Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

legspin

Overheal wrote: »

Quite. But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the "Teabagger" rhetoric.

I disagree.
They chose the name themselves. That it had already taken on a different meaning by the time they chose it is neither here nor there. They self-identified as 'Teabaggers' and I don't think we should be expected to do anything that relieves them of their own embarrassment at themselves.

PopePalpatine

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Politics parent forum charter???

Did I take a wrong turning at Albuquerque?

Yeah, you're in Heisenberg territory now. :pac:

TwoShedsJackson

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yeah, you're in Heisenberg territory now. :pac:

Sarky

Spoiler: He gives up the drugs trade to become a theoretical physicist at Black Mesa.

Overheal

legspin wrote: »

I disagree.
They chose the name themselves. That it had already taken on a different meaning by the time they chose it is neither here nor there. They self-identified as 'Teabaggers' and I don't think we should be expected to do anything that relieves them of their own embarrassment at themselves.

I'm not turning this into the same debate I already had years ago. The term is derogatory, and the people who use it do so only to wind up others. Other posters on the site, whom do in fact identify or sympathize with the Tea Party Movement, find the term objectionable also. There is a reason other forums have adopted a rule against it - it doesn't add anything to a discussion.

You might as well argue that because some black people choose to refer to eachother as n*ggers that its ok to use the term for the entire class of people. Likewise, some of the mainstream components of the Teaparty decided to adopt the term, early on in the movement, have since dropped it, and there are still many people who identify with the movement that never adopted the phrase at all. It's current status as a label is again, only to bring the level of discussion down to argumentum ad hominem.

nagirrac

While I disagree with the Tea Party movement on their political ideology and tactics, I also have to accept the majority of the vitriol directed at them is from people who are just as extreme as them in terms of ideology. Unlike most on this site I would imagine, I personally know and have spoken to / debated with many who identify with the Tea Party movement and they are absolutely nothing like how they are stereotypically portrayed. Of course they have some high profile and low profile clowns within their ranks but so do all political groups.

The basic argument of the Tea Party is that it is highly unethical for a state to keep borrowing at the rate the US is borrowing and pass the burden of repaying that debt onto our children and their children, simply to maintain the standard of living of the current generation and to maintain a bloated government that is vastly larger than necessary. It is a very valid ethical and political argument and one that deserves a bit more rational analysis than ridiculing some members of the group. Where both they and those on the opposite extreme in the Democratic party fall down is the failure to understand that the 2 party system in the US only works when you have elected officials willing to compromise their ideology for the greater good. Sadly, there appear fewer and fewer politicians in that category.

Leaving aside all the noise about religious beliefs and race, the great majority of Tea Party members care passionately about the future of their country, something that cannot be said about the majority of those in politics.

joseph brand

nagirrac wrote: »

While I disagree with the Tea Party movement on their political ideology and tactics, I also have to accept the majority of the vitriol directed at them is from people who are just as extreme as them in terms of ideology. Unlike most on this site I would imagine, I personally know and have spoken to / debated with many who identify with the Tea Party movement and they are absolutely nothing like how they are stereotypically portrayed. Of course they have some high profile and low profile clowns within their ranks but so do all political groups.

The basic argument of the Tea Party is that it is highly unethical for a state to keep borrowing at the rate the US is borrowing and pass the burden of repaying that debt onto our children and their children, simply to maintain the standard of living of the current generation and to maintain a bloated government that is vastly larger than necessary. It is a very valid ethical and political argument and one that deserves a bit more rational analysis than ridiculing some members of the group. Where both they and those on the opposite extreme in the Democratic party fall down is the failure to understand that the 2 party system in the US only works when you have elected officials willing to compromise their ideology for the greater good. Sadly, there appear fewer and fewer politicians in that category.

Leaving aside all the noise about religious beliefs and race, the great majority of Tea Party members care passionately about the future of their country, something that cannot be said about the majority of those in politics.

Could you link a video clip of a Tea Partier (in the interests of civility) who doesn't sound like a stubborn, fundamentalist, christian headcase? I'm referring to Glenn Beck.

Do they protest at the massive cost of defence spending, or is it just healthcare, LGBT's and women's rights? They way they carry on, warrants ridicule and perhaps some arrests. (shutting down the government)

joseph brand

Tea Party America (BBC Documentary)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0_j0OcFK28

This reminds me of an episode of Louis Theroux. For anyone who hasn't seen any of his stuff, he usually just lets the interviewees talk away, rarely challenging them on anything. The idea being, that most of what they say is so batsh*t crazy, it's better to let it pour and catch it on film. And, since Louis looks so innocent, they probably end up saying more than they should have. Gotcha!

nagirrac

joseph brand wrote: »

Could you link a video clip of a Tea Partier (in the interests of civility) who doesn't sound like a stubborn, fundamentalist, christian headcase? I'm referring to Glenn Beck.

Do they protest at the massive cost of defence spending, or is it just healthcare, LGBT's and women's rights? They way they carry on, warrants ridicule and perhaps some arrests. (shutting down the government)

Just a few fact checks:
Whatever Glenn Beck is, and I would argue he is a media circus act more than anything else, he is not a Christian fundamentalist. He is a Mormon, which is not recognized as a Christian religion by Christians at least, is libertarian politically, and is on the record (2010 and again in 2012 on O'Reilly's Fox News show) as supporting same sex marriage, so he hardly fits well with your profile. The Tea Party is not as homogenous as the stereotyping suggests, it is a populist movement and attracts a broad spectrum of members.

There are plenty loons like Beck on the left and right, unfortunately some of the more extreme right wing loons have taken over the Republican party while the Democrats for now at least have kept their loons marginalized. Leaving some of the higher profile names aside, it is important to understand why the Tea Party has emerged. While it may be a conservative movement, the political principles that unite the Tea Party are primarily libertarian, which is why Ron Paul is frequently mentioned as their "godfather". One of the major tenets of libertarianism btw is putting a stop to foreign military adventures as part of reducing government.

The reason the Tea Party appeals to a significant number of people in the US is a symptom of the country fragmenting away from a strong center which existing from the Reagan through Clinton years and towards two more extreme factions. The middle class is vanishing, the older generation by and large want the government to stop taking their money and the younger generation by and large want their government to provide more services. The bad news is the middle class is not coming back anytime soon so compromise is getting less likely in the near term at least.

The US government has been shut down 17 times since Jimmy Carter's presidency, with Democrats and Republicans participating in the stalemates in equal measure. That's a lot of politicians that should be in jail by your reckoning. On this latter point I tend to agree with you, but possibly for different reasons.

jank

joseph brand wrote: »

Could you link a video clip of a Tea Partier (in the interests of civility) who doesn't sound like a stubborn, fundamentalist, christian headcase? I'm referring to Glenn Beck.

Do they protest at the massive cost of defence spending, or is it just healthcare, LGBT's and women's rights? They way they carry on, warrants ridicule and perhaps some arrests. (shutting down the government)

What would they be arrested for and what crime would they be charged with?

jank

Penn Jillette (who has a quite a following here) defends the tea party from the usual ad-hominons that the tea party are [insert adhominon attack].
This led to accusations from the left (see vanity fair interview) that he was a member but he isn't. He can just see through the bull$hit and hypocrites on both sides.

Mardy Bum

jank wrote: »

What would they be arrested for and what crime would they be charged with?

Whether it was Sarah Palin telling her sycophants to “don’t retreat, reload,” Michelle Bachmann calling for Minnesotans to be “armed and dangerous,” or Sharon Angle citing “second Amendment remedies” against Congress for not acquiescing to teabagger demands, it is always and only teabaggers calling for violence against their “enemies” in government.

Incitement of violence for one. Some would call it terrorism even. Any possible Timothy McVeighs would love these affirmations.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Penn Jillette (who has a quite a following here) defends the tea party from the usual ad-hominons that the tea party are [insert admonion attack].
This led to accusations from the leftm (see vanity fair interview) that he was a member but he isn't. He can just see through the bull$hit and hypocrites on both sides.

Not sure he has a 'following' here, but he has popped up in the Funny Side of Religion, with some decent quotes. Iirc he has read the bible more than once, and he finds it entertaining. But I never knew until this morning that he was a libertarian.

From here:

Glenn Beck to Penn Jillette: “We just need libertarians.” Jillette: “I’ll take a Christian over a Socialist.”

What does he think of christian socialists? Frankly I'm surprised that he went on Beck's show. A Trojan horse?

jank

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Incitement of violence for one. Some would call it terrorism even. Any possible Timothy McVeighs would love these affirmations.

Can you be more specific?

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

Penn Jillette (who has a quite a following here) defends the tea party from the usual ad-hominons that the tea party are [insert adhominon attack].
This led to accusations from the left (see vanity fair interview) that he was a member but he isn't. He can just see through the bull$hit and hypocrites on both sides.

Penn sounds a little bit confused/ inconsistent. He's both a 'looney left' and a 'far right nutcase'? Now I'm confused.

Vanity Fair interview:

Eric: Just don’t mention the part about telling the truth to Hitler’s talent bookers, and I’m pretty sure you’ll get a guest slot.

Penn: Oh, I won’t say a word. But you know what I mean, right? It does have an effect. I go on Glenn Beck as an atheist and talk about atheism. And I have people come up to me and say, “You know, until I saw you on Glenn Beck, speaking so passionately about atheism, I’d never considered that as a moral decision.” That’s incredibly powerful. These are people watching a hardcore Christian show and being exposed to an atheist point of view.

Eric: Your intentions seem genuine, but I can’t help myself, Penn. Every time I hear you’ve been on Glenn Beck, it makes me a little sick.

Penn: It makes me sick too! When people come up to me and say they love the show, I feel sick. Because I do disagree with a lot of what he says. But I also feel a little sick whenever people say they saw me on Keith Olbermann.

Eric: And yet you continue to do it. You know, there’s an easy way to stop making yourself sick.

Penn: But I think it’s important. I may be the only person who goes on Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck and says the exact same ****. I am so much more socially liberal than Olbermann will ever be. You can’t believe how pro gay and pro freedom of speech I am. I’m way out beyond anyone on the Left. And as for fiscal conservatism and small government, I’m so much further to the right than Glenn Beck. Nobody is further left and further right than me. As I’m fond of saying, if you want to find utopia, take a sharp right on money and a sharp left on sex and it’s straight ahead.

Is this what libertarianism is? A mixed bag? If libertarianism was a film, it would be some silent, self-indulgent art piece, that made no sense. Like experimental jazz.

Brian Shanahan

joseph brand wrote: »

Is this what libertarianism is? A mixed bag? If libertarianism was a film, it would be some silent, self-indulgent art piece, that made no sense. Like experimental jazz.

Modern American libertarianism is little more than objectivism, which, as eny fule kno, is little more than an excuse to deify sociopathy as evidenced of Ayn Rand's treatment of US serial killer William Edward Hickman testifies.

Well, personally the biggest problem that I have with libertarian/anarchist societal systems in general is that there are no effective mechanisms available to curb the behaviour of the powerful, which will trend the systems automatically to oligopoly (look at the economic system of the last forty years, free market, essentially libertarian in nature, which had mass inequality, abuse of process and inequity built in from the very start).

coffee_cake

Free market? With the govt manipulating everything? Are you serious?
Apparently not since you mention things being "built in" to the "free market"

jank

Yet we live in an age where the state is the largest it has ever been in history yet that is equated to libertarianism? The banks didn't bail out themselves you know.

Brian Shanahan

bluewolf wrote: »

Free market? With the govt manipulating everything? Are you serious?
Apparently not since you mention things being "built in" to the "free market"

What government manipulation of the market was there in the 1st world between 1974 and 2008, apart from the killing of previous regualtory frameworks (you know, the ones that sparked the longest and most successful period of economic growth in history)?

Any proper analysis of the economic realities will show little difference between the current day and the "gilded" '20's, which were the supposed heyday for the free market.

Sulla Felix

joseph brand wrote: »

Penn sounds a little bit confused/ inconsistent. He's both a 'looney left' and a 'far right nutcase'? Now I'm confused.

Vanity Fair interview:



Is this what libertarianism is? A mixed bag? If libertarianism was a film, it would be some silent, self-indulgent art piece, that made no sense. Like experimental jazz.

Eh, it comes from the general mess people make of trying to label things left and right.
Libertarians are generally what we'd consider far left on social issues, and far right on fiscal matters.
So instead of the usual dichotomy of (big government & social freedom) ie liberal VS (small government & backwards socially) ie conservatism, libertarians would espouse small government in every sense. Ie: so low taxes, little or no social safety net, but pro gay rights, abortion rights all the stuff "proper" conservatives oppose.

Turtwig

We already have one libertarian (sort of) discussion thread. Let's not turn this one into another. God just might kill a kitten.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

We already have one libertarian (sort of) discussion thread. Let's not turn this one into another. God just might kill a kitten.

Can I please thank this many times?

joseph brand

DERP!!

Turtwig

There's an element of truth to that. Wind Farms work throughout the day and night. As a result, on average there'll be more air circulation than normal at night meaning that more warm air is brought to the surface. Contributing to a slight net warming effect each day.

I would provide a link before Sarky eats the head off me but NASA is offline. :pac:

Overheal

giving that a "Derp" isn't really meritable indeed. Its got truth. Wind power is not infinite. There is a reason that hurricanes die out once over land and its not just the water conditions, the landscape wind-breaks them. Read up on The Dust Bowl sometime. Moral of the story: the problem was solved by planting trees. There are reasons that tornadoes worst affect sparsely populated areas and not densely constructed towns and cities.

And just like your PC: go ahead and shove a pencil in your case fans and see how long it takes for your temperatures to shoot up. The wind has a cooling effect.

Hotblack Desiato

If the flow of a fluid is cooling an object, equally the object is warming the fluid.

With wind power you are taking energy out of the atmosphere which should cool it. But you're not shooting this energy into space or something, you're going to use it to run lights or motors or whatever and ultimately it'll end up as low-grade heat... in the atmosphere again. You can't cool the planet with wind power because there's no exo-planetary heat sink.

Ultimately I think we're going to have to build some massive Mr. Burns-style sun shades, in space

Turtwig

ninja900 wrote: »

Ultimately I think we're going to have to build some massive Mr. Burns-style sun shades, in space

NASA got conceptual ideas for that too. A giant space mirror to reflect incident solar radiation.

Oh ffs! I can't link to that either.
:mad:

Mardy Bum

Mad Michele Bachmann "Queen of the Tea Party" does a David Koresh and predicts the end times.

This happened and as of today the United States is willingly, knowingly, intentionally sending arms to terrorists, now what this says to me, I’m a believer in Jesus Christ, as I look at the End Times scripture, this says to me that the leaf is on the fig tree and we are to understand the signs of the times, which is your ministry, we are to understand where we are in God’s end times history.

This woman led the Republican race at one stage for the presidential candidacy. Frightening.

Pherekydes

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Mad Michele Bachmann "Queen of the Tea Party" does a David Koresh and predicts the end times.



This woman led the Republican race at one stage for the presidential candidacy. Frightening.

What's frightening is that the fig leaves are on the fig trees and we have no fig rolls for the end times. Bloody frustrating that.

Overheal

ninja900 wrote: »

If the flow of a fluid is cooling an object, equally the object is warming the fluid.

With wind power you are taking energy out of the atmosphere which should cool it. But you're not shooting this energy into space or something, you're going to use it to run lights or motors or whatever and ultimately it'll end up as low-grade heat... in the atmosphere again. You can't cool the planet with wind power because there's no exo-planetary heat sink.

Ultimately I think we're going to have to build some massive Mr. Burns-style sun shades, in space

Its more about how global heat energy circulates. The planet does in fact lose energy via radiation into space just as it comes in from the sun via radiation. With less wind force you would get worse hot spots and what kind of effect that has on how wind circulates at the poles, where we have the ice caps I havent a clue but be careful about rocking that boat.

Anno 2070 is a nice sim style game that incorporates the concept. Stacking wind farms near eachother reduces their total efficiency/output.