Tax the rich? Tax everyone the same? No taxes at all?

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Repugnant Abomination

How is that any different than the Tea Party movement?

Ummm... they went out and removed over 10% of incumbents in their first election.

[Repugnant Abomination]

It's been like 14 days. Give it some time.

[Mr. Blonde]

[Beebs]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mr. Blonde again.

Good detectiveing; it is annoying when people photoshop pics or alter stories to sound just slightly more to their liking, when posting a real one with a less convenient message would work infinitely better in the long term. (See John Kerry with Jane Fonda pictures)

[Mr. Blonde]

I deserve none of the detectiving credit, I just found it

[Repugnant Abomination]

Blonde doesn't really deserve credit for anything. Ever.

[Mr. Blonde]

The Contrasting Psychologies of 'Occupy Wall Street' and the 'Tea Party' - Forbes

[f3lix]

I miss the days when articles could be written without a total (and obvious) bias.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Forbes Article

What we now need to do is close ranks, reduce outside influence and go back to how wonderful it used to be when we were uncontaminated by outsiders. America, real America, the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers, is where goodness is found. Lock the doors and windows; never explain, never excuse; don’t tread on me.

Originally Posted by f3lix

I miss the days when articles could be written without a total (and obvious) bias.

L.O.L.



What fucking days are you talking about? You are truly lost.

[thekremlin]

It's an editorial written by a contributer who says in his byline "My beat is mental health, mental wealth, and making the most of living" and you're complaining that it's biased. You're just too awful.

[DJ FC]

Nobody should be allowed to say anything positive about OWS. We should have a person in place who makes sure that anything published is fair to both sides.

[Ugly Bastard]

I really liked the article.

[ProfessorNumber]

My favorite part of articles -- like the Forbes OWS mentioned above -- is how the contributors have these bios that are written to imply a level of competence and knowledge. Todd Essig can't be incorrect! He's a fucking psychoanalyst, which implies a high level of post-graduate education and a bunch of certifications on his wall!! He must know what he's talking about.

I fail to see how he is any more qualified to write about this topic than a first semester poly-sci major who just completed his/her first term paper on modern political movements. In fact, I would argue that he's no more competent to write an article on OWS vs. Tea Party than anyone who is capable of forming an opinion and typing written English language.

The truly ironic part of his dog-shit-esque article is how he tries to segment the two movements based upon inclusion and exclusion. What a remarkably subjective form of categorization. An argument could very well be made that OWS is even more exclusionary than the tea-party movement; they dislike EVERYONE who earns over a certain amount of income, and they dislike EVERYONE who works in certain fields/occupations. In my humble opinion, that notion reeks of exclusion.

Furthermore, it always amazes me how biased "writers/contributors" always seem to over-generalize the bad aspects of the side they don't like, while portraying the side they do favor as being cut/dry in a good way. Not everyone in the tea-party movement believes that government is a wholly foul and evil establishment. Of course, if you knew nothing about either movement, and read Essig's pile of shit, you would probably believe that the Tea Party movement was composed of rabid dogs, foaming at the mouths for government blood. Really, Essig? Really? Most people who align themselves with the Tea Party don't want to destroy the government, kill immigrants, or shutout foreign trade partners. Rather, they want to reduce the impact of government and establish controls for immigration. In the same sense, I do not believe that most OWS believers want to burn down the banks, hang the millionaires, and sing kuhmbayah aftterwards.

Lastly, does it bother anyone else how pretentious, intellectual-douchebags like this Essig fellow always fall back on the argument of "wellllllllll.... if we incrase taxes on super-millionaires, will invention and entrepreneurial drive die overnight??? lol, no.."? Indeed, I agree that the answer is No. Entrepreneurial drive and innovation will not die overnight. They will however be neutered over the course of the next 10-200 years. Broad societal changes -- for better, or worse -- don't occur overnight.

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by ProfessorNumber

Furthermore, it always amazes me how biased "writers/contributors" always seem to over-generalize the bad aspects of the side they don't like, while portraying the side they do favor as being cut/dry in a good way.

Nicely said.

Good to see you pop your head back in.

[DJ FC]

Wait a second... do tea party people want to cut down on immigration?

If true, I never realized that before, it runs so contrary to what a libertarian would normally believe. I say let the fuckers in!

[Mr. Blonde]

. A University of Washington poll of 1,695 registered voters in the state of Washington reported that 73% of Tea Party supporters disapprove of Obama's policy of engaging with Muslim countries, 88% approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona, 82% do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry, and that about 52% believed that "lesbians and gays have too much political power"

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some "libertarians" F3lix supports here. "We want minimal government interference...but they can interfere with those other people."



Welcome to America, where the one-drop rule is insisted upon for 3 centuries until we get a black president, then he's "only half-black".

[f3lix]

Easy on lumping me in with the faux-tea partiers. I'm thrilled to extend our country to immigrants, as long as they go through the proper channels. Those who come illegally take up our school resources without putting in their share of the owed money. Too many people on the cart and not enough pulling it.

[DJ FC]

Wait a second again. If somebody opposes the ability for gay people to be married they arent Tea Party. They may think they are but they arent. They are white trash.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Easy on lumping me in with the faux-tea partiers.

Pretty much every Tea Partier who threw out an incumbent and is now making ridiculous laws/statements is part of the "faux-tea-party-movement", which you cannot deny you have been in support of.

[f3lix]

I identify better with the tea-party and generally prefer them over career politicians, but that doesn't mean I align myself with many of their views that take us back to a racist and bigoted America. I'd prefer to go back further to the founders, which wanted to get us away from an oppressive government (which I feel we are getting quite close to.)

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I identify better with the tea-party and generally prefer them over career politicians, but that doesn't mean I align myself with many of their views that take us back to a racist and bigoted America. I'd prefer to go back further to the founders, which wanted to get us away from an oppressive government (which I feel we are getting quite close to.)

How vague of you.

[Ugly Bastard]

I love these tea partiers that are ready to bail on the U.S. government and go found a new country on undiscovered land because Obama might let the Bush tax cuts expire. What a bunch of overdramatic weirdos.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I love these tea partiers that are ready to bail on the U.S. government and go found a new country on undiscovered land because Obama might let the Bush tax cuts expire. What a bunch of overdramatic weirdos.

Says the guy who claimed he would move to Ireland if Obama was elected.

[Ugly Bastard]

LOL did I really say that verbatim. "I'm moving to Ireland if Obama gets elected"? It's possible I did, but would need to see it to believe it. And I was on some pretty strong Kool-Aid then putting $70k on McCain. Listened to all one-sided arguments convincing myself Obama sucked and would/should lose.

[Repugnant Abomination]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I'd prefer to go back further to the founders, which wanted to get us away from an oppressive government (which I feel we are getting quite close to.)

The amount of hero worship the founders get is overdone. They've practically been deified.

Most of their ideas on liberty and popular sovereignty were taken from Locke and the British government. A lot of them were hypocrites when it came to all men being created equal and slavery. People act as though they boldly declared independence, and that the constitution was practically beamed down from heaven. The fact is is that the founders were very torn on breaking away from England. The Boston Tea Party had nothing to do with being overtaxed and everything to do with taxation without representation. They wanted to be citizens, not subjects, and they wanted the Brits to actually follow through with their own constitution.

Our constitution is a great foundation, but there are amendments for a reason - that reason being the people who wrote it existed in a time when there were no radios, airplanes, antibiotics or railroads. Evolution hadn't been discovered. Medical science was non-existent.

You get the idea.

Our constitution still calls blacks equal to 3/5ths of a person. The third amendment prohibits the quartering of soldiers in your home during peace time. The second amendment was put into place largely as a defense against a future British invasion. I mean you want to talk about archaic - do you think if the US military turned on the citizens of this country we'd stand a chance, because Johnny Fuckwad and Pablo Sanchez are packin' heat?

Let's examine the supreme court of those days, shall we?

1856, Dred Scott vs Sandford: When a slave petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for his freedom, the Court ruled against him--also ruling that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to African Americans.

1883, Pace vs Alabama: In 1883 Alabama, interracial marriage meant two to seven years' hard labor in a state penitentiary.

And this is decades after the declaration of independence!

My point is the same point I make about people who hold the Bible sacred because they think people back then were somehow purer, more reasonable or had more wisdom. It's bullshit. Anyone who studies history can see that for every progressive, free thinker there were 100 regressive, close minded assholes looking out for number one. It's dangerous and delusional to look back at the past as some idealistic time when folks were just and common sense prevailed.