please call your congress critters and oppose this.

[panthera]

Hunter,

That is why you don't see the discrimination among the tea-baggers. You are NOT a racist.

Unfortunately, a large part of the leaders of this movement are.

And anti-gay.

I'll try to link to five-thirty-eight and some other data after classes.

 

[panthera]

A few links

Hunter,
It is not all black and white of course. Much of the fury and anger is simply the result of waking up to the fact that the Republicans have played them for fools...and the Democrats really did make the stupid decision in the 1980's to discriminate against white, blue-collar, low-eduation people.

Personally, I think the gun issue was the one single biggest mistake we in the Democrat side of the house made.

The quickest way to ensure the wrath of the "east-coast" liberals is to say you think guns are tools and gun rights are constitutionally protected. You can be the biggest human rights proponent and most out gay man in the group, think Hillary Clinton is otherwise too conservative and Kucinich doesn't go far enough...but that one issue will get you dumped on and shat upon with no forgiveness.

Anyway, just my two cents. Add the usual www to the first of these.
Link one: oliverwillis.com/2010/04/27/study-tea-party-members-more-racist-than-average-americans/
Basically just says what I'm saying tho' more along the lines of resentment than actual discrimination. Was pre-Arizona.
Link two: http://minnesotaindependent.com/56611/barney-frank-blasts-bachmann-on-tea-party-anti-gay-slurs

It goes on and on. Basically, about 80% of the tea-party-ers are nothing but disaffected Republicans who want to take the party further to the right on immigration, guns and health care for all.

 

[hunter]

Possibly..

...but the 'racist' label is being used to apply to ANYONE who disagrees with the current administration. So I find myself approaching any of these claims with extreme skepticism.

It's rather like a conversation I had with one of my coworkers during the run up to the nomination for the Democrat candidate for President; one of my female co-workers was very, very pro Clinton. One of my male coworkers was very, very pro Obama.

During a conversation I indicated that I did not like Mrs. Clinton. She claimed I was sexist. My reply? "If I had a libertarian strong women (think Margaret Thatcher as a libertarian, not the autocrat she actually was) to vote for I'd vote for the woman in a heartbeat.

She left the room screaming in frustration.

If you disagree with the Democrat administration it does not mean you are a racist. Oh, you may BE a racist, but to be honest, I know a lot of racist and homophobic democrats. I know a racist and homophobic republicans. And I know non racist and non homophobic people.

 

[panthera]

Hunter,

That is true - one can be a democrat and a racist. One can be a republican and not be a racist.
There is, however, a major difference between the democrats - with whom I am not over pleased right at the present moment - and the republicans who are airing the video clip in the link.

This is so far over the line it should make all independents and libertarians think long and hard whether they want to give their votes to these people.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/05/dem-governors-demand-rga_n_564099.html

 

[hunter]

I have watched both videos...

And see no reference to Guy Fawkes in the first one.

Can you please tell me what is so wrong with the first video?

It's discussing the fact that the Democrats have been bad in government, just as the Republicans have been bad in government.

It is a fact that the D party has been in charge of the House and Senate since 2007. It is a fact that they have been in charge of the Presidency since January 2009. It is a fact that our national debt has doubled in that time.

You can argue that this debt was required due to Bush economic policies. Many have. Others have argued that the housing crash, and subsequent other cascading failures, were a direct consequence of the Clinton administration forcing lenders to lend to people who couldn't pay their payments. Personally, as most of you may realize by now, I think that both parties are morally and ethically bankrupt and are simply opportunists who are sucking the country dry then fleeing for their well guarded estates in South Ameria. But you know, the R's reason for the failures and the D's reason for the failures may both be right.

Saying "Remember November" has little to do with Guy Fawkes -- it has to do with US elections. Frankly, I doubt if 1 in 100,000 people in the United States of America even know who Guy Fawkes IS, much less that he tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605. So why on earth would it be mentioned or even considered? I think that it is simple paranoia to believe that.

Personally I believe it to be insane to give a vote to any party who believes in continuous and increasing reduction in liberty and control over the populace -- such as the Democrat and Republican parties.

Hunter

 

[rapunzel]

the Clinton administration forcing lenders to lend to people

How did they do that? And why didn't we hear a universal outcry against this from the various lending institutions, who, by their very nature are ethical and conscientious business operators; whose sole purpose is to self-regulate their industry to the highest practice standards?

 

[hunter]

this link

Here's a link quite recently, from 2009.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

This one was from 2000 (!) which had a foreshadowing

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

And other still argue that given the number of bad loans that banks were more or less required to make that is what led to the packaging of mortgages as CDOs and selling them.

<Shrug> Like I said, there are a lot of partisan folks bickering and saying 'it's your guy's fault.' and others saying the same about a different guy.

 

[sudsman]

Whats happening in Greece is going to happen here

If you haven't been paying attention to events unfolding inGreece perhaps you should be. The events there are likely a small preview of we are going to see here in the not too distant future. As demand forfreebies grew debt overwhelmed the country. In order to avoid a complete collapse they are trying to get their fiscal house back in order and had toundertake substantial cuts in entitlements like pensions etc. As a resultangry mobs are taking to the streets. It is likely that we will face similar circumstances in the not too distant future. Money to fund Social Security/Medicare and current pension obligations doesn't exist. When the house of cards collapses youwill likely see substantial cuts in SS as well as deep cuts in Medicare andother spending items. In recent years these items have been automatic andoff budget. That won't last for all that much longer. When it goes bad itwill likely get ugly.

 

[hunter]

Quite.

I absolutely agree.