you have never lived for an extended period in the US nor are a member of a family who has been in the US for generations, then you will not understand the complexity surrounding race and politics.

To illustrate why race is frequently brought up in these discussions:


http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/19/5315921-seriously-this-is-a-racist-e-mail

Seriously, this is a racist e-mail

By Laura Conaway Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:30 AM EDT

The chair of the Virginia Beach Republican committee has reportedly stepped down after a racist e-mail allegedly sent from his account in March ended up all over the Internet.
Gary Byler, GOP chair in the state's 2nd Congressional District, tells the Washington Post:

"Let me make it clear David Bartholomew does not tolerate racism. He never has. David would never knowingly forward racist material.''

That leaves unclear whether someone else secretly forwarded the e-mail under Barthlomew's account, or whether Bartholomew forwarded the e-mail without realizing it was racist. And if that's true, wow, because here's the text as posted first by Blue Virginia

MY DOG
I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare.
At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare".
So I explained to her that my Dog is black, unemployed, lazy, can't speak
English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is.
So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify...
My Dog gets his first check Friday.
Is this is a great country or what?

CIE

veritable wrote: »

Did anybody else read this article?

I am sick of the garbage printed each day in the Irish media about anything not leftwing in the US.
I read this article over my breakfast yesterday morning and it put me in a mood for the day. (read it online because I refuse to pay money for the Irish Times trash.)
No wonder the Irish have such a miserable view of the right. The right constantly has its position undermined in the Irish media while the left is put on a pedastol.

Gotta love the Irischer Zeiten. Left good, opposing viewpoints bad; black/white world only real world.

snow scorpion

Denerick wrote: »

We don't need the media to tell us that teapartiers are nutjobs, they do a good job about that all by themselves.

Obviously the Tea Partiers are nutjobs. Look at the things they want:

• a tax system the average American can understand
• to avoid making energy more expensive
• no more runaway government spending
• lower tax rates so the private sector can grow and create jobs, new wealth, and raise the standard of living
• Congress to stop passing unconstitutional laws
• and a balanced budget

See? Only crazy people would want things like that. You'd never find any leftwinger supporting any of those nutjob ideas.

20Cent

snow scorpion wrote: »

Obviously the Tea Partiers are nutjobs. Look at the things they want:

• a tax system the average American can understand
• to avoid making energy more expensive
• no more runaway government spending
• lower tax rates so the private sector can grow and create jobs, new wealth, and raise the standard of living
• Congress to stop passing unconstitutional laws
• and a balanced budget

See? Only crazy people would want things like that. You'd never find any leftwinger supporting any of those nutjob ideas.

Could you (or anyone else) post a link to exactly what their platform actually is? Everyone seems to have a different idea about what it is!!

Overheal

Ask Tea Party Candidate lady bug.

snow scorpion

20Cent wrote: »

Could you (or anyone else) post a link to exactly what their platform actually is? Everyone seems to have a different idea about what it is!!

Happy to oblige:

Wikipedia entry for Tea Party Movement

kaiser sauze

I am after scanning the whole thread and just picked out a few choice cuts, amongst a slew of incredible stupidity and ignorance, that has made me wish that satellite TV and the internet was never invented.

veritable wrote: »

for an unbiased first hand on the tea party watch this video of a recent rally. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47WQwRUXHQ&feature=sub

I think it will provide a clearer insight than my words.

Once it said Reason I switched it off. It will have been staged the whole way through.

Exile 1798 wrote: »

While that's true, look at the kind of article that is now appearing in a place such as Forbes for god's sake. Worse still, penned by Dinesh D'Souza, who was meant to be one of the American Right's upcoming intellectuals.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html

It's incredible that this barrel of lies and misrepresentations could be called 'journalism'.

It's funny how all these statements are analogous to what a grass roots Koch brothers funded, rag tag, bunch of misfits and miscreants want to hear and read so that they can blindly post them up on forums/blogs/twitter.

stretchtex wrote: »

The govt in the UK is responsible for 50% or more of the income in 1 out of 3 households in the country. I can understand why Europeans would be opposed to such a movement. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Firstly, this is not true, however, I still give you a chance to provide a link.

mgmt wrote: »

Oh yeah the Tea Party is a racist, gun loving, violent organisation. Lets ban them. Lets ban Fox News too while we're at it. After all, a conflicting opinion according to Obama is dangerous to America. :rolleyes:

Where/When did Obama say that?

Other than that, you have the Tea Party to a 't'. (no pun intended...possibly:P)

Ban Fox News? We might as well shut down any station that does not provide 'fair & balanced' coverage UNLESS they specifically state that they are biased one way or the other.

mgmt wrote: »

I wasn't arsed, the author had made up his mind in the first few paragraphs so I wasn't going to waste my time on a hitpiece.

You are a microcosm of the lazy, illiterate, ill-informed party that you seem to be espousing support for.

20Cent wrote: »

You should its very good.
Reading the Bank Bailout story now well worth a read also.
This Matt Taibbi guy is good.

He is sensational. It doesn't matter what side he is talking about, he gives it straight.

veritable wrote: »

And with good reason they protest. BHO has put washington in control of much of the economy - healthcare, autos, wall street, etc. Unless you believe that a govt with such power is a good thing, then I would protest too.

Why use 'BHO'?

How is Washington 'in control' of so much of the economy?

veritable wrote: »

I don't know why I bother on this website. Your type is so dismissive and it's ironic that you label me as a conspiracy theorist.

Auto Bailout - The govt has no right to use tax payer money to fund a private industry. It allows inefficient, inept and unprofitable companies to continue trading when they should be bankrupt. They may be "profitable" now but at what cost? And what about their future profitability? And no, he hasn't recouped all the tax payer money.

Wall Street - the problems on wall street emanate from the cosy relationship between the govt, fed reserve and big banks. govt policies manipulate the market and create perverse incentives for the market participants. The profits are privatised and the losses are socialised. No wonder big banks won't change their behaviour - they have no incentive to. Govt regulation is only going to create more perverse incentives.

Health Care - nobody doubts that the health care system was broken but BHO has swung the pendulum too far the other way. Any govt involvement in the market is going to create perverse incentives as I mentioned above. Look at all the regulations that prevented the market from operating freely in the first place, e.g. the way competition between insurers is banned across state lines; or the massive insurance premiums doctors have to pay because of the legal industry and their similarily cosy relationship with govt.

Look at anything the govt runs. Look at how it always fails or costs too much or infringes on people's liberty.

Seriously STFU with your Beck and Palin pigeon-holing. Who do you think you are? I think you have no idea about what you're talking about.

You are being labeled a conspiracy theorist because the statements you make are dis-proven nonsense.

I agree with you that the automakers should not have been bailed out, however, I could not see you supporting him not doing so when unemployment would have risen to high-teens/20% as a result of the knock-on effects.

Or am I wrong?

On the banks, though, you are absolutely wrong.

If the banks were not helped, US Inc would not be here now. It would be a wholly owned subsidiary of the RoW. How would that sit with your 'independent streak'?

The legal industry involvement has been shown by the CBO to add only-in the sense of the overall monopoly figures we are talking about here-$54Bn to the overall cost. Find me the other $946Bn, please?

The reason why insurers are banned from competing across state lines is very simple, a constitutionalist like you should have no trouble with this one: there are differing laws in each state and you can't have a company competing from one state against another that has more stringent laws in another state.

There is NOTHING to stop each insurer to have an operation in each state and compete that way.

The Democrats did want to open up the market across the states, however, your proxies, the REPUBLICANS, said 'no'!

veritable wrote: »

You're making my point. BHO was elected on the back of the anti-Bush sentiment. There was no need to organise because BHO painted himself as the opposite of GWB and the people believed BHO when he made promises to them. The people's opinion was voiced in BHO's election.



That is one option, but that is a full 2 years away. In 2 years BHO has made the govt the biggest in US history, and tripled the deficit. He has continuously ignored the public's opinions when it came to auto bailouts, wall st and healthcare. The US cannot afford to wait another 2 years. That is why the tea party formed.

Again, what do you mean 'made the govt the biggest in US history'?

He has not tripled the deficit. Where do you get these figures from!

The CBD is declining already, as is current expenditure, however, I am quite certain you are ignorant of this fact.

Certain low-income people could not wait any longer for healthcare reform, but now at least they do not have to be so worried.

It puts your 'priority' in perspective, does it not?

veritable wrote: »

Extremely witty and intelligent comment.

But think about it. Why can't the free market provide it? It seems that you hold that everything govt = good while everything privatised = bad? As if profit is something bad?

No, he's just saying that there are certain areas where a profit motive does not serve the greater good.

kaiser sauze

snow scorpion wrote: »

Obviously the Tea Partiers are nutjobs. Look at the things they want:

• a tax system the average American can understand
• to avoid making energy more expensive
• no more runaway government spending
• lower tax rates so the private sector can grow and create jobs, new wealth, and raise the standard of living
• Congress to stop passing unconstitutional laws
• and a balanced budget

See? Only crazy people would want things like that. You'd never find any leftwinger supporting any of those nutjob ideas.

The problem is not what they want, per se, but how they would go about achieving it.

snow scorpion

kaiser sauze wrote: »

The problem is not what they want, per se, but how they would go about achieving it.

Ah, as always the devil is in the details. I don't know that there is a clearly marked, well-paved road to get where the Tea Partiers want to go, but I don't see how voting Obama, Pelosi, and Reid out of power could possibly be step in the wrong direction.

kaiser sauze

snow scorpion wrote: »

Ah, as always the devil is in the details. I don't know that there is a clearly marked, well-paved road to get where the Tea Partiers want to go, but I don't see how voting Obama, Pelosi, and Reid out of power could possibly be step in the wrong direction.

Voting them out in favour of what?

People who claim to be fiscally responsible, but cannot cope with basic accounting and economic concepts?

People who want no government control over their lives, yet think that "God" wrote the constitution?

People who think that insurance companies being told that they can no longer selectively insure and drop people on a whim, in order to prevent access to the most basic fundamental right, is a "government takeover"!

Voting insane morons into power, with little to no experience, would make it a lot worse than it is.

Bobby42

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/1/RlTLF8w0SuI

Overheal

Bobby42 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/1/RlTLF8w0SuI

Busted for what? Im no O'Donnel fan by a long shot. But that interviewer was asking something rather asinine wasn't he.

There's plenty to criticize her for, but the Young Turk guy made it sound like she threw her shoe at the President or something. I'm more than happy to criticize her for her handling of the media however. And so is Gawker!

http://gawker.com/5676725/why-we-published-the-christine-odonnell-story

She has repeatedly chosen, of her own volition, to make it her business to condemn the private sexual behaviors of millions of men and women who believe, or behave, differently than she does. She's of course free to do so. But when it turns out that her own private sexual behavior doesn't measure up to her public rhetoric—that she "push[es] the limits" without crossing the line as opposed to "living through the power of Christ's blood"—it deserves to be noted. And the argument that someone's private life shouldn't be the object of public attention isn't really available to someone who has manufactured a political and pseudo-celebrity career out of publicly casting judgment on the private behavior of others.

snow scorpion

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Voting insane morons into power, with little to no experience, would make it a lot worse than it is.

That's pretty much what we did 2 years ago and look where it got us. (I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama an insane moron, but I would most certainly call him an economic illiterate.)

Denerick

snow scorpion wrote: »

That's pretty much what we did 2 years ago and look where it got us.

It got you an angry mob willfully denying reality whilst unwittingly funded by oil billionaires and manipulated by shrewd yet insane demagogues like Glenn Beck.

Meanwhile America has competant leadership in the White House, if not the House and Senate.

(I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama an insane moron, but I would most certainly call him an economic illiterate.)

And yet a raft of respected public figures, detached observers from abroad and most recently the highly respected right of center weekly The Economist beg to differ. I would go so far as to say that those who accuse Obama of economic illiteracy may be struggling in this subject themselves.

Overheal

snow scorpion wrote: »

That's pretty much what we did 2 years ago and look where it got us. (I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama an insane moron, but I would most certainly call him an economic illiterate.)

Im not disagreeing, but our 2 party system got us the better of 2 less than informed economists. The other one would have been an unmitigated disaster. And in wonderful hindsight, his Drill Baby Drill would have met head on with Deepwater Horizon and become more infamous than Read My Lips. not that I don't support the theory of offshore drilling for energy independence and think cap and trade is a sham that will ecologically bankrupt the Appalachians, especially in most parts of West Virgina... *breathe*

kaiser sauze

snow scorpion wrote: »

That's pretty much what we did 2 years ago and look where it got us. (I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama an insane moron, but I would most certainly call him an economic illiterate.)

Uhm, your economy (are you even in The US?) is on a more solid footing than it was when he was elected.

Private jobs have been growing for the last 6months+, this under the most 'anti-business' president ever.

Righto, you called him an 'economic illiterate': I'll play...

On what basis do you call him an illiterate? And I want specifics, or you will be just guilty of doing what every tealover does when they are pressed for solid answers to their claims: they evade.

Denerick wrote: »

It got you an angry mob willfully denying reality whilst unwittingly funded by oil billionaires and manipulated by shrewd yet insane demagogues like Glenn Beck.

Meanwhile America has competant leadership in the White House, if not the House and Senate.



And yet a raft of respected public figures, detached observers from abroad and most recently the highly respected right of center weekly The Economist beg to differ. I would go so far as to say that those who accuse Obama of economic illiteracy may be struggling in this subject themselves.

It is funny how they like to call everyone else thick and uninformed when every objective observer can see how they are being manipulated to the ultimate benefit of people who they will never interact with and who will not perform their 'trickle down' responsibilities.

I am guessing you are right to question this person's understanding of basic theory, but I cannot say I am surprised. Are you??

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

Uhm, your economy (are you even in The US?) is on a more solid footing than it was when he was elected.

Que?

could you back that up with some data pls.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

Que?

could you back that up with some data pls.

And you want to argue the point by quoting unemployment figures and ignore everything else?

Sorry, I am not here to teach you economics.

Overheal

kaiser sauze wrote: »

And you want to argue the point by quoting unemployment figures and ignore everything else?

Sorry, I am not here to teach you economics.

Well im not the one claiming our economy is better off, without a supporting argument. You say private sector job growth has been on the increase for the last 6 months, yet the national rate of unemployment remains higher now than when the president took office, and if you look at the per-state analysis provided in my link, there are few states such as alaska that can actually claim to be better off since the Obama administration took office.

Sure you can brush off people in this thread and be condescending about it but you could also address where you conclude that the economy is better off now? I felt it was a pretty straightforward (and non-partisan) question.

kaiser sauze

Overheal wrote: »

Well im not the one claiming our economy is better off, without a supporting argument. You say private sector job growth has been on the increase for the last 6 months, yet the national rate of unemployment remains higher now than when the president took office, and if you look at the per-state analysis provided in my link, there are few states such as alaska that can actually claim to be better off since the Obama administration took office.

Sure you can brush off people in this thread and be condescending about it but you could also address where you conclude that the economy is better off now? I felt it was a pretty straightforward question.

It is not a 'claim' that your economy is better off than two years ago, it is a logical conclusion based on objective reading of a broad range of data.

How about you prove my statement wrong that private sector employment has been on the increase for 6months+?

My point is this, stop listening to all the hysteria and actually collate the data from reputable sources and reach the conclusion that I, and many economists, have come to.

I can't teach you that, you have to do it for yourself.

mgmt

kaiser sauze wrote: »

It is not a 'claim' that your economy is better off than two years ago, it is a logical conclusion based on objective reading of a broad range of data.

How about you prove my statement wrong that private sector employment has been on the increase for 6months+?

My point is this, stop listening to all the hysteria and actually collate the data from reputable sources and reach the conclusion that I, and many economists, have come to.

I can't teach you that, you have to do it for yourself.

If you cannot back up a claim, all you're doing is ranting.

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

If you cannot back up a claim, all you're doing is ranting.

Prove my 'rant' wrong?

I did say earlier that I have read this whole thread and I note the abject lack of any significant statements and/or facts from you.

Rhetoric, much?

mgmt

kaiser sauze wrote: »

How about you prove my statement wrong that private sector employment has been on the increase for 6months+?

Its not very hard.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+private+sector

kaiser sauze

mgmt wrote: »

Its not very hard.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=us+private+sector

Your group of links highlights announcements of job losses, which I never denied were happening. Or did your slippery grasp of economics mean you thought that my statement meant that no company was laying off workers?

From your own search: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469331075476058.html

"Private-sector companies added 67,000 jobs, following an upwardly revised 107,000 gain in July".

Try harder.

Much, harder.

obliviousgrudge

This kind of crap here?

http://paracom.paramountcommunication.com/hostedemail/email.htm?h=b94419d9ed285a84c1dcc470003b4495&CID=7305468451&ch=BFF83BDA33CA6290A86D4AE0C6F98172