Moe Tucker "teabagger?" WTF!

[ikol]

Where do national parks, public libraries and public schools fall in?

 

Public libraries and public schools fall into local communities (and many of the latter fall quite a bit). The feds can keep national parks if you wish as they aren't a huge part of the budget.

[M. (hristine]

Public libraries and public schools fall into local communities (and many of the latter fall quite a bit). The feds can keep national parks if you wish as they aren't a huge part of the budget.

Why should the feds have any part of a collective?

[D-Dogg]

Hey Kate...long tine no see....

 

It takes a teabagger like D-Dogg to bring you back. My thought exactly, except burning houses happens less than chronically ill, children (including adult children without jobs), older folks who need medical care, unemployed adults who need health care, food, and other essentials, etc.

 

 

 

Jesus, you really have a preconceived image of all posters. Open that head of yours... you will be amazed.

 

 

The rock bottom cynical me thinks we should just roll all of these programs back and then even the right wingers will be (quite literally) dying for them to be brought back.

 

Even ikols comment about SSDI being fraught with fraud is interesting considering Social Security denies everyone for these benefits (I have an old friend who is a lawyer who works for SS and he works appeals)and people take years getting them if they can. Yes, it is true the government is has one of the highest % for denying claims, but for some reason (including our President) many want Government health care / single pay system.

It is ironic that fraud from government entitlement programs gets so much play (and trust me I see it every day so it is disturbing) but fraud and corruption by corporations, which actually is a much larger problem and involved much richer people (crime is crime, one's income should not be an issue)

doesn't seem to bother these folks at all. What folks? When did I tell you I was not bothered by corporate crime and corruption? Try not to formulate the posts of others, in which you do not agree, into one evil bad poster.

Clearly there is lots of room for rolling back fraud and waste in government programs; folks and both the right and left are concerned about this, but we blindly let corporations not pay taxes,

Meanwhile the only group that can curtail fraud and waste in either the public or private sector are (gasp) government workers (like me). As soon as shit goes wrong people wonder how come the government didn't step in and do something (such as the recent egg recall which was not done by the industry it was done by....ta da....the government), but without govenment oversight health and safety and fraudulant behavoir would be rampant (and eggs with samonilla would still be on the market.)

 

Not to be a dick, but didn't the government fail with the egg salmonella episode? I mean if regulators and inspectors did their job correctly those eggs would have never made it out to the public. Around a half a billion eggs had to be recalled and what 1,000 people got sick. The stores that provided those eggs may no longer provide them to their customers and the people who bought those eggs sure as hell won't buy them again; that's how that problem gets fixed. Again not to be a dick but I think you contradicted yourself in your post. You wrote of all the evil corporations that participate in "unfair and illegal practices" but then you wrote that without government intervention, and the great work that you do in the government, fraudulent activities would run rampant. Which one is it?

 

LouieB

 

D-Dogg

[D-Dogg]

Maybe not, but he appears to be supporting the teapartiers positions that goverment shouldn't do for people what people should be doing for themselves, whatever that means. In a perfect world everyone could do everything for themselves, but the real world just isn't like that. I suppose it is in whatever world he inhabits where all families are intact, working, educated, not disabled, and are in communities where private charities and businesses take care of all members of the community no matter what. Some parts of the world are like that I suppose.

 

(Teabagger is a nickname that is no longer used...sorry...but it is funny.)

 

LouieB

 

HAHA of course I support the idea of people caring for themselves rather than a allowing the government to care for them. I also support a government that does not enable a problem, or escalate a problem.

 

Again you have a ridiculous behavior of assuming one's position in life. I would try to curb this behavior of yours, for you are way off.

[ikol]

Why should the feds have any part of a collective?

 

Because they need to feel important.

[Reni]

You might be correct about a purely Randian viewpoint, but you fail to discern the complexity and nuance of a healthy rightwing nutjob mindset. We are indeed social animals that are dependent on each other, but families and local communities form the basis of this social structure rather than the federal government (which merely exists to provide a basic infrastructure and protect us from threats to our security and rights).

 

And this conservative viewpoint fails to consider a historical, systemic structure of injustice and inequality predicated upon racism, sexism and a patriarchal/hierarchical worldview that holds certain people above others.

 

I am guessing you're of the Milton Friedman type? Just privatize everything and it will all sort itself out? Sharron Angle refers to Chile as an example of the privatization of Social Security. That worked really well, didn't it? I remember scoffing whilst reading Capitalism and Freedom when Friedman proposed that free-market capitalism would essentially eliminate issues of racial inequality. Really?! He never once took into account the issue of systemic racism and injustice.

 

I think, overall, as a society, we are so used to 30 second advertising and easy credit card fixes. So, when it comes to the dissemination of ideas, they are watered down to these basic, shallow talking points that don't serve the complexity of the matters at hand. And, here, I will take everyone to task, not just right-wing. The current political environment sickens me - it's become entertainment and election day feels more and more like the Super Bowl every year. I am tired of it.

 

Ikol, I certainly give you credit for being a complex thinker, even though we don't see eye to eye (at all). However, I do think that we speak different languages and likely focus our attention in different areas. I have an MA in History and an MA in Counseling.....so, I tend to approach things with an interpersonal, sociological and historical eye. I certainly lack knowledge in macro-economics and other fields that also play into these debates. I think this can be another way that we, as people, can fail to connect. Would you like me to write you my views on the oppressive intersectionality of patriarchal nationalism, militarism and fundamentalist religion? This pinko feminist could go on...... but, I'll spare you.

[ikol]

And this conservative viewpoint fails to consider a historical, systemic structure of injustice and inequality predicated upon racism, sexism and a patriarchal/hierarchical worldview that holds certain people above others.

 

And the solution to this is more federal government? That we can elect the most narcissistic and sociopathic of society to represent us, and they will somehow do away with a patriarchal/hierarchical worldview that holds certain people (them, for example) above others?

 

I am guessing you're of the Milton Friedman type? Just privatize everything and it will all sort itself out? Sharron Angle refers to Chile as an example of the privatization of Social Security. That worked really well, didn't it? I remember scoffing whilst reading Capitalism and Freedom when Friedman proposed that free-market capitalism would essentially eliminate issues of racial inequality. Really?! He never once took into account the issue of systemic racism and injustice.

 

I suppose I'm in the Milton Friedman school of thought, though the idea that "it will all sort itself out" isn't quite right. No, we still have the responsibility to sort things out ourselves; we just have ourselves and not the government to blame when things don't work out. How's the government-run version of Social Security doing? At least when someone in the private sector tries to pull something like that, they end up in prison (see Bernie Madoff) instead of on our currency (which, thanks to the gub'ment, is worse less and less every day).

 

I think, overall, as a society, we are so used to 30 second advertising and easy credit card fixes. So, when it comes to the dissemination of ideas, they are watered down to these basic, shallow talking points that don't serve the complexity of the matters at hand. And, here, I will take everyone to task, not just right-wing. The current political environment sickens me - it's become entertainment and election day feels more and more like the Super Bowl every year. I am tired of it.

 

Well, at least we agree on that. Not bad for a pinko feminist and a rightwing nutjob!

 

Ikol, I certainly give you credit for being a complex thinker, even though we don't see eye to eye (at all). However, I do think that we speak different languages and likely focus our attention in different areas. I have an MA in History and an MA in Counseling.....so, I tend to approach things with an interpersonal, sociological and historical eye. I certainly lack knowledge in macro-economics and other fields that also play into these debates. I think this can be another way that we, as people, can fail to connect. Would you like me to write you my views on the oppressive intersectionality of patriarchal nationalism, militarism and fundamentalist religion? This pinko feminist could go on...... but, I'll spare you.

 

Maybe you're right about speaking different languages. I think all of these problems that we're expecting the government to solve are really our problems and that we shouldn't just vote for bigger government (thus absolving ourselves) so we can complain to them when things don't get better. And feel free to bring on the oppressive, patriarchal -ism salad!

[Reni]

And the solution to this is more federal government? That we can elect the most narcissistic and sociopathic of society to represent us, and they will somehow do away with a patriarchal/hierarchical worldview that holds certain people (them, for example) above others?

 

Not always.....but.....it did take the federal government to finally step in and enforce fair and equal voting rights laws, end defacto Jim Crow racism and integrate schools, public spaces, etc. Sure, racism is still a rampant social ill in our nation. However, the horrors of racial terrorism and lynchings do not occur with the impunity that they once did, because there are federal protections so that the federal government will step in when local and state law enforcement will not. Just think, 55 years ago, 14 year old Emmett Till was severely tortured and murdered for allegedly whistling at a white woman. The men responsible were acquitted and justice was not served. This would not happen today (hopefully) because of federal protections. I am thankful for that. So, essentially, I see the intervention of the federal government (plus other important intersecting factors) being responsible for moving forward in regards to issues of injustice and inequality. Additionally, this has occurred at a fairly quick pace, considering the long history behind it. Sure, we are still a long way from an ideal....but at least we've been moving in the right direction. A lot of things I hear from the TPers sound like they'd rather go backwards.....like I hear static about how they want to repeal the Constitutional amendments back to the 10 in the Bill of Rights? Nooo thanks!

 

As for Social Security, I am pretty damn glad that Bush didn't get his way with moving towards privatization. Imagine what would have happened if all of that money had been in the market? It tanked. So many people lost huge chunks of their private retirement funds! I am so glad Social Security was not a part of that. I am NO expert on the ins and outs of the workings of Social Security and I certainly think that reforms need to occur and it needs to be made more viable and stable.....but I do not think that privatization is the answer. Nor do I think the elimination of it is a good idea. My daughter started receiving SS survivor benefits after the passing of her father. We are so grateful for it and it has helped a lot.

[LouieB]

I would try to curb this behavior of yours, for you are way off.

What behavior is that?

 

LouieB

[D-Dogg]

 

Again you have a ridiculous behavior of assuming one's position in life. I would try to curb this behavior of yours, for you are way off.

 

 

What behavior is that?

 

LouieB

 

Dude....

[LouieB]

Dude....

Stay off the roads..they are paid for with public money.

 

LouieB

[D-Dogg]

Stay off the roads..they are paid for with public money.

 

LouieB

 

You either did not read my posts or you lack basic comprehensive skills.

[LouieB]

You either did not read my posts or you lack basic comprehensive skills.

I read your posts. We should let everyone get healthcare themselves and the govenment shouldn't supply it right? I get that. Social security is bad. I get that too. You wouldn't access either of those goverment programs even if you needed them. I got that too.

 

Meanwhile I am not making any assumption about who you are. You could be a 60 year old lesbian living in Canada for all I know since you don't post any personal information.

 

You get to believe anything you want. Take care of your family and friends and don't access government programs if you don't wish to; that's fine, it leaves those services to those who need them.

 

And BTW, maybe the govenment DID fail in the egg crises. I don't know who was where when or when who blew which whistle. You don't reveal what you do for a living (I am clearly on record as a government bureaucrat for better or worse), but I do know that the without any government oversight the egg crises might still be going on. The government can't be everywhere at all times so some health crises do occur. But without ANY government control we know that defective products, unsafe food, unsafe drugs, etc, would flood the market all the time without impunity. What IS your possition on the government safeguards? Oh yea, that's right...all corporations should be able to decide what is safe and what is not, that's not the governments job.

 

LouieB

 

LouieB

[Sir Stewart]

Reni & ikol for prezidents

[Edie]

Reni & ikol for prezidents

Word.

[D-Dogg]

I read your posts. We should let everyone get healthcare themselves and the govenment shouldn't supply it right? I get that. Social security is bad. I get that too. You wouldn't access either of those goverment programs even if you needed them. I got that too.

 

Meanwhile I am not making any assumption about who you are. You could be a 60 year old lesbian living in Canada for all I know since you don't post any personal information.

 

You get to believe anything you want. Take care of your family and friends and don't access government programs if you don't wish to; that's fine, it leaves those services to those who need them.

 

And BTW, maybe the govenment DID fail in the egg crises. I don't know who was where when or when who blew which whistle. You don't reveal what you do for a living (I am clearly on record as a government bureaucrat for better or worse), but I do know that the without any government oversight the egg crises might still be going on. The government can't be everywhere at all times so some health crises do occur. But without ANY government control we know that defective products, unsafe food, unsafe drugs, etc, would flood the market all the time without impunity. What IS your possition on the government safeguards? Oh yea, that's right...all corporations should be able to decide what is safe and what is not, that's not the governments job.

 

LouieB

 

LouieB

 

Your assumptions on me are quite extreme. With what postings would you conclude such assumptions about me?

 

BTW I was a Government employee for nine years.

[LouieB]

Your assumptions on me are quite extreme. With what postings would you conclude such assumptions about me?

 

BTW I was a Government employee for nine years.

Well at least we know that now. Which agency?

 

Maybe you are not really expressing your true politics here, but somehow I have no other way to take your comments.

LouieB

[D-Dogg]

Well at least we know that now. Which agency?

 

Maybe you are not really expressing your true politics here, but somehow I have no other way to take your comments.

LouieB

 

County and City Courts

 

Louie I am expressing my true politics. I never said I was a tea party member, I never said I was a fan of Palin, in fact I said the opposite. All I said about Palin is that her attackers should be ashamed of themselves.

I also said the extreme ideas of cutting schools and other government programs are misguided. I do think many of those programs need a major overhaul. Billions are being wasted. I am a in the idea that politics are local and most matters are state matters - it leaves more power to the people.

 

Politics are not black and white, despite what MSNBC, FOX and the other networks want us to believe.

 

I still like you.

[bobbob1313]

All I said about Palin is that her attackers should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Which ones?

 

The ones who imply or insist that Trig is not actually her son? The ones who attack her family? Sure. But the same should go for people who believe ridiculous conspiracies about any candidate, or people who attack Barney Frank for being gay, or people who attack the way Nancy Pelosi looks, or the people who criticize Obama's family.

 

Now the people who criticize her extreme political and personal views and experience and lack of qualification to be a candidate for the highest office in our nation? To me, that's all fair game.

 

 

And to imply, as you have done, that Obama has somehow had it easier as far as criticism goes than Bush is just ridiculous.

[D-Dogg]

Which ones?

 

The ones who imply or insist that Trig is not actually her son? The ones who attack her family? Sure. But the same should go for people who believe ridiculous conspiracies about any candidate, or people who attack Barney Frank for being gay, or people who attack the way Nancy Pelosi looks, or the people who criticize Obama's family.

 

Now the people who criticize her extreme political and personal views and experience and lack of qualification to be a candidate for the highest office in our nation? To me, that's all fair game.

 

 

And to imply, as you have done, that Obama has somehow had it easier as far as criticism goes than Bush is just ridiculous.

 

I have never seen anyone get so much shit from all sides other than Palin; and yes all those arguments in regards to Barney, Pelosi and Obama are valid.

Her qualifications are similar to Obama; and I did not want either of them.

 

Now I know you are bias if you cannot see that as of today Bush has had a much more challenging time in regards to critics and insults.

[bobbob1313]

I don't think you can compare them at 18 months and say Bush had it harder. Obama has been fought tooth and nail since before he even took office. His citizenship has been called into question, people think he's a secret muslim, people have said he legitimately dislikes the country, that he is a racist; these aren't charges made by the fringe, this is stuff being bandied about on the Most Trusted Name In News ©.

 

He was called a socialist who is a bigger threat to America than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. And not by a crazy extremist on the fringe, but by one of the front runners for the 2012 Republican Nomination.

 

What Bush faced in terms of criticism was unlike what Obama has faced. I don't think an argument can be made any other way. He has faced a stiff and dedicate opposition from the Republican establishment since before he took office, and he has faced a GOP that hasn't budged even an inch in his entire time in office.

[ih8music]

I don't think you can compare them at 18 months and say Bush had it harder. Obama has been fought tooth and nail since before he even took office. His citizenship has been called into question, people think he's a secret muslim, people have said he legitimately dislikes the country, that he is a racist; these aren't charges made by the fringe, this is stuff being bandied about on the Most Trusted Name In News ©.

 

He was called a socialist who is a bigger threat to America than Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. And not by a crazy extremist on the fringe, but by one of the front runners for the 2012 Republican Nomination.

 

What Bush faced in terms of criticism was unlike what Obama has faced. I don't think an argument can be made any other way. He has faced a stiff and dedicate opposition from the Republican establishment since before he took office, and he has faced a GOP that hasn't budged even an inch in his entire time in office.

 

Agreed. The worst mainstream personal attack that was levied against Bush was that he's dumb (which, even Bush supporters must admit, he gave us plenty of opportunities to 'misunderestimate' his intelligence).

 

It's too depressing for me to look up the latest numbers (because I'm sure they've only gotten worse), but I recall a poll over the summer that reported something like 60% of all Republicans either believe Obama is not a citizen or have serious doubts about his citizenship. That's beyond asinine.

[LouieB]

So D-Dogg...which goverment agency did you work for??

 

Politics are NOT black and white, but suggesting that the government should not help those who can't help themselves?? Well that's a position that seems indefencable at some point.

 

To all my brothers and sisters on the slightly left of center, you don't need to be depressed. A Republiican landslide is only going to make it easier to re-elect Barack in two years. This I believe.

 

LouieB

[Sir Stewart]

I have never seen anyone get so much shit from all sides other than Palin

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[ikol]

Politics are NOT black and white, but suggesting that the government should not help those who can't help themselves?? Well that's a position that seems indefencable at some point.

 

Who has taken that position?