Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What the Tea Party really stands for

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: What the Tea Party really stands for
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise.

I thought this was a fascinating video. And important, particularly at a time when so many people associate the Tea Party with creatures like O'Donnell and Palin (and I firmly believe that Palin's people are responsible for pushing O'Donnell into the public light in order to make Palin seem saner by comparison).

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I had that same impression, Lisa.
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Churchmouse
Member
Member # 6626

 - posted      Profile for Churchmouse   Email Churchmouse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would assume you are not a fan of Palin. She doesn't bother me. I just hope they don't run her against Obama or we'll have him for four more years.
Posts: 20 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His arguments were horrid - 'the government can't do anything right - see Stalin, China, Cuba, French revolution' - please ignore Canada and other modern democracries that get better health care for half the cost - those are mere figments of your imagination.

Or his example of Fed Ex and UPS vs USPS.

USPS can't choose which customers it gets to serve, and doesn't get to charge the more expensive customers more.

[ October 13, 2010, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Josh
Member
Member # 6627

 - posted      Profile for Josh   Email Josh       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Have to say some of the hsitorical data was skewed there... and I support some tea party ideals. The French revolution was about the destruction of the monarchy and removal of their excesses and installing a republic controlled by vote. There was no abolishment of religion or redistribution of wealth. If redistribution of wealth was at its core the merchants and gentry would never have supported the revolution.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What bugs me about the Tea Party is the same that bugs me about the other partys, the figure they can lie and get away with it either because

1) The supporters who recognize the lies don't care - ends justify the means

2) The folks they want to vote for them are too ignorant to know when they are being lied to so doing so won't hurt their results.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Churchmouse:
I would assume you are not a fan of Palin. She doesn't bother me. I just hope they don't run her against Obama or we'll have him for four more years.

Look, no one is all good or all bad. I'm sure there are even good things about Obama. There are definitely things about Palin that I like. I like her moxie, her general attitude, her support of Israel. I don't like her literal witch hunting and some of the stupid things she's said.

I voted Republican in the last election, but I would have voted for a dead dog in the street before voting for Obama.

Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
What bugs me about the Tea Party is the same that bugs me about the other partys, the figure they can lie and get away with it either because

1) The supporters who recognize the lies don't care - ends justify the means

2) The folks they want to vote for them are too ignorant to know when they are being lied to so doing so won't hurt their results.

What lies? Are you going from "bad examples" to "lies", or did you have something else in mind?
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
starLisa,

use of deception to convince someone of your position is generally what is considered a lie. Do you truely and honestly believe that he was so utterly ignorant of history that he had no idea at all that his examples were not accurate? Or do you think it more likely that he was deliberately trying to associate historical evils with government positions that he doesn't care for to manipulate others into adopting his position.

If the former, have you sought to inform him of his mistake and requested that he correct that so he doesn't mistakenly lead the populace astray?

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Josh
Member
Member # 6627

 - posted      Profile for Josh   Email Josh       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
also have to note the Romans were forced into being progressive - they were happy to let the rich lead - until revolution by the plebs of course. Which inevitably led to their downfall - yet they never instituted progressive policies like it is insinuated in the video, they were very much against it!

[ October 13, 2010, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Josh ]

Posts: 6 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Josh:
The French revolution was about the destruction of the monarchy and removal of their excesses and installing a republic controlled by vote. There was no abolishment of religion or redistribution of wealth.

Actually, religion was a part of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#Revolution_and_the_Churchand if you read the entire wikipedia article you'll see references to wealth redistribution. I guess everyone can pick their favorite reason.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
use of deception to convince someone of your position is generally what is considered a lie. Do you truely and honestly believe that he was so utterly ignorant of history that he had no idea at all that his examples were not accurate?

But they were accurate. You just disagree with him. And you're going from "I disagree with him" to "He's wrong" to "He's intentionally wrong".

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Or do you think it more likely that he was deliberately trying to associate historical evils with government positions that he doesn't care for to manipulate others into adopting his position.

Hell yes. Because he thinks they're based on the same thinking as those historical evils. So do I. Trying to manipulate people into adopting your position by using examples is called persuasion.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
If the former, have you sought to inform him of his mistake and requested that he correct that so he doesn't mistakenly lead the populace astray?

What mistake might that be?
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
starLisa,

I transcribed (partially) what he said,

quote:
progressive ideas tried in one form or another through recorded history
Then he gives examples of massive deaths due to government over throws that have absolutely nothing to do with 'progressive ideas' themselves.

After giving examples of deaths due to government overthrows that have nothing to do with progressive ideas he concludes.

quote:
There is nothing progressive about progressivism. The belief that you can get something for nothing. That you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you. The money for government health care for instance.
First off 'progressivism' isn't 'the belief you can get something for nothing'.

Definitionally it is 'a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform.'

So either porgressivism includes the tea party, in which case he is saying that the Tea Party 'can't work'. Or we use some narrower definition which ends up excluding all of the communistic regimes, and includes the majority of modern democracies.

In either case, the conclusions and claims he makes about progressivism are impossible to achieve and flat out falsehoods.

I'm curious if you really can't see that he is spouting falsehoods or are of the 'ends justify the means'. I admit, I should expand my earlier

quote:

1) The supporters who recognize the lies don't care - ends justify the means

2) The folks they want to vote for them are too ignorant to know when they are being lied to so doing so won't hurt their results.

3) The individuals who are so ideologically driven that they have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality.

quote:
Hell yes. Because he thinks they're based on the same thinking as those historical evils. So do I.
He states those historical evils are based on 'progressivism' which he is either using the term so encompassingly that all politically advocated change including the tea party movement are included in which case his statement is misleading and useless; or he is blatantly misrepressenting progressivism.

quote:
Trying to manipulate people into adopting your position by using examples is called persuasion.
If you manipulate with truth it is persuasion, if you manipulate with falsehoods it is called lying. It is true that you can persuade with lies, so lying is a type of persuasion. But being a type of persuasion doesn't make it 'not lying' it is still lying.

Lying because you don't like something is not ok.

It is fine for him to say 'I think ideas such as taxation to fund health benefits for individuals is wrong and immoral, that it wrongly takes money away from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it'.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Churchmouse
Member
Member # 6626

 - posted      Profile for Churchmouse   Email Churchmouse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with you starLisa, there is good in everyone, even Obama. For instance, I like his, um, um, let me see now,......
Posts: 20 | Registered: Oct 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
starLisa
Member
Member # 2543

 - posted      Profile for starLisa   Email starLisa   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
quote:
progressive ideas tried in one form or another through recorded history
Then he gives examples of massive deaths due to government over throws that have absolutely nothing to do with 'progressive ideas' themselves.
That's your spin. I disagree. So, apparently, does whoever that guy is in the video.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
quote:
There is nothing progressive about progressivism. The belief that you can get something for nothing. That you can get the government to take something by force and give it to you. The money for government health care for instance.
First off 'progressivism' isn't 'the belief you can get something for nothing'.
It does kind of boil down to that. Keyesian economics is a big old perpetual motion machine, which in the hard sciences is called bunk. Progressivism today means giving stuff away to people. And forcing others to pay for it.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Definitionally it is 'a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform.'

Not according to Dictionary.com. And you know quite well that whatever the denotative meaning of a word, the connotative may differ.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
So either porgressivism includes the tea party, in which case he is saying that the Tea Party 'can't work'.

Really? We're going to play semantic games now?

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
In either case, the conclusions and claims he makes about progressivism are impossible to achieve and flat out falsehoods.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you think there was actually a logical argument in there.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I'm curious if you really can't see that he is spouting falsehoods or are of the 'ends justify the means'. I admit, I should expand my earlier

quote:

1) The supporters who recognize the lies don't care - ends justify the means

2) The folks they want to vote for them are too ignorant to know when they are being lied to so doing so won't hurt their results.

3) The individuals who are so ideologically driven that they have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality.
Well, that is a good description for one participant in this discussion. But it isn't me.

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
quote:
Hell yes. Because he thinks they're based on the same thinking as those historical evils. So do I.
He states those historical evils are based on 'progressivism'
I guess yes, we are going to play with semantics. He is referring to the left wing, socialist, social justice, liberal, self-described progressive ideology of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Jan Schakowsky and the rest of the people pushing that agenda. Are you really going to get tied up on playing with the meaning of progressivism, when everyone in the country knows immediately who you're talking about when you talk about "progressives"?

quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
quote:
Trying to manipulate people into adopting your position by using examples is called persuasion.
If you manipulate with truth it is persuasion, if you manipulate with falsehoods it is called lying.
I wonder what that says about what you just did.
Posts: 2066 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
starLisa,

quote:
That's your spin. I disagree. So, apparently, does whoever that guy is in the video.
I'm not spinning anything. I quoted and summarized. Then I showed that the meaning of progressive doesn't include anything of which he was accussing progressivism. Under any of the meanings of the word that you link to at dictionary.com his examples don't fit unless the Tea Party fits. Either one needs the ridiculously broad meaning of 'any political advocation of change' which fits all of the exampls and tea party, or you use progressive policys and ideas which have nothing at all to do with the atrocities he attempts to associate them with.

quote:
It does kind of boil down to that.
No it really doesn't - you don't get to assert random **** just because you don't care for particular policys.

quote:
Keyesian economics is a big old perpetual motion machine, which in the hard sciences is called bunk.
Again Keynesian doesn't mean progressivism, Keynesian doesn't mean 'something for nothing', asserting random beliefs is not argumentation. You need to use logic, not fantasy.

quote:
Progressivism today means giving stuff away to people. And forcing others to pay for it.
Pretty sure I explained social contract to you before. When we tax it is by collective agreement of society via our representatives. When you agree to the social contract you aren't being forced, any more than those who are paying more for the military than they think is necessary is being forced. Speaking of which have you asked your parents why they were negligent in your up bring about not informing you of your rights and obligations, and how are you progressing on renouncing your citizenship? I was going to suggest suing your parents for neglect and negligence in their failure to inform you so that you can recover your taxes that you unwillingly paid due to the ignorance they kept you in. I mean sure they went through the expense of raising you, but you sure didn't force them to, so you have no obligation to them, and thus it is only right that they compensate you for your unjust subjugation to taxes all of these years due to their failure to inform you.

quote:
Really? We're going to play semantic games now?
If one were to say that capitalism is about public ownership of the means of production - saying that that is wrong isn't semantics. Claiming semantics when propagating a falsehood is a common retreat of those who are caught propagating a falsehood.

quote:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you think there was actually a logical argument in there.
Wasn't arguemention, it was a statement based on observation of the facts of 1) the meaning of progressivism and 2) the historical context of what he claims being associated with progressivism and 3) the content of the video.

The only fact you have brought to the table reinforces the preexisiting facts that I've already stated.

quote:
I guess yes, we are going to play with semantics. He is referring to the left wing, socialist, social justice, liberal, self-described progressive ideology of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Jan Schakowsky and the rest of the people pushing that agenda. Are you really going to get tied up on playing with the meaning of progressivism, when everyone in the country knows immediately who you're talking about when you talk about "progressives"?
It is the assertion that the past political attrocities are the 'progressivism' already tried that is the primary false assertion. The millions of deaths had nothing to do with progressivism.

quote:
I wonder what that says about what you just did.
Other than that I actually can tell the difference between persuasion and lying and you seem to confuse fact and your fantasy world, not much.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This isn't that complicated.

Progressivism isn't just "change". When Bush lowered taxes (for the rich) he wasn't being a progressive just because he changed something.

----------------------------------------

Progressivism when you boil it down just means higher taxes.

The Tea Party when you simplify everything means lower taxes.

Taxes are a proxy for government. Higher taxes means more government. Lower taxes means less.

So what the Tea Party stands for, big picture, is lower taxes and less government.

Don't over-think it. It's really not that difficult.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherrypoptart,

what was being discussed was the video authors usage of deaths from the Stalinisic Communist Revolution; Chinese Communist Revolution; the French Revolution; Cuban Revolution; etc. trying to imply that progressivism is bad.

It is like using deaths from the Civil War to imply that civil rights is bad. Or deaths from the American Revolution to imply that the American system of government is bad.

I don't have any quarrel with saying that the goal of of low taxes and small government can be contrary to goals of modern progressives. I just object to the fundamentally dishonest way of arguing.

quote:
Taxes are a proxy for government. Higher taxes means more government. Lower taxes means less.
Actually pure transfers can be essentially government neutral in terms of size, since the taxation mechanism is already in place.

quote:
The Tea Party when you simplify everything means lower taxes.
An issue I have with this is that lower taxes doesn't mean greater personal prosperity, which many try to imply by lower taxes.

Ie public infrastructure - if there isn't a tax system in place for it, then you don't pay taxes for it, but that could lead to an overall lower level of prosperity.

Collectively providing public goods can often be more efficient than trying to provide it through market mechanisms. (This relates to things like marginal cost, marginal benefit, contracting and negotiation overhead, etc.)

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those points about taxation can be debated endlessly and that's fine, as long as we start off understanding clearly where everyone stands. It almost sounded like you were saying that progressivism is defined as change itself, no matter which way things are changing. I think that's part of what starlisa was objecting to.

I agree with you by the way, at least in certain situations, and specifically regarding toll roads when the toll goes to a private company. What a scam.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry,

quote:
It almost sounded like you were saying that progressivism is defined as change itself, no matter which way things are changing. I think that's part of what starlisa was objecting to.
there are multiple definitions of progressivism. The broadest of which is any kind of political change - which would indeed be broad enough to include the assorted revolutions, and modern progressivism, but that broad definition also includes tea party and any other political change advocated.

You can go narrower definitions, which would include stuff just along the lines of the modern progressives, but then that excludes the evil nasty stuff that the video author wants to associate in the viewers mind.

There isn't some hybrid combo definition that includes only the evil revolutions and modern progressivism but can exclude the tea party - which is what the video author and starLisa was essentially claiming.

It is fine to dislike the revolutions, to dislike the philosophical underpinnings associated with them, to dislike progressive policys, etc., it is not alright right to falsely conflate them to deceive viewers and readers that they are fundamentally the same, etc.

I think the point I'm getting at is "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."
— Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The author of the video is mistating the facts to try and reinforce his opinion.

[ October 14, 2010, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There isn't some hybrid combo definition that includes only the evil revolutions and modern progressivism but can exclude the tea party
Actually, I think you just came up with one.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DonaldD,

If you are using a phrase in a public discourse - then you can only use preexisting meanings of words without fairly explicitly making it clear you are redefining, you can't use your own private definitions as an argument.

Ie if someone creates a private definition of tea party that redefines it to include abhorrent subgroups, then does a public speech describing the abhorrent actions of these sub groups while attributing it to 'the tea party', then the tea party would be rightfully outraged. It is a fundamentally dishonest and misleading practice.

[ October 14, 2010, 08:46 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR,

I believe everyone understands the assosciation of a central command, and control, economy with liberalism/progressivism/socialism/communism et cetra.

You can quibble about minor distinctions, but all leftist political movements operate from a philosophy that people can be transformed, and molded, through the public policy of a ruling elite.

The video is based upon fundamentally accurate historical citations.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can quibble about minor distinctions, but all leftist political movements operate from a philosophy that people can be transformed, and molded, through the public policy of a ruling elite.
No- that's all political policies, regardless of their orientation. All of them say "If we adopt this policy, that amount of taxation, and the right level of involvement/uninvolvement from government, people will behave in a certain way"

Again, you're making the same mistake of imposing speculation and biased opinions about what people must believe that disagree with you on the words they use to identify themselves rather than actually trying to understand what their position is.

You may disagree on the axioms and the assumptions, but heck, OSC actually hit the nail on the head a few columns back on this issue when he pointed out that such caricatures are dishonest and try to pretend that a certain group of people are mustachio-twirling villains out to do everyone in.

If you actually listen to progressives, their fundamental focus is trying to rationally balance differing systems to maximize personal liberty for all people. You may disagree on the basics of what constitutes liberty or autonomy, but casting Progressivism completely dishonestly only serves to inflame irrational argument not to productively address errors and shortcomings.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I believe everyone understands the assosciation of a central command, and control, economy with liberalism/progressivism/socialism/communism et cetra.
By "understands," I think you mean "mistakes." And by "everyone," you mean "stupid people."
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, I was mostly kidding - but your statement of refutation actually was such a definition - you just need to create a new word to associate with the definition. This is NOT a substantive addition to the current discourse. Carry on!
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1