Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

True face of the Tea Party

Page 3 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

14 Sep 2011, 12:40 am

The crowd were pretty much hardcore Glenn Beckers as most of the groups present were actually 9/12 groups rather than Tea Party groups. They also booed Paul wildly when he just merely mention Palestine when he was trying to explain why we were attacked in 9/11 as opposed to Rick Santorum's contention that they hate us because our freedom. :roll: I don't know what excuse the execution cheerers at the Reagan debate had tho.

Also, most religious charities I've dealt with kept their church and the charity work for the most part separate. My mom worked for the Salvation Army recently for a short time(she's a social worker believe it or not) and I don't think their church is even open to outside membership.(they're a really weird organization actually)



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

14 Sep 2011, 1:15 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.



And therein lies the problem. The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable. They tried to increase its access to those who don't have it but they did this atop a system that cannot afford it's current costs, and only looks to grow in the future. Cost keeps a large portion of those who don't already have health care out of it, that should have been the Democrats aim.

Not politics animated by fairness and compassion.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

14 Sep 2011, 1:36 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable..


Not true, the democrats tried to make the system more affordable (in the loosest sense of the word at least). The end result, which should really be called Oboehnercare because it was truly a joint f**k-up, is what failed to accomplish that goal.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 1:38 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.



And therein lies the problem. The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable. They tried to increase its access to those who don't have it but they did this atop a system that cannot afford it's current costs, and only looks to grow in the future. Cost keeps a large portion of those who don't already have health care out of it, that should have been the Democrats aim.

Not politics animated by fairness and compassion.


I fail to see how you can go wrong with fairness and compassion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

14 Sep 2011, 1:53 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.



And therein lies the problem. The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable. They tried to increase its access to those who don't have it but they did this atop a system that cannot afford it's current costs, and only looks to grow in the future. Cost keeps a large portion of those who don't already have health care out of it, that should have been the Democrats aim.

Not politics animated by fairness and compassion.


I fail to see how you can go wrong with fairness and compassion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the general rule with compassion politics is that it is always at the expense of someone else, or in other words, compassion towards one group often means cruelty towards another.

On immigration, compassion towards mexicans who came here illegally by legitmizing their illegal stay (by not enforcing the law and rounding them up for deportation in the US) and giving them amnesty is cruelty to every other potential immigrant who wants to come to America for opportunity, but can't do so because they don't happen to share a border with us. We admit more legal immigrants then the next five countries that follow us on the rankings combined, but our legal process and H-1b visas we hand out is affected by this, and it sucks to tell a potential Malayan American, Black American(from Africa), or Croation American that their application has been denied because some mexican won't go home. I am, by the way, a violator of this as I support amnesty for mexicans who are already here coupled with taking over mexico or building a 200ft fence with snipers atop it. It works on almost every issue that the left uses it's guidance for.

fairness is the politics of the jealous.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

14 Sep 2011, 1:56 am

Obres wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable..


Not true, the democrats tried to make the system more affordable (in the loosest sense of the word at least). The end result, which should really be called Oboehnercare because it was truly a joint f**k-up, is what failed to accomplish that goal.




and how did they try to do that?


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

14 Sep 2011, 2:08 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Obres wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable..


Not true, the democrats tried to make the system more affordable (in the loosest sense of the word at least). The end result, which should really be called Oboehnercare because it was truly a joint f**k-up, is what failed to accomplish that goal.




and how did they try to do that?


I'm guessing he's going to bring up the public option. However, the democrats did not need 1 republican in the house of senate to vote for their bill so it wasn't the republicans that stopped it. "Obamacare" is for the most part just a way to enrich insurance companies by mandating coverage.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 2:09 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.



And therein lies the problem. The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable. They tried to increase its access to those who don't have it but they did this atop a system that cannot afford it's current costs, and only looks to grow in the future. Cost keeps a large portion of those who don't already have health care out of it, that should have been the Democrats aim.

Not politics animated by fairness and compassion.


I fail to see how you can go wrong with fairness and compassion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the general rule with compassion politics is that it is always at the expense of someone else, or in other words, compassion towards one group often means cruelty towards another.

On immigration, compassion towards mexicans who came here illegally by legitmizing their illegal stay (by not enforcing the law and rounding them up for deportation in the US) and giving them amnesty is cruelty to every other potential immigrant who wants to come to America for opportunity, but can't do so because they don't happen to share a border with us. We admit more legal immigrants then the next five countries that follow us on the rankings combined, but our legal process and H-1b visas we hand out is affected by this, and it sucks to tell a potential Malayan American, Black American(from Africa), or Croation American that their application has been denied because some mexican won't go home. I am, by the way, a violator of this as I support amnesty for mexicans who are already here coupled with taking over mexico or building a 200ft fence with snipers atop it. It works on almost every issue that the left uses it's guidance for.

fairness is the politics of the jealous.


I'm sorry, but that argument sounds like how white southerners used to say that giving civil rights to blacks would only take rights away from white southerners.
And fairness is not for the jealous - it's for those who, for whatever reason, don't want the system, the majority, the government, etc., to f**k them over.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

14 Sep 2011, 2:19 am

Jacoby wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Obres wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable..


Not true, the democrats tried to make the system more affordable (in the loosest sense of the word at least). The end result, which should really be called Oboehnercare because it was truly a joint f**k-up, is what failed to accomplish that goal.




and how did they try to do that?


I'm guessing he's going to bring up the public option. However, the democrats did not need 1 republican in the house of senate to vote for their bill so it wasn't the republicans that stopped it. "Obamacare" is for the most part just a way to enrich insurance companies by mandating coverage.


coverage is the liberal concern... cost was addressed only when it was to assure Americans of the plan's "Coverage" viability. Cost is what affects the majority, but the Democrats are the party that cares about the minority, so while cost might be a concern for them, it does not rank higher in priority then the have-not's, or those without coverage. Because thats not fair there are people with health insurance and people without it. Forget that the majority of Americans are more affected by the increasingly expensive health system, the small 15% of Americans who don't have health care is of higher importance.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

14 Sep 2011, 2:23 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.



And therein lies the problem. The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable. They tried to increase its access to those who don't have it but they did this atop a system that cannot afford it's current costs, and only looks to grow in the future. Cost keeps a large portion of those who don't already have health care out of it, that should have been the Democrats aim.

Not politics animated by fairness and compassion.


I fail to see how you can go wrong with fairness and compassion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the general rule with compassion politics is that it is always at the expense of someone else, or in other words, compassion towards one group often means cruelty towards another.

On immigration, compassion towards mexicans who came here illegally by legitmizing their illegal stay (by not enforcing the law and rounding them up for deportation in the US) and giving them amnesty is cruelty to every other potential immigrant who wants to come to America for opportunity, but can't do so because they don't happen to share a border with us. We admit more legal immigrants then the next five countries that follow us on the rankings combined, but our legal process and H-1b visas we hand out is affected by this, and it sucks to tell a potential Malayan American, Black American(from Africa), or Croation American that their application has been denied because some mexican won't go home. I am, by the way, a violator of this as I support amnesty for mexicans who are already here coupled with taking over mexico or building a 200ft fence with snipers atop it. It works on almost every issue that the left uses it's guidance for.

fairness is the politics of the jealous.


I'm sorry, but that argument sounds like how white southerners used to say that giving civil rights to blacks would only take rights away from white southerners.
And fairness is not for the jealous - it's for those who, for whatever reason, don't want the system, the majority, the government, etc., to f**k them over.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


i don't see how it compares to stupid white southerns... I didn't live during that era, what exactly did they say?


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

14 Sep 2011, 3:43 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.



And therein lies the problem. The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable. They tried to increase its access to those who don't have it but they did this atop a system that cannot afford it's current costs, and only looks to grow in the future. Cost keeps a large portion of those who don't already have health care out of it, that should have been the Democrats aim.

Not politics animated by fairness and compassion.


I fail to see how you can go wrong with fairness and compassion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the general rule with compassion politics is that it is always at the expense of someone else, or in other words, compassion towards one group often means cruelty towards another.

On immigration, compassion towards mexicans who came here illegally by legitmizing their illegal stay (by not enforcing the law and rounding them up for deportation in the US) and giving them amnesty is cruelty to every other potential immigrant who wants to come to America for opportunity, but can't do so because they don't happen to share a border with us. We admit more legal immigrants then the next five countries that follow us on the rankings combined, but our legal process and H-1b visas we hand out is affected by this, and it sucks to tell a potential Malayan American, Black American(from Africa), or Croation American that their application has been denied because some mexican won't go home. I am, by the way, a violator of this as I support amnesty for mexicans who are already here coupled with taking over mexico or building a 200ft fence with snipers atop it. It works on almost every issue that the left uses it's guidance for.

fairness is the politics of the jealous.


I'm sorry, but that argument sounds like how white southerners used to say that giving civil rights to blacks would only take rights away from white southerners.
And fairness is not for the jealous - it's for those who, for whatever reason, don't want the system, the majority, the government, etc., to f**k them over.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


i don't see how it compares to stupid white southerns... I didn't live during that era, what exactly did they say?


I told you - they said giving civil rights to blacks would only take rights away from white southerners. I made a comparison to that with what you said about being kind to one group on the outs would be cruel to a more favored group.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

14 Sep 2011, 6:44 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.


You should say: more rationally. Our current system is based on dealing with crises after they happen, not before. That is guaranteed to be the most expensive and least effective way of doing things.

Health maintenance rather emergency treatment is the key.

ruveyn



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

14 Sep 2011, 6:45 am

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.


You should say: more rationally. Our current system is based on dealing with crises after they happen, not before. That is guaranteed to be the most expensive and least effective way of doing things.

Health maintenance rather emergency treatment is the key.

ruveyn

agreed


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

14 Sep 2011, 7:52 am

This here is the "true" face of the tea party.

Image



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

14 Sep 2011, 8:19 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.



And therein lies the problem. The democrats didn't try to make the system more affordable. They tried to increase its access to those who don't have it but they did this atop a system that cannot afford it's current costs, and only looks to grow in the future. Cost keeps a large portion of those who don't already have health care out of it, that should have been the Democrats aim.

Not politics animated by fairness and compassion.


I fail to see how you can go wrong with fairness and compassion.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


the general rule with compassion politics is that it is always at the expense of someone else, or in other words, compassion towards one group often means cruelty towards another.

On immigration, compassion towards mexicans who came here illegally by legitmizing their illegal stay (by not enforcing the law and rounding them up for deportation in the US) and giving them amnesty is cruelty to every other potential immigrant who wants to come to America for opportunity, but can't do so because they don't happen to share a border with us. We admit more legal immigrants then the next five countries that follow us on the rankings combined, but our legal process and H-1b visas we hand out is affected by this, and it sucks to tell a potential Malayan American, Black American(from Africa), or Croation American that their application has been denied because some mexican won't go home. I am, by the way, a violator of this as I support amnesty for mexicans who are already here coupled with taking over mexico or building a 200ft fence with snipers atop it. It works on almost every issue that the left uses it's guidance for.

fairness is the politics of the jealous.


pure sophistry
good is evil
up is down
kindness is cruelty
love is hate
the only evils are apparently generosity and kindness.
you say you belong to a the judeo-xtian tradition
but I think you will find yours was founded by Aton LeVey.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

14 Sep 2011, 8:47 am

ruveyn wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
If a person makes no provision for illness by his own effort and resources, why should the rest of us carry his burden. The solution is very simple: insurance. We all run the risk of injury or illness so let us insure ourselves against that contingency. That is the responsible way of handling the problem.

Each of us should make plans to deal with the misfortune that life sometimes hands us.

ruveyn


Sure but if we are going to pay for it anyway we should find a way to do it for cheaper.


You should say: more rationally. Our current system is based on dealing with crises after they happen, not before. That is guaranteed to be the most expensive and least effective way of doing things.

Health maintenance rather emergency treatment is the key.

ruveyn


So, how do we accomplish this in a way that is acceptable to the right?


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus