This is in really bad taste

#26
#26
utvolpj said:
your hypocrisy knows no bounds. He is the leader of the movement and had it been a TP member saying the same you would have condemned the whole lot. Sad
Click to expand...


There's a difference.

The TP is solely a political organization. It has no other purpose.

A union is political secondarily.

People that show up at a union rally you will find are much more concerned about employment and job conditions first and foremost, politics second.

People that show up at a TP rally are there to collectively express a political message.

I'm not saying that every person at a particular TP meeting endorses everything the speakers say. In fact, I've said many times in this forum that I don't charge the entire TP membership with supporting the rantings of every person who takes the podium. Some do, some don't.

I would assume you feel the same way about unions.
 
#27
#27
no they are concerned with putting people in office that can help them get more money for less work. Obama was more than willing and we're seeing how that works. A group with a history of violence is saying to "this is your army...take those SOB's out" and you just dismiss it as some random guy speaking about a subject most in his group would disagree with. Keep up the charade Mr undecided voter
 
#28
#28
It's pretty simple really - if an R says something that can be construed as violent then it is violent rhetoric. If a D says it, it's simply political speech. Same with racial comments.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
There's a difference.

The TP is solely a political organization. It has no other purpose.

A union is political secondarily.

People that show up at a union rally you will find are much more concerned about employment and job conditions first and foremost, politics second.

People that show up at a TP rally are there to collectively express a political message.

I'm not saying that every person at a particular TP meeting endorses everything the speakers say. In fact, I've said many times in this forum that I don't charge the entire TP membership with supporting the rantings of every person who takes the podium. Some do, some don't.

I would assume you feel the same way about unions.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute - I thought the problem with this violent rhetoric was that it serves as the straw that breaks the camel's back. Some unstable union member may use this as motivation to actually take out some TP members...

The above is the argument you presented repeatedly about TP rhetoric or Beck or Limbaugh rhetoric.
 
#30
#30
lawgator1 said:
As long as you refer to people as thugs just because they belong to unions, it seems to me that there isn't much point in having a discussion.
Click to expand...

Are you joking? Evading again? As long as the unions engage in intimidation and sometimes violence.... they will be thugs regardless of whether you close your eyes to it or not.

You have consistently thrown false and inflammatory accusations at the TP generally... yet don't want to talk when I use the word "thug" in reference to someone who said they were going to "take them out".
 
#31
#31
I agreed with you that the Hoffa comments were over the top. I'd also agree that they were uncivil. Phrases like "take them out" should not be used by anyone in politics because it connotes violence to gain a political objective.
 
#32
#32
I disagree - I don't have a problem with Hoffa's comments or Palin's crosshairs or the Dem's targets, etc. etc.

We are becoming a nation of wusses. Blaming bad actions of a few outliers on these type comments is ridiculous and completely unconfirmed.

What I do have a problem with is the double standard.
 
#33
#33
lawgator1 said:
That's not what sjt said. You are quoting Hoffa. But sjt said it was a rally of thugs.

I don't like his statement. Its over the top rhetoric and I find it empty and needlessly antagonistic.

Much like saying that a union meeting is by definition a meeting of thugs.
Click to expand...

If a TP speaker had stood before a TP gathering and said the same thing without any protest from other TPer's or a negative respone by the crowd... you would have assigned blame to the one who spoke AND those who listened in agreement. Just be honest about your double standards for once.
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
There's a difference.

The TP is solely a political organization. It has no other purpose.

A union is political secondarily.

People that show up at a union rally you will find are much more concerned about employment and job conditions first and foremost, politics second.
Click to expand...
NO more so than people who show up at TP rallies.

People that show up at a TP rally are there to collectively express a political message.
Click to expand...

So a meeting where Obama speaks and Hoffa offers the union as an army to BO isn't there to express a political message? Wow.

So SEIU isn't constantly involved in political messages?

The Wisconsin teachers' protests weren't political?

When are union rallies apolitical?
 
#35
#35
volinbham said:
I disagree - I don't have a problem with Hoffa's comments or Palin's crosshairs or the Dem's targets, etc. etc.

We are becoming a nation of wusses. Blaming bad actions of a few outliers on these type comments is ridiculous and completely unconfirmed.

What I do have a problem with is the double standard.
Click to expand...


We can debate the causative effect to actual violence and you are right nothing serious is confirmed.

My main objection at this point is that polarization at this point is so bad that it is keeping us from getting things done. You know, Huntsman has come in and tried to strike a conciliatory note and he just gets shot down by the hard right. Obama is under fire from the far left for advocating compromise on entitlements.

We aren't getting out if this mess by one side winning and the other losing because, the way we are set up, even the minority in any given institution has some clout and a voice.
 
#36
#36
volinbham said:
I disagree - I don't have a problem with Hoffa's comments or Palin's crosshairs or the Dem's targets, etc. etc.

We are becoming a nation of wusses. Blaming bad actions of a few outliers on these type comments is ridiculous and completely unconfirmed.

What I do have a problem with is the double standard.
Click to expand...

:good!:

Exactly. Free speech is protected PRECISELY because it might be inflammatory or disagreeable.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
We can debate the causative effect to actual violence and you are right nothing serious is confirmed.

My main objection at this point is that polarization at this point is so bad that it is keeping us from getting things done. You know, Huntsman has come in and tried to strike a conciliatory note and he just gets shot down by the hard right. Obama is under fire from the far left for advocating compromise on entitlements.

We aren't getting out if this mess by one side winning and the other losing because, the way we are set up, even the minority in any given institution has some clout and a voice.
Click to expand...

OK. YOu need to stop being polarizing and agree with those of us who want to make real cuts to gov't spending immediately then progressively reduce the size and scope of the Federal gov't back to its constitutional limits. You have committed yourself to not being polarizing now... so you can't object, right?

That's the thing when you guys on the left use non-sense like you try here. The idea that gov't should be small, limited, and have a balanced budget IS the polar opposite of what the left proposes in a constantly expanding gov't.

What you are arguing for is the equivalent of someone who knows they need a diet but doesn't want to change their eating and activity... so they make the completely non-sensical decision to lose weight without making changes. The conflict between wanting to be healthy and wanting to be lazy and gluttonous is "resolved" with platitudes rather than a real decision.

It is an "either/or" situation... which means someone will win and someone will lose. Either gov't will be shrunk or it will be grown. Either gov't will assume more power over the people or people will gain back freedom and the incumbent responsibility.

Do you really believe in that statement or is it just a ruse as it is for Dems... and sometimes Republicans?
 
#38
#38
sjt18 said:
OK. YOu need to stop being polarizing and agree with those of us who want to make real cuts to gov't spending immediately then progressively reduce the size and scope of the Federal gov't back to its constitutional limits. You have committed yourself to not being polarizing now... so you can't object, right?

That's the thing when you guys on the left use non-sense like you try here. The idea that gov't should be small, limited, and have a balanced budget IS the polar opposite of what the left proposes in a constantly expanding gov't.

What you are arguing for is the equivalent of someone who knows they need a diet but doesn't want to change their eating and activity... so they make the completely non-sensical decision to lose weight without making changes. The conflict between wanting to be healthy and wanting to be lazy and gluttonous is "resolved" with platitudes rather than a real decision.

It is an "either/or" situation... which means someone will win and someone will lose. Either gov't will be shrunk or it will be grown. Either gov't will assume more power over the people or people will gain back freedom and the incumbent responsibility.

Do you really believe in that statement or is it just a ruse as it is for Dems... and sometimes Republicans?
Click to expand...


So I, as proxy for Dems, need to compromise by agreeing to everything you, as proxy for the Tea Party, want?

I don't think you understand what compromise means.

A compromise on the deficit would be to reduce spending on a 3 to 1 basis for increase in revenues from the wealthiest and big corporations.

I'll even go 4 to 1.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
We can debate the causative effect to actual violence and you are right nothing serious is confirmed.

My main objection at this point is that polarization at this point is so bad that it is keeping us from getting things done. You know, Huntsman has come in and tried to strike a conciliatory note and he just gets shot down by the hard right. Obama is under fire from the far left for advocating compromise on entitlements.

We aren't getting out if this mess by one side winning and the other losing because, the way we are set up, even the minority in any given institution has some clout and a voice.
Click to expand...

Like it or not you got 2 (main) ideas/agendas in this country (for the most part).
If one thinks the other is wrong your not gonna see compromise out of either bunch that amounts to anything. The hang up is not a tax rate, welfare fraud, or a tax loop hole. Its a completely different idea on what the country should be.
 
#40
#40
lawgator1 said:
So I, as proxy for Dems, need to compromise by agreeing to everything you, as proxy for the Tea Party, want?

I don't think you understand what compromise means.

A compromise on the deficit would be to reduce spending on a 3 to 1 basis for increase in revenues from the wealthiest and big corporations.

I'll even go 4 to 1.
Click to expand...

yes raising taxes on big corps won't hurt anyone but them.
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
It will hurt, but so will reducing entitlements. The pain has to be shared.

That's what I mean by compromise in this context
Click to expand...

no ending entitlements forces people back to work. Taxing corps passes more of the tax burden on those already getting hammered
 
#43
#43
lawgator1 said:
It will hurt, but so will reducing entitlements. The pain has to be shared.

That's what I mean by compromise in this context
Click to expand...

Is there a basis of blame for sharing the pain?

Should those that cause more of the problem be held more responsible?

I keep hearing "share the load" and trying to understand why or who should be sharing.
 
#44
#44
lawgator1 said:
So I, as proxy for Dems, need to compromise by agreeing to everything you, as proxy for the Tea Party, want?

I don't think you understand what compromise means.
Click to expand...
Yes. I very much do. Compromise is when we both make the same assumptions about "reality", operate by the same set of rules, have the same end in mind and engage in give and take on how we get there. I might want to make a 30% margin on a product I sell you. You might have a price that gives me 20%. We both want the deal and are willing to give to get it. Even in this.... compromise sometimes isn't acceptable.

What exactly does "compromise" look like if I want a smaller gov't that does and interferes less while you want a larger one that does and dictates more? If I want gov't spending cut in real terms and you want it grown in real terms... what's the compromise?

A compromise on the deficit would be to reduce spending on a 3 to 1 basis for increase in revenues from the wealthiest and big corporations.

I'll even go 4 to 1.
Click to expand...

I would too if those marginal revenues came as a result of economic activity rather than rate increases. But you once again want me to accept your premise as a basis for compromise. I believe what Obama said he believed only a few months ago. Raising taxes on businesses and investors during a recession will negatively effect both the economy and tax receipts.

You seem to believe that tax policy is a zero sum game... that raising taxes has no impact on economic activity. At least Obama has enough sense to know that isn't true. He has said he doesn't care... but he knows that tax increases on the "wealthy" are not good for the private economy.
 
#45
#45
BeecherVol said:
Is there a basis of blame for sharing the pain?

Should those that cause more of the problem be held more responsible?

I keep hearing "share the load" and trying to understand why or who should be sharing.
Click to expand...


In the sense that it is a zero sum game, the answer is clearly yes.

Since theoretically we can add to the sum by improving the economy, and since theoretically reducing the debt will improve the economy, the answer becomes hell yes.
 
#46
#46
lawgator1 said:
It will hurt, but so will reducing entitlements. The pain has to be shared.

That's what I mean by compromise in this context
Click to expand...

Where do you think the money comes from when taxes are raised on businesses?
 
#47
#47
LG, bringing the OP back into play what is more "polarizing", some guys raffling off a pistol (a very common and popular one at that) or people that try their absolute damndest to make political hay out of the fact by attempting to link said pistol (incorrectly for the most part) with the actions of some lunatic.

The correct answer is "There's nothing to see here". Best I can tell as far as polarizing goes you calling attention to this would make you more a part of the problem than the answer.
 
#48
#48
lawgator1 said:
In the sense that it is a zero sum game, the answer is clearly yes.

Since theoretically we can add to the sum by improving the economy, and since theoretically reducing the debt will improve the economy, the answer becomes hell yes.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion the "makers" are just as much of a problem as the "takers"? You believe those who are already producing ALL of the nation's wealth and paying for ALL these entitlements should bear even more of the burden? What "burden" are the recipients being asked to bear? Are they being told to go back to work? Are they being put in forced labor pools?

This all goes back to the left's very fundamental ignorance or disregard for what creates wealth.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
In the sense that it is a zero sum game, the answer is clearly yes.

Since theoretically we can add to the sum by improving the economy, and since theoretically reducing the debt will improve the economy, the answer becomes hell yes.
Click to expand...

Put this on paper.

1. Balanced Budget - no if and's or buts. Your not serious and never will be serious about the debit problem until you reach this idea.

Of course "your side" has run from this at every turn as of late. Its becoming more evident they have no desire to be tied down to balancing the check book. "We can't balance a budget, but we can sure can raise taxes."
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top